What's up with the Libertarians?

[kallend 2,182]

www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000360.shtml

They seem to be taking no position on a number of important issues.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

WTF are they doing? dismantling everything?

[Lefty 0]

And that's why I'm not a member of the Libertarian party even though my views are libertarian. Those idiots can't go five minutes without making themselves look like a joke. They're dodging the "tough" questions. Fortunately, most libertarians' views aren't dependent on something as fickle as a party platform, since the ideology is principle-based.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

And that's why I'm not a member of the Libertarian party even though my views are libertarian. Those idiots can't go five minutes without making themselves look like a joke. They're dodging the "tough" questions. Fortunately, most libertarians' views aren't dependent on something as fickle as a party platform, since the ideology is principle-based.

I was a registered Libertarian for one year. Then got out because I wanted my vote to count.

We are all engines of karma

[SpeedRacer 1]

Here are two letters from that blog

Quote

14th cent:

I see one way to fix the schism.

Stop caring about it.

Parties do not build themselves by focusing on their internal differences--they break apart. If Democrats cared, they would split between Third Way socialists and New Democrat capitalists. If Republicans cared, they would split between big-government Reaganites and religious fundamentalists.

As I said earlier, the LP is ideologically a big-tent party, ranging from Randian to anarchist. If we focus too much on this and not enough on getting things done, we'll fall apart like the Whigs in the 1840's or the Reform Party today.

Do we really want to end up like them over something as ultimately insignificant as anarchism vs. minarchism, or will we come together to stop the expansion of government?
Posted by: Jay Jay at July 5, 2006 01:20 PM

And Dariusz, if you or anyone else here joined the LP primarily because they don't compromise, why not just look at the past 100 years and how socialists compromised advocating pure communism, became a mainstream movement and now control the government - even the "conservatives" are advocating Socialist Party ideas from the 1930s! If you don't want compromise, don't join a political party unless you are ok with not accomplishing any of the goals you want to accomplish. Our rigidity has made us easy to break - we don't even present a real challenge to the powers that be because we are obscure and we won't compromise!

Personally, I don't see what the problem is. Is there any political party where all the members are in lockstep agreement on every issue? Iraq is one of the big issues today, the Democrats are certainly not in agreement about it. Not even the republicans all agree.

Itis, as the first letter stated, a "Big Tent" party. In any political party, if you demand lockstep agreement on absolutley EVERY ISSUE, your party is always going to be too damn small to ever get anything done.

You join a political party & then elect the CANDIDATES within that party whose views you agree with most.

It is unrealistic, even within your party, that you are likely to agree with the candidate on all issues.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Actually, I like that they do not take "party positions" on so many issues. It is, in my opinion, a recognition that a party should be limited to a few basic positions.

I'll put it this way - the Constitution is the operator's manual for the United States. It describes basically what the US stands for and how it works. The 2004 Democratic Part Platform was 39 pages long. The Constitution was on 4 pages (though with modern typesetting I could see it running ten or 15 pages). The Bill of Rights fit onto one page (it'd probably be three or four nowadays, too).

So, when you see a Party Platform for a year running longer than the Constitution, you will find that there is a lot more to disagree with than merely setting forth ideals to which all can agree, and leaving specifics for discussions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Actually, I like that they do not take "party positions" on so many issues. It is, in my opinion, a recognition that a party should be limited to a few basic positions.

I'll put it this way - the Constitution is the operator's manual for the United States. It describes basically what the US stands for and how it works. The 2004 Democratic Part Platform was 39 pages long. The Constitution was on 4 pages (though with modern typesetting I could see it running ten or 15 pages). The Bill of Rights fit onto one page (it'd probably be three or four nowadays, too).

So, when you see a Party Platform for a year running longer than the Constitution, you will find that there is a lot more to disagree with than merely setting forth ideals to which all can agree, and leaving specifics for discussions.

Putting it that way --- our school policy on sexual harrassment is longer than the US Constitution plus all of its amendments.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

All they are is a hybrid of GOP fiscals and Lefty personal freedoms. They really lean right if cornered though, but I agree that they wiggle a lot and then get angry when cornered.

I like some of their ideas, but they can't finish them off without getting sci-fi. I like their ideas about social welfare, have the church get paid by the gov, then have the church decide who gets what. Also there is some joke about people voting on their ballots for money allocations for social monies.

Listening to Libertarians attempt to describe the intricacies of their party is like listening to Steeler fans describe how they were 2 plays away from winning the Superbowl in 96 against Dallas. Real, "Horseshoe" mentality - sorry, close is not an option, we need to make it work.

[SpeedRacer 1]

as in any party, a libertarian candidate will have to be pragmatic & not too extreme. it's the nature of a democracy. extremists win over the fringes, but not the elections.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

as in any party, a libertarian candidate will have to be pragmatic & not too extreme. it's the nature of a democracy. extremists win over the fringes, but not the elections.

Does that explain their not taking any real-world stance on issues?

[Lefty 0]

Quote

All they are is a hybrid of GOP fiscals and Lefty personal freedoms. They really lean right if cornered though, but I agree that they wiggle a lot and then get angry when cornered.

"Right" in the sense that libertarians prefer less government over more? Damn straight. "Right" in the sense that libertarians want to take away people's personal freedoms based on an arbitrary moral code? Pleeeeease. Do some real research on the ideology then try again.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

as in any party, a libertarian candidate will have to be pragmatic & not too extreme. it's the nature of a democracy. extremists win over the fringes, but not the elections.

Does that explain their not taking any real-world stance on issues?

Kinda like the "real-world" stances taken by the Bush Administration? Like it or not, there are some "real world" reasons for attempting and doing what they do. I hand them that, despite how much I despise what they do...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

All they are is a hybrid of GOP fiscals and Lefty personal freedoms. They really lean right if cornered though, but I agree that they wiggle a lot and then get angry when cornered.

"Right" in the sense that libertarians prefer less government over more? Damn straight. "Right" in the sense that libertarians want to take away people's personal freedoms based on an arbitrary moral code? Pleeeeease. Do some real research on the ideology then try again.

Quote

"Right" in the sense that libertarians prefer less government over more? Damn straight.

We agree on that.

Quote

"Right" in the sense that libertarians want to take away people's personal freedoms based on an arbitrary moral code?

No, right in the sense that the rightwingers want to do that, the Libertarians and the lefties align on personal freedoms issues. Go back and read what I wrote.

Again, Libertarians are a hybrid of GOP fiscal right ideals (cut taxes, screw social prograns) and leftist desire for personal privacy/freedom. Get it?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

as in any party, a libertarian candidate will have to be pragmatic & not too extreme. it's the nature of a democracy. extremists win over the fringes, but not the elections.

Does that explain their not taking any real-world stance on issues?

Kinda like the "real-world" stances taken by the Bush Administration? Like it or not, there are some "real world" reasons for attempting and doing what they do. I hand them that, despite how much I despise what they do...

I'm not sure if you were using, "they" as the repubs or the Libertarians. EIther way, my point was that the Libertarians evade real issues.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

EIther way, my point was that the Libertarians evade real issues.

Actually, this quote showed that they do:

"Libertarians are a hybrid of GOP fiscal right ideals (cut taxes, screw social prograns) and leftist desire for personal privacy/freedom."

To people like me, these are the only "real" issues. Or, more simply, "How do we create and maintain an open and honest marketplace?" Kind like my proposed constitutional amendment: "Congress and the individual States shall pass no law abridging the rights of the people to mind their own business, nor shall they pass any law requiring the citizens to accept others butting into their business, except to maintain truthful transactions and/or to make a buck."

"But the employers are oppressing the workers." None of my business, unless either side needs some legal representation.

"But the people are being prevented from feeding the homeless." Oh, then something should be done to prevent laws from interfering with these private transactions.

"Joey is putting all of his money up his nose." That's his right.

"We need to have motorcycle helmet laws." Why? "Because of the drain in health care costs." That's not a problem of motorcycle helmets, that's a problem with socialism. If someone wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, its his business. He can pay for it, thus keeping him out of my business.

We tend to view the rights to do as we darn well please to be the "most real" issue. Well, that and the affirmative duty to "suck it up" when faces with the consequences.

Everything else is secondary. Is that the "real world?" Maybe not, but it's what we aspire to.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Great post, lawrocket!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

EIther way, my point was that the Libertarians evade real issues.

Actually, this quote showed that they do:

"Libertarians are a hybrid of GOP fiscal right ideals (cut taxes, screw social prograns) and leftist desire for personal privacy/freedom."

To people like me, these are the only "real" issues. Or, more simply, "How do we create and maintain an open and honest marketplace?" Kind like my proposed constitutional amendment: "Congress and the individual States shall pass no law abridging the rights of the people to mind their own business, nor shall they pass any law requiring the citizens to accept others butting into their business, except to maintain truthful transactions and/or to make a buck."

"But the employers are oppressing the workers." None of my business, unless either side needs some legal representation.

"But the people are being prevented from feeding the homeless." Oh, then something should be done to prevent laws from interfering with these private transactions.

"Joey is putting all of his money up his nose." That's his right.

"We need to have motorcycle helmet laws." Why? "Because of the drain in health care costs." That's not a problem of motorcycle helmets, that's a problem with socialism. If someone wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, its his business. He can pay for it, thus keeping him out of my business.

We tend to view the rights to do as we darn well please to be the "most real" issue. Well, that and the affirmative duty to "suck it up" when faces with the consequences.

Everything else is secondary. Is that the "real world?" Maybe not, but it's what we aspire to.

Quote

Actually, this quote showed that they do:

"Libertarians are a hybrid of GOP fiscal right ideals (cut taxes, screw social prograns) and leftist desire for personal privacy/freedom."

I'm guessing that you mean they do address relevant issues. If so, merely saying I'm fiscally right, morally left only brings you into the general neighborhood. When you nail Libertarians down on the physics of these issues I tend to get little. Even teh Repubs have a little to say, however they can't reinforce their args by way of contemporary example, but they have a direction with a few details.

When asked about social welfare, Libertarians just say to let the church handle it. Then asking how the church gets funded, they explain that the gov would drop funds to the church to let them divvy it up as they see fit. That doesn't address any issue, just ignores it.

You're a lawyer, wouldn't you want some empirical study of age demographics, need, projections, etc? They offer, 'give money to church, church hands out.' Can you see the unworkability there?

Quote

To people like me, these are the only "real" issues. Or, more simply, "How do we create and maintain an open and honest marketplace?" Kind like my proposed constitutional amendment: "Congress and the individual States shall pass no law abridging the rights of the people to mind their own business, nor shall they pass any law requiring the citizens to accept others butting into their business, except to maintain truthful transactions and/or to make a buck."

So you're saying commerce outweighs social health by leaps and bounds? That's why we are what we are as a nation. That's why Vegas has outlawed the giving of food to the homeless. Commerce trupms humanity, could we be more fucking callous? I'm thinking we might go the other direction.

Quote

"But the employers are oppressing the workers." None of my business, unless either side needs some legal representation.

"But the people are being prevented from feeding the homeless." Oh, then something should be done to prevent laws from interfering with these private transactions.

"Joey is putting all of his money up his nose." That's his right.

"We need to have motorcycle helmet laws." Why? "Because of the drain in health care costs." That's not a problem of motorcycle helmets, that's a problem with socialism. If someone wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, its his business. He can pay for it, thus keeping him out of my business.

We tend to view the rights to do as we darn well please to be the "most real" issue. Well, that and the affirmative duty to "suck it up" when faces with the consequences.

So you're placing commerce in front of protections, which is against the American doctrine and the 14th Amendment. I agree with the helpmet laws and drug laws, but your agument travels outside of that and diminshes areas that are protected, so I think it's too inclusive, but I don't totally disagree with you.

Quote

Everything else is secondary. Is that the "real world?" Maybe not, but it's what we aspire to.

Hmmmm, a bit too broad and absolute, by, "everything." Massive commerce leading to Fascism has ruined many aspects of this country, and some of what you write here leans that way. I'm thinking protections from oppressive government come first.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

So you're saying commerce outweighs social health by leaps and bounds? That's why we are what we are as a nation. That's why Vegas has outlawed the giving of food to the homeless. Commerce trupms humanity, could we be more fucking callous? I'm thinking we might go the other direction.

WTF???? A Libertarian would not want MORE laws telling you what you can't do.
where are you getting this from??

If someone wants to give money/food to the homeless, a libertarian would certainly not advocate government coercion to prevent him from doing so.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So you're saying commerce outweighs social health by leaps and bounds?

Nope. Commerce is an exercise of social health. When social health goes down, so does commerce. IT therefore places the onus on the employer to maintain healthy employees. It would be unfortunate for an employer to spend weeks training an employee who becomes ineffective due to working conditions.

It affects the bottom line. We employers call it "benefits." We also call them tax write offs, because I'd rather see my employees taken care of than some 22 year-old trailer trash on disability due to work stress.

Get it?

Quote

When asked about social welfare, Libertarians just say to let the church handle it.

Actually, I saw let whomever wants to handle it handle it. Churches? Go for it. Sororities? Good for you. Lucky wants to tak ecare of them? Out-fucking standing.

Most libertarians tend to view things differently from you. You probably look at a healthy society as breeding helthy individuals. We look at healthy individuals as creating a healthy society.

People slipping through the cracks aren't necessarily the result of a failed society. Libertarians look for equal opportunity.

An example of the logic of social thinkers:
1) This society has homeless people.
2) No good society would let homeless people exist.
3) Therefore, this is not a good society.

Interestingly, your logic is pretty sound. We just have different values. Is homelessness a problem for me? No. Looking at many people, homelessness is a predictable result. wealthy and educated, but with a $800 per day coke habit? The person is destined for failure. It's not my problem. It's not society's problem. It is that person's problem. Capice?I know this because I can't get this person off drugs. Neither can you or "society." Only that person can. The onus is on him, and I shouldn't have to carry his sorry ass. Neither should you.

Quote

you're placing commerce in front of protections, which is against the American doctrine and the 14th Amendment.

You are dead ass wrong. THose Amendments protect me from the government. They don't protect me from myself. Or others. It's why there is no Constitutional right to be free from pain or injury. An employer is a royal dick? Then quit. He'll get hit in the wallet, which is profound reason for me (commercial efficiency) to behave.

The workers wanna unionize? Fucking go for it! LEt's see what you can do to ensure a free and truthful bargaining process. But if you drive your employer out of businss because you are being collective dicks, don't boo hoo that you no longer have jobs. Do what you want. Accept the consequences. You are an employer and a dick? Don't bitch an snivel about ungrateful employees walking out en masse. You asked for it. Suck it up, cupcake.

Social responsibility is an individual trait for libertarians, because it makes business sense.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So you're saying commerce outweighs social health by leaps and bounds? That's why we are what we are as a nation. That's why Vegas has outlawed the giving of food to the homeless. Commerce trupms humanity, could we be more fucking callous? I'm thinking we might go the other direction.

WTF???? A Libertarian would not want MORE laws telling you what you can't do.
where are you getting this from??

If someone wants to give money/food to the homeless, a libertarian would certainly not advocate government coercion to prevent him from doing so.

I'm trying to extrapolate what he's saying.

Quote

...a libertarian would certainly not advocate government coercion to prevent ...

You mean prohibit, not coerce.

Again, we were talking larger scale, not just prohibition from feeding the homeless.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So you're saying commerce outweighs social health by leaps and bounds?

Nope. Commerce is an exercise of social health. When social health goes down, so does commerce. IT therefore places the onus on the employer to maintain healthy employees. It would be unfortunate for an employer to spend weeks training an employee who becomes ineffective due to working conditions.

It affects the bottom line. We employers call it "benefits." We also call them tax write offs, because I'd rather see my employees taken care of than some 22 year-old trailer trash on disability due to work stress.

Get it?

Quote

When asked about social welfare, Libertarians just say to let the church handle it.

Actually, I saw let whomever wants to handle it handle it. Churches? Go for it. Sororities? Good for you. Lucky wants to tak ecare of them? Out-fucking standing.

Most libertarians tend to view things differently from you. You probably look at a healthy society as breeding helthy individuals. We look at healthy individuals as creating a healthy society.

People slipping through the cracks aren't necessarily the result of a failed society. Libertarians look for equal opportunity.

An example of the logic of social thinkers:
1) This society has homeless people.
2) No good society would let homeless people exist.
3) Therefore, this is not a good society.

Interestingly, your logic is pretty sound. We just have different values. Is homelessness a problem for me? No. Looking at many people, homelessness is a predictable result. wealthy and educated, but with a $800 per day coke habit? The person is destined for failure. It's not my problem. It's not society's problem. It is that person's problem. Capice?I know this because I can't get this person off drugs. Neither can you or "society." Only that person can. The onus is on him, and I shouldn't have to carry his sorry ass. Neither should you.

Quote

you're placing commerce in front of protections, which is against the American doctrine and the 14th Amendment.

You are dead ass wrong. THose Amendments protect me from the government. They don't protect me from myself. Or others. It's why there is no Constitutional right to be free from pain or injury. An employer is a royal dick? Then quit. He'll get hit in the wallet, which is profound reason for me (commercial efficiency) to behave.

The workers wanna unionize? Fucking go for it! LEt's see what you can do to ensure a free and truthful bargaining process. But if you drive your employer out of businss because you are being collective dicks, don't boo hoo that you no longer have jobs. Do what you want. Accept the consequences. You are an employer and a dick? Don't bitch an snivel about ungrateful employees walking out en masse. You asked for it. Suck it up, cupcake.

Social responsibility is an individual trait for libertarians, because it makes business sense.

Quote

Nope. Commerce is an exercise of social health. When social health goes down, so does commerce.

And when you place the responsibility of a countries social health upon corporations, we know we're in trouble.

Quote

IT therefore places the onus on the employer to maintain healthy employees.

That's a fantastic idea, let's place the burdeon of healthy employees onto corporations. I think we've done that and I think we all see the result..... fascism didn't work then and it won't now.

Quote

It would be unfortunate for an employer to spend weeks training an employee who becomes ineffective due to working conditions.

A very unkind perspective to say that all that training gone to waste..... oh, BTW, how is that poor slob? Is he going to come back and make me some money?

Quote

It affects the bottom line.

Fascism, fascism, fascism..... having corporations worry more about the bottom line than the government ensuring social and physical health of a nation ISN'T working.

Quote

We employers call it "benefits." We also call them tax write offs, because I'd rather see my employees taken care of than some 22 year-old trailer trash on disability due to work stress.

Right, having employers decide who gets benefits is very exclusive. Why not have the government dole them out, hence no leverage from employers?

Quote

Get it?

Yes I do, you're on that side of the fence that has money. I think it's fabulous that the laws are written to benefit the rich, just great. Only flaw is that @ 8.5T debt, it's once again hard to argue that it is a working system. Funny thing is that the destruction of the US$ won't hurt the poor.

Quote

Actually, I saw let whomever wants to handle it handle it. Churches? Go for it. Sororities? Good for you. Lucky wants to tak ecare of them? Out-fucking standing.

Uh no, I want the people who have the resource to pay for them. I think your assertion establishes my point that it's about fending for yourself. Hard to do if a person is retarded, elderly, disabled, etc.... The LIbertarian platform is fantasy; wouldn't it be great if it could be true that all could take care of themselves?

Quote

Most libertarians tend to view things differently from you. You probably look at a healthy society as breeding helthy individuals. We look at healthy individuals as creating a healthy society.

I look at it neither way. I realize there will be a fair percentage of unhealthy bred or created from all circles, just that I would rather they receive benefits w/o the philosophy of trying to understand their origin.

Quote

People slipping through the cracks aren't necessarily the result of a failed society. Libertarians look for equal opportunity.

Look for it, but want it to be exclusive, just like their close brothers, the Republicans.

Quote

An example of the logic of social thinkers:
1) This society has homeless people.
2) No good society would let homeless people exist.
3) Therefore, this is not a good society.

Nice sylogism; I agree.

Quote

Interestingly, your logic is pretty sound. We just have different values.

Sure, I'm not saying you're wrong or the Libertarians are wrong, just that it is very fucking cold for a society to put greed before health. When a person is disenfranchised from a society, they often rebel, hence a reason for some of the crime.

Quote

Is homelessness a problem for me? No.

You have your shit well together, but it is possible a Chis Reeves situation could happen or any disease and you would run out of money/insurance and need help. Some of the biggest whiners are the ones who say fuck the poor, fuck death row inmates, etc... then they nbeed the help and they're the biggest advocates of social welfare.

Quote

Looking at many people, homelessness is a predictable result. wealthy and educated, but with a $800 per day coke habit? The person is destined for failure. It's not my problem. It's not society's problem. It is that person's problem. Capice?

Not the example I was referring to, but none the less one who needs help if even a methadone needle. How about the disabled person, the person who inherits/contracts a disease?

Quote

I know this because I can't get this person off drugs. Neither can you or "society." Only that person can. The onus is on him, and I shouldn't have to carry his sorry ass. Neither should you.

I think our solutions parallel on this - give em all the free smack they want till they kill themselves. Drug laws are a joke from Reaganites.

Quote

You are dead ass wrong. THose Amendments protect me from the government. They don't protect me from myself. Or others.

I think the spirit of them was meant to afford many protections for all people. I can sit here until 4am writing about things that were not written in the Constitution, but were implied, especially the all-time favorite, privacy.

Quote

It's why there is no Constitutional right to be free from pain or injury.

Just the variety imposed by the government, 8th.

Quote

An employer is a royal dick? Then quit. He'll get hit in the wallet, which is profound reason for me (commercial efficiency) to behave.

Right, but don't forget about the pigs who denied workers rights to collectively bargain, starting with the Fascist pig Reagan. Hell, Bush2 followed by telling US Air and American that if they struck he would cancel their contracts. So with that, the right to collectively bargain being tossed, I find your point partially refuted.

Quote

The workers wanna unionize? Fucking go for it! LEt's see what you can do to ensure a free and truthful bargaining process.

I actually saw where this was going....see above.

Quote

But if you drive your employer out of businss because you are being collective dicks, don't boo hoo that you no longer have jobs.

Right, it wasn't the CEO and all uppers earning 7 and 8 digit salaries to fuck their secretary, it was the scrungy union guys trying to maintain benefits to feed their families.

The problem is that working guys listen to threats like the one above instead of having the balls to shove it up their employer's ass when they are being unreasonable. Ever notice how the Boeing engineers union, SPEA kicked ass, bit all the blue collar union workers are too fucking stuoid and scared to unite and beat the corps.... really pathetic. Shows you how education beats ignorance and fear.

Quote

Social responsibility is an individual trait for libertarians, because it makes business sense.

Right, and if everyone had the means, that would be perfect. But since that is a fantasy to be anywhere close to real-life, the Libertarians live in a fantasy world and will never be taken seriously.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"We need to have motorcycle helmet laws." Why? "Because of the drain in health care costs." That's not a problem of motorcycle helmets, that's a problem with socialism. If someone wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, its his business. He can pay for it, thus keeping him out of my business.

the problem, actually, is that this drain of unhelmeted riders is mythical - average cost of care is in fact a nudge higher for those wearing a helmet. And insurance rates are similar to the rest of the vehicle population.

My opinion - if the Libertarians want to call themselves a party and put forth cadidates under its banner, then they can release a more complete platform. Individuals elected (all 2 of them) can deviate as they wish, just as we have pro choicers in the GOP.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Do you realize that you quote everything said TWICE? Once as a whole and then you break it down to respond to individual points. It makes what are saying quite difficult to read.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

T therefore places the onus on the employer to maintain healthy employees.

That's a fantastic idea, let's place the burdeon of healthy employees onto corporations. I think we've done that and I think we all see the result..... fascism didn't work then and it won't now.

Quote
It would be unfortunate for an employer to spend weeks training an employee who becomes ineffective due to working conditions.

A very unkind perspective to say that all that training gone to waste..... oh, BTW, how is that poor slob? Is he going to come back and make me some money?

Quote
It affects the bottom line.

Fascism, fascism, fascism..... having corporations worry more about the bottom line than the government ensuring social and physical health of a nation ISN'T working.

Not to get into arguing one way or the other, this is just a side note:

What you are complaining about here is corporate greed, not fascism.

Fascism is a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (from Websters)

Try to use the correct word. You can't just say "Fascism" for everything you disagree with.

One could make the argument that libertarianism allows corporate greed, but libertarian philosophy is far from "fascism."

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[GTAVercetti 0]

Thanks Speedracer. I actually typed that into a post and then just hit the Back button because I did not want to deal with having to explain it. And you did it much more succinctly.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.