Do You Have a Right to a Job?

MoSurveyor · May 6, 2013

Federalist said:
The threat of an attack IS an act of violence. That is the definition of assault. Assault is the threat, and battery is the actual attack.

I'm aware of the "classical" definitions, though you may find modern law has adjusted those definitions in many cases.

Everybody is a threat, didn't you know? You eat the same food I do and your environmental requirements are the same as mine. That means you are a threat to my survival because you and yours consume resources, which reduces the abundance of them for me and mine. If those resources should become scarce to the point of threatening your survival as you see it, then I have absolutely no doubt you would attack me and mine to secure those resources for you and yours.

Federalist said:
So, to spell things out for you, in what scenarios would you consider it justifiable for some people in a community who have arrived at a consensus to initiate violence against a person who has not harmed, or threatened to harm, any person or person's property?

When someone breaks the law or, (technically) in many cases, seems to have broken the law - because in our society that's what we live by, rule of law.

Federalist · May 6, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
Everybody is a threat, didn't you know? You eat the same food I do and your environmental requirements are the same as mine. That means you are a threat to my survival because you and yours consume resources, which reduces the abundance of them for me and mine. If those resources should become scarce to the point of threatening your survival as you see it, then I have absolutely no doubt you would attack me and mine to secure those resources for you and yours.

You're equivocating on the word threat. You know that earlier we were discussing a person making a threat against another, as in the act of assault, threatening an attack. We were talking about how the threat of attack is, in itself, a violent act, and would justify a violent response.

When someone breaks the law or, (technically) in many cases, seems to have broken the law - because in our society that's what we live by, rule of law.

When you say "rule of law" I presume you mean statutory law. So you're saying that violence is morally justified whenever a statute is broken?

So you think that it is morally justified to use violence against a person who has harmed no one, but has simply violated a statute banning, say, possession of marijuana?

MoSurveyor · May 6, 2013

Federalist said:
You're equivocating on the word threat. You know that earlier we were discussing a person making a threat against another, as in the act of assault, threatening an attack. We were talking about how the threat of attack is, in itself, a violent act, and would justify a violent response.

There's no real difference in what I posted than what you're saying. It's all a theoretical matter of time of varying lengths - theoretical because in both cases there is no proof anything at all will happen.

Federalist said:
When you say "rule of law" I presume you mean statutory law. So you're saying that violence is morally justified whenever a statute is broken?

So you think that it is morally justified to use violence against a person who has harmed no one, but has simply violated a statute banning, say, possession of marijuana?

According to you, laws cannot be enforced except by "interpersonal violence" so, by your own definition and if you want to believe in laws at all, then of course that's true. You've made a self-fulfilling circular argument so how could it be otherwise?

Federalist · May 6, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
According to you, laws cannot be enforced except by "interpersonal violence" so, by your own definition and if you want to believe in laws at all, then of course that's true. You've made a self-fulfilling circular argument so how could it be otherwise?

I'm not sure I follow your line of argument.

I asked you whether you think that it is morally justified to use violence against a person who has harmed no one, but has simply violated a statute banning, say, possession of marijuana?

You respond that, according to me, laws [I assume you mean statute here] cannot be enforced except by interpersonal violence. Is this even a debatable question? How else would statutes be enforced? If person breaks a statute the police (armed men) arrest him. So, first, are you disputing that this is violence?

Also, please explain what you mean when you say mine is a self-fulfilling circular argument. I am arguing this:

A - It is wrong to initiate (or make threats to initiate) violence against other people and their property. (Technically, by "violence against", I mean any uninvited change to the integrity of a person's body or property.)

B - Because we live in an imperfect world, sometimes violence is necessary. We therefore need to determine when violence is justified and when it isn't.

C - I contend that the ONLY justification for violence is AS A RESPONSE to actual (or threats made) initiation of violence to another's body or property.

D - All other violence (violence that is not a RESPONSE to initiated violence) is ITSELF the initiation of violence, and is therefore morally unjustified.

E - I then use this argument to determine my support or opposition to any policy or statute. For example, a statute that establishes a punishment for the possession of marijuana would fall into this category. It is an initiation of violence against people who have not themselves harmed anyone.

If you'd like to point out in what way my argument is circular, please do. I'm not seeing it.

Oozlefinch · May 6, 2013

I feel that every citizen and legal resident has the right to work. But that is not the same thing as saying they have a right to a job.

By following that logic, everybody has the right to marriage, therefore it is the government's job to ensure they have a spouse.

MoSurveyor · May 7, 2013

Federalist said:
I'm not sure I follow your line of argument.

I asked you whether you think that it is morally justified to use violence against a person who has harmed no one, but has simply violated a statute banning, say, possession of marijuana?

You respond that, according to me, laws [I assume you mean statute here] cannot be enforced except by interpersonal violence. Is this even a debatable question? How else would statutes be enforced? If person breaks a statute the police (armed men) arrest him. So, first, are you disputing that this is violence?

Also, please explain what you mean when you say mine is a self-fulfilling circular argument.

If you'd like to point out in what way my argument is circular, please do. I'm not seeing it.

The way you presented your beliefs and worded your questions made it circular ...

Federalist said:
I am arguing this:

A - It is wrong to initiate (or make threats to initiate) violence against other people and their property. (Technically, by "violence against", I mean any uninvited change to the integrity of a person's body or property.)

B - Because we live in an imperfect world, sometimes violence is necessary. We therefore need to determine when violence is justified and when it isn't.

A & B contradict each other. It either is or isn't wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The only other interpretation I can see is you're trying to claim two wrongs make a right but that doesn't fly with me, either.

Federalist said:
C - I contend that the ONLY justification for violence is AS A RESPONSE to actual (or threats made) initiation of violence to another's body or property.

We've been through threats, already. Again, you have to make up your mind. Either threats justify violence or they don't - but you don't get to decide what a "threat" is. The victim of the threat is the only one that can decide that. Since I'm sure you won't agree with that assessment, we have our second point of contention.

Federalist said:
D - All other violence (violence that is not a RESPONSE to initiated violence) is ITSELF the initiation of violence, and is therefore morally unjustified.

E - I then use this argument to determine my support or opposition to any policy or statute. For example, a statute that establishes a punishment for the possession of marijuana would fall into this category. It is an initiation of violence against people who have not themselves harmed anyone.

Just from points A-C you have left open a lot of ground, which is a large part of the problem. Without resolving those issues, it's difficult to move forward. However ...

You seem to have avoided the larger concept of law, to get everyone on the same page (i.e., so everyone knows exactly where they stand) so we can move forward as a civilization. I may not like the laws you think we need, but I'm just as sure you won't like some of the laws I think we need. We need to come to a consensus, one way or another. Your generalizations don't answer how to do that. Even your example is poor because many people feel marijuana is a threat, or rather, that people that are high are a threat. I'm not saying I believe that but that doesn't change what other people believe about it. I don't particularly approve of "victimless crimes" but the ones who support those "crimes" don't see them as victimless at all. They believe gambling, prostitution, and certain drugs are a threat to society as a whole and them individually because of what those people often do. However, I don't see tax evasion as a victimless crime, either, where I'm sure you and many others do. Therein lies the rub.

The result of that, to me, is that we have decided to be a society of laws. As such, whether I feel an action is a crime or not doesn't matter beyond my powers of persuasion to convince others of my position and, of course, my own vote. If we all decide by representation or direct vote that a given action is a crime then, whether individuals believe it's a crime or not, we should all abide by that decision - not because The Man will "come take us away" but because we have agreed to live in a lawful society.

To me, that's the unwritten law people are breaking when they break the laws on the books. They have agreed to live in this society and to live by it's rules. In essence, they have violated their contract and the sentence is expulsion, though they can often "buy their way back in" by paying a fine, instead.

jamesrage · May 7, 2013

X Factor said:
Surfing the net, I came across this.

The Right to a job | Socialist Equality Party

Interesting point of view. What do you think? Is having a job a right?

Adding the poll right now. Answers will be yes, no and I don't know.

I picked no.But at the same time the government should not be screwing over American workers by encouraging and allowing outsourcing or screwing American workers by allowing companies to subvert wages and working conditions by hiring foreign workers.

Federalist · May 8, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
A & B contradict each other. It either is or isn't wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The only other interpretation I can see is you're trying to claim two wrongs make a right but that doesn't fly with me, either.

No, they don't contradict each other. Take a look at what I wrote:

Federalist said:
A - It is wrong to initiate (or make threats to initiate) violence against other people and their property. (Technically, by "violence against", I mean any uninvited change to the integrity of a person's body or property.)

B - Because we live in an imperfect world, sometimes violence is necessary. We therefore need to determine when violence is justified and when it isn't.

It is wrong to INITIATE violence. Responding to initiated violence is not wrong. It is necessary to survival.

Federalist · May 8, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
We've been through threats, already. Again, you have to make up your mind. Either threats justify violence or they don't - but you don't get to decide what a "threat" is. The victim of the threat is the only one that can decide that. Since I'm sure you won't agree with that assessment, we have our second point of contention.

To threaten someone with violence is ITSELF an act of violence. Did we not agree on this?

Just from points A-C you have left open a lot of ground, which is a large part of the problem. Without resolving those issues, it's difficult to move forward. However ...

You seem to have avoided the larger concept of law, to get everyone on the same page (i.e., so everyone knows exactly where they stand) so we can move forward as a civilization.

I am proposing a law, which I have stated several times. I am proposing a law that forbids the initiation (or making threats of initiation) of violence against the person and property of others. That is the law I am proposing.

I may not like the laws you think we need, but I'm just as sure you won't like some of the laws I think we need. We need to come to a consensus, one way or another. Your generalizations don't answer how to do that. Even your example is poor because many people feel marijuana is a threat, or rather, that people that are high are a threat.

You are equivocating on the word threat. My contention is that it is wrong to initiate violence or to make a threat that you will initiate violence. Prostitution "being a threat" to society has nothing at all to do with this. I am talking about a person making a threat that they are going to commit violence (either with words or by their actions).

I'm not saying I believe that but that doesn't change what other people believe about it. I don't particularly approve of "victimless crimes" but the ones who support those "crimes" don't see them as victimless at all. They believe gambling, prostitution, and certain drugs are a threat to society as a whole and them individually because of what those people often do. However, I don't see tax evasion as a victimless crime, either, where I'm sure you and many others do. Therein lies the rub.

The result of that, to me, is that we have decided to be a society of laws. As such, whether I feel an action is a crime or not doesn't matter beyond my powers of persuasion to convince others of my position and, of course, my own vote. If we all decide by representation or direct vote that a given action is a crime then, whether individuals believe it's a crime or not, we should all abide by that decision - not because The Man will "come take us away" but because we have agreed to live in a lawful society.

To me, that's the unwritten law people are breaking when they break the laws on the books. They have agreed to live in this society and to live by it's rules. In essence, they have violated their contract and the sentence is expulsion, though they can often "buy their way back in" by paying a fine, instead.

I am not suggesting that people break the law with impunity. I am proposing a change to the law.

MoSurveyor · May 9, 2013

Federalist said:
To threaten someone with violence is ITSELF an act of violence. Did we not agree on this?

Not completely, no. I tried to pin down exactly what you meant by that and you responded with a) "it's up to the owner of the street" (meaning I have no rights on the street other than those negotiated, which is worse than it is now), and b) essentially no comment once I pointed out neither nuclear bombs nor nerve gas had to be stored near people to be dangerous if used.

Federalist said:
I am proposing a law, which I have stated several times. I am proposing a law that forbids the initiation (or making threats of initiation) of violence against the person and property of others. That is the law I am proposing.

Hard to even think of it in practice or as a talking point when you can't answer the above questions.

Federalist said:
You are equivocating on the word threat. My contention is that it is wrong to initiate violence or to make a threat that you will initiate violence. Prostitution "being a threat" to society has nothing at all to do with this. I am talking about a person making a threat that they are going to commit violence (either with words or by their actions).

I'm not "equivocating" at all. If anything, I've been trying to show why the word and concept itself is flawed as an objective reality. If anything, you're the one equivocating because you won't get down to specifics. You're the one leaving this question in limbo.

You don't think uncontrolled prostitution is a health threat?

Federalist said:
I am not suggesting that people break the law with impunity. I am proposing a change to the law.

I am aware of what your argument is but I don't think you're seeing the big picture, here.

For the second (or was it the third?) time you asked, essentially, if I thought growing pot should be illegal and I responded the best way I know how given your previous lack of recognition of my responses - by showing that even if I agree it shouldn't be a crime, I still believe I have to follow the law or be prepared to face the consequences. So what I think about all your various "victimless crime" examples doesn't mean a damn thing unless the majority agrees with me, as well, in which case it's not a crime anymore.

I've also tried to show there is at least a tacit agreement among citizens that we all follow the law as our part of the agreement we have with society as a whole and that we accept punishment as a violation of those laws. As part of that agreement, we all decide what is lawful and unlawful - together as a group - and agree to live with that decision whether we personally agree or not. If a person violates a contract what would you expect to happen? Aren't damages in a law suit also violence by your standards? If not, what's to stop the loser from simply not paying?

Federalist · May 10, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
Not completely, no. I tried to pin down exactly what you meant by that and you responded with a) "it's up to the owner of the street" (meaning I have no rights on the street other than those negotiated, which is worse than it is now), and b) essentially no comment once I pointed out neither nuclear bombs nor nerve gas had to be stored near people to be dangerous if used.

What I mean is to make a threat of violence against someone, or what would commonly be considered to be assault.

Hard to even think of it in practice or as a talking point when you can't answer the above questions.

I'm not "equivocating" at all. If anything, I've been trying to show why the word and concept itself is flawed as an objective reality. If anything, you're the one equivocating because you won't get down to specifics. You're the one leaving this question in limbo.

I believe I have gotten down to specifics. To make threats of violence or to actually commit violence against other people should be against the law. I'm not sure how much more specific you'd like me to be.

You don't think uncontrolled prostitution is a health threat?

Someone engaged in prostitution is not making a threat of violence against anyone else. They are not committing assault. So, no, it's not the same.

I am aware of what your argument is but I don't think you're seeing the big picture, here.

For the second (or was it the third?) time you asked, essentially, if I thought growing pot should be illegal and I responded the best way I know how given your previous lack of recognition of my responses - by showing that even if I agree it shouldn't be a crime, I still believe I have to follow the law or be prepared to face the consequences.

I too, believe I have to follow the law or be prepared to face the consequences. I am simply suggesting the law be changed and offering a just alternative.

So what I think about all your various "victimless crime" examples doesn't mean a damn thing unless the majority agrees with me, as well, in which case it's not a crime anymore.

Agreed.

I've also tried to show there is at least a tacit agreement among citizens that we all follow the law as our part of the agreement we have with society as a whole and that we accept punishment as a violation of those laws. As part of that agreement, we all decide what is lawful and unlawful - together as a group - and agree to live with that decision whether we personally agree or not. If a person violates a contract what would you expect to happen? Aren't damages in a law suit also violence by your standards?

No, they are not the INITIATION of violence. They are in a RESPONSE to a harm done by the tortfeasor.

If not, what's to stop the loser from simply not paying?

Once the damages have been awarded, a title transfer occurs, in which some of the tortfeasor's assets transfer to the successful plaintiff.

MoSurveyor · May 10, 2013

Federalist said:
What I mean is to make a threat of violence against someone, or what would commonly be considered to be assault.

But your "new law" opens up such a wide range of new possibilities that using the old definitions just won't cut it. The guy walking down the street with a bomb is just as much a threat to anyone within given range, depending on the size of the bomb, as the man pointing the gun at someone. In fact, as we've all recently seen, the bomber is even more of a potential threat. Someone with a cache of nerve gas even worse than that, someone with a nuke is another step up. According you current rules, none of these are actionable and your "new law" doesn't make them actionable as far as I can tell.

Federalist said:
I believe I have gotten down to specifics. To make threats of violence or to actually commit violence against other people should be against the law. I'm not sure how much more specific you'd like me to be.

See above.

Federalist said:
Someone engaged in prostitution is not making a threat of violence against anyone else. They are not committing assault. So, no, it's not the same.

Of course it's the same, given the right circumstances. What if the prostitute has AIDS?

Federalist said:
I too, believe I have to follow the law or be prepared to face the consequences. I am simply suggesting the law be changed and offering a just alternative.

I'm not so sure how "just" it is. That's what we're still discussing.

Federalist said:
No, they are not the INITIATION of violence. They are in a RESPONSE to a harm done by the tortfeasor.

Once the damages have been awarded, a title transfer occurs, in which some of the tortfeasor's assets transfer to the successful plaintiff.

And if the tortfeasor is unavailable, bankrupt, or whatever - then what? The plaintiff is just screwed? That's a good plan for societal safety.

Federalist · May 10, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
But your "new law" opens up such a wide range of new possibilities that using the old definitions just won't cut it. The guy walking down the street with a bomb is just as much a threat to anyone within given range, depending on the size of the bomb, as the man pointing the gun at someone.

I would agree that a person with a bomb who enters another's property (a street) where bombs are forbidden could very well be considered up to no good. The property owner would be within his rights to respond appropriately.

In fact, as we've all recently seen, the bomber is even more of a potential threat. Someone with a cache of nerve gas even worse than that, someone with a nuke is another step up. According you current rules, none of these are actionable and your "new law" doesn't make them actionable as far as I can tell.

See above.

So you think it is justified to initiate violence against someone who amasses a stockpile of nerve gas or nukes? I think that I could be convinced that this would be justified, since the assumption must be that they intend to engage in mass destruction.

Of course it's the same, given the right circumstances. What if the prostitute has AIDS?

A prostitute who knows he has AIDS and doesn't tell his client IS harming his client. This would of course be actionable.

I'm not so sure how "just" it is. That's what we're still discussing.

I'm sure that we can agree that it is wrong to initiate violence against people who have not initiated (or made threats to initiate) violence against other people or their property. The trick is figuring out how to apply this principle as consistently as possible. I think my position applies this principle more consistently than yours.

And if the tortfeasor is unavailable, bankrupt, or whatever - then what? The plaintiff is just screwed? That's a good plan for societal safety.

Isn't that the case now as well?

MoSurveyor · May 10, 2013

Federalist said:
I would agree that a person with a bomb who enters another's property (a street) where bombs are forbidden could very well be considered up to no good. The property owner would be within his rights to respond appropriately.

Sorry, I don't buy into a world where streets are owned by individuals.

Federalist said:
So you think it is justified to initiate violence against someone who amasses a stockpile of nerve gas or nukes? I think that I could be convinced that this would be justified, since the assumption must be that they intend to engage in mass destruction.

I think a lot of things endanger the public, including nerve gas and nukes. That's one of the points of contention I mentioned earlier, what is actually considered a "threat". You flat out rejected a threat to society, earlier.

Federalist said:
A prostitute who knows he has AIDS and doesn't tell his client IS harming his client. This would of course be actionable.

But only in tort. Most prostitutes couldn't afford the cost of a defeat and may not survive to pay it in any case. Not so good for the client - or society since the client could spread it without even knowing. Another example of threat that's apparently not covered in your "new law".

Federalist said:
I'm sure that we can agree that it is wrong to initiate violence against people who have not initiated (or made threats to initiate) violence against other people or their property. The trick is figuring out how to apply this principle as consistently as possible. I think my position applies this principle more consistently than yours.

Does this mean taxation stops? That'll never work.

Federalist said:
Isn't that the case now as well?

Not really, no. Many, many things that businesses could be doing that would be harmful are outlawed now, no tort required to limit their potentially adverse effects on society. With your system, we're back to the loaded gun scenario. If you don't consider certain acts to be inherently violent then no action can be taken until harm is done, at which point it's too late.

Federalist · May 10, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
Sorry, I don't buy into a world where streets are owned by individuals.

They have to be owned by some individual or group of individuals.

I think a lot of things endanger the public, including nerve gas and nukes. That's one of the points of contention I mentioned earlier, what is actually considered a "threat". You flat out rejected a threat to society, earlier.

You made a good case for nukes and nerve gas. But my fundamental principle is that I consider it unjustified to INITIATE violence against a person who has not initiated (or said he is going to initiate) violence against others.

But only in tort. Most prostitutes couldn't afford the cost of a defeat and may not survive to pay it in any case. Not so good for the client - or society since the client could spread it without even knowing. Another example of threat that's apparently not covered in your "new law".

And your response to this risk is to initiate violence. How about simple liability insurance? Then the prostitute COULD afford the cost of a defeat.

Does this mean taxation stops? That'll never work.

Yeah, I know. Who would pick the cotton?

Not really, no. Many, many things that businesses could be doing that would be harmful are outlawed now, no tort required to limit their potentially adverse effects on society. With your system, we're back to the loaded gun scenario. If you don't consider certain acts to be inherently violent then no action can be taken until harm is done, at which point it's too late.

That's the way it always works. FIRST the crime is committed, and THEN prosecution occurs. That damage is ALWAYS done first.

MoSurveyor · May 10, 2013

Federalist said:
They have to be owned by some individual or group of individuals.

I suppose all of society is "a group of individuals" but I'm sure that's not what you had in mind.

Federalist said:
You made a good case for nukes and nerve gas. But my fundamental principle is that I consider it unjustified to INITIATE violence against a person who has not initiated (or said he is going to initiate) violence against others.

Then the guy with the gun is fine as long as he keeps his mouth shut? That's not what you were saying earlier.

Federalist said:
And your response to this risk is to initiate violence. How about simple liability insurance? Then the prostitute COULD afford the cost of a defeat.

So you're going to violently force someone to do something so they can sell their services??? I guess we still have a LOT of ground to cover.

Federalist said:
Yeah, I know. Who would pick the cotton?

Please. :roll: I can see how far you've really thought about this - not very.

Federalist said:
That's the way it always works. FIRST the crime is committed, and THEN prosecution occurs. That damage is ALWAYS done first.

But the laws include more than just fines. Do you really not understand the way the EPA and OSHA work? Do you now get how speed limits control the speeds at which people drive? Well, of course you don't. Even after having explained in what I thought was good detail, you still don't get the idea of all of us playing off the same page of music. *shakes head*

Federalist · May 10, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
I suppose all of society is "a group of individuals" but I'm sure that's not what you had in mind.

No, by the owner, I meant the individual(s) who have the right to exclude others from the property. Right now it's the government, but it doesn't have to be.

Then the guy with the gun is fine as long as he keeps his mouth shut? That's not what you were saying earlier.

No, he is explicitly threatening someone, namely the guy he's accosting.

So you're going to violently force someone to do something so they can sell their services??? I guess we still have a LOT of ground to cover.

No I'm not going to violently force someone to do anything. But a patron who wishes to be protected could choose to only use prostitutes with adequate liability insurance, and possibly certified as disease free.

Please. :roll: I can see how far you've really thought about this - not very.

Either something is ethical or it's not. "It won't work" is not an ethical stance. That would be like those who oppose slavery being told, "Abolition won't work. Who would pick the cotton?"

But the laws include more than just fines. Do you really not understand the way the EPA and OSHA work? Do you now get how speed limits control the speeds at which people drive?

Road owners have every right to specify how their roads are used.

Well, of course you don't. Even after having explained in what I thought was good detail, you still don't get the idea of all of us playing off the same page of music. *shakes head*

I'm sorry, but I can't justify initiating violence against someone who has not harmed anyone else. But I don't think it's actually necessary. If people know they are going to be held responsible for the harm they cause others, they will take the necessary measures to prevent doing harm to others.

MoSurveyor · May 10, 2013

Federalist said:
No, by the owner, I meant the individual(s) who have the right to exclude others from the property. Right now it's the government, but it doesn't have to be.

Road owners have every right to specify how their roads are used.

I don't want any individual dictating or fleecing me for access to my own property. I'm just fine paying taxes to maintain the roads and allow my cousin George from Canada to use any street in the country at no cost to him.

Your dodge of environmental and safety regulations is noted.

Federalist said:
No, he is explicitly threatening someone, namely the guy he's accosting.

We have yet to determine what the parameters are for a "threat". You keep adding and taking away caveats.

Federalist said:
No I'm not going to violently force someone to do anything. But a patron who wishes to be protected could choose to only use prostitutes with adequate liability insurance, and possibly certified as disease free.

And if they don't then STDs get passed around to the whole population. And it's not just a matter of prostitution - there are many, many thing that won't get covered in a private enterprise world, many of them public health issues. It's simply not profitable to keep track of diseases all over the country like the CDC does, for example.

Federalist said:
Either something is ethical or it's not. "It won't work" is not an ethical stance. That would be like those who oppose slavery being told, "Abolition won't work. Who would pick the cotton?"

Not the same at all but, hey, you can show me where long-term, expensive, voluntary plans have managed to be carried out. I don't know of many off hand but I'm sure you have a whole list of multi-billion dollar, multi-year projects that have almost no commercial value being completed without the government - so start posting them.

Federalist said:
I'm sorry, but I can't justify initiating violence against someone who has not harmed anyone else. But I don't think it's actually necessary. If people know they are going to be held responsible for the harm they cause others, they will take the necessary measures to prevent doing harm to others.

Only if the can't make money from it.

How did that work for Intel's and Microsoft's competitors in the past decade? How did that work for all the Superfund sites around the country and the businesses that made those toxic disasters? How did that work out for the families of the BP workers in the Gulf and all the people and businesses effected by that mess? The tobacco companies are an excellent example of a proactive campaign to $ell, $ell, $ell and damn the consequences.

Don't kid yourself. There's lots and lots of evidence that what you're proposing doesn't work. I've just named a few of the more obvious and recent ones. Do you honestly think the EPA and OSHA cropped up on the whim of a politician? Get real. Tort law isn't some new invention, you know, and it didn't stop squat. There were serious issues that had to be addressed because business didn't give a crap as long as they were making their profits. They still don't give a crap but the risk of cheating is bigger now and it's not easy to dodge government inspections, either.

Do You Have a Right to a Job?

Do You Have a Right to a Job?

Yes

No

I don't know.

More options

MoSurveyor

Federalist

MoSurveyor

Federalist

Oozlefinch

MoSurveyor

jamesrage

Federalist

Federalist

MoSurveyor

Federalist

MoSurveyor

Federalist

MoSurveyor

Federalist

MoSurveyor

Federalist

MoSurveyor