[dano bivins]

SlabMaster, on 22 May 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

dano bivins, on 22 May 2011 - 12:25 AM, said:

CaptKirk, on 21 May 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

Your ignorance is epic. You always have a buddy, or an internet "authority," or something you heard.

You know nothing.

Translation: "I can't refute this, so I'll posture and bolt."

sawdust:

Quote

"Please explain the difference between food cost and gross margin. I agree with the Captain"

See above!
You don't know the difference? Then why do you pretend to know anything about the restaurant business?

"Pretend"....how comical...sort of.

I've known Sawdust for what.. 10 years. In that time he's built, run, and sold, scores of restaurants among other substantial manufacturing businesses. Currently has a few under construction and growing in an industry that is generally struggling.
WTF Dano, are you the token retard of the internet that just barfs out goofyshit for our entertainment?

No, I'm the guy you can't get away with lying to, Vern. :-)

Slabmaster wrot:

Quote

Why arn't poor people lined up to join?

Are you for real? Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't want to go die in a stupid, senseless war...

FYI'' if your son just got out of boot camp, he makes $8 an hr., and his food, clothes, tech schools, lodging (incl. apartments and houses) materials, medical care and medicine is completely paid for. Everything else including booze can be bought at a deep discount compared to civlandt.

[dano bivins]

CaptKirk, on 22 May 2011 - 07:07 AM, said:

dano bivins, on 22 May 2011 - 12:25 AM, said:

CaptKirk, on 21 May 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

Your ignorance is epic. You always have a buddy, or an internet "authority," or something you heard.

You know nothing.

Translation: "I can't refute this, so I'll posture and bolt."

It's impossible to refute the statement "I have a buddy and he said..." other than to observe that your buddy appears to be a liar and/or a fool, like you.

Barracks at Ft. Bragg

The last time I checked, ft bragg wasn't in Germany. Grow up and accept it when you are wrong.

It's interesting that your little internet-dredged story is virtually the only one like it.
Here's one of the revealing comments...

"3Rex // Apr 29, 2008 at 9:13 am
"Those barraks look bad because everyone has been deployed. Once the optempo slows down it will look better.


The plugged drain happened within 12 hours of their arrival. Not unusual for barracks that haven’t been lived in for a while.

You know who has the primary responsibility for the cleanliness of the barracks? I’ll tell you: the folks who live there. And their Staff Non-commissioned Officers (SNCO’s) and Officers have the responsibility of making sure the troops keep the barracks clean.

So what do you think happened when the unit got stateside? A large chunk of them probably went on leave, leaving only a caretaker force behind. Or maybe they did it 50/50. At any rate, the ones left behind are the ones who have to clean it up and keep it clean. SNCO’s need to call the proper people at Base and get plumbers in. Painting can be scheduled, and the loose paint removed by the troops.

Oh, you think the barracks should have been in top condition when the troops returned? Then please tell me, who would have done the work? The military doesn’t keep lots of people sitting around just to fix up barracks.

As a Navy friend of mine once said, “You know why I joined the Navy? I liked all those nice clean ships. Now I know who keeps them that way.”

Suck it up, gents, and fix it."

Indeed!

Follow up article:
http://articles.cnn....-water?_s=PM:US

[dano bivins]

longshot, on 22 May 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

dano bivins, on 22 May 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:

Why are you saying that there are no liberal businessmen?

I didn't say that there are no liberal businessmen. If you think I did, please point me to the quote.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sure...
"et busy lefties, and get those businesses going. Put your money where your mouth is. You can change the world, instead of just complaining about what others are doing."

"I seriously think that people on the left should start businesses"

Now...if you're going to deny that's the message conveyed by these statements, then I don't know how your brain works, because it isn't working in the same way as everyone else I know.
--------------------------------------------

dano bivins, on 22 May 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:

And no one has argued that a CEO SHOULD'NT be paid "some multiple of the lowest paid employee". That's not what has been said at all. No one ever said that. You won't find such a statement. No place. No way. It just ain't there. It would be an illogical thing to say. It would be silly.

I have seen calls to legally limit the ratio of CEOs to the lowest paid worker. It was mentioned even in this thread:

Pastafarian, on 16 May 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:

It should be socially unacceptable (if not outright illegal) for any person in a company to make more than 10 times the lowest paid worker.

---------------------------------------------
And this supports your argument how? Are you actually READING what you are writing?
-----------------------------------------------

If, however, you are discussing this issue with no intenetion of supporting any kind of legislation that would impose such a restriction, then I apologize for misunderstanding. All I'm opposed to would be a legislative act that would tell businesses and employees what rate of pay they may agree upon.

---------------------------------------------

I am sick and tired of going back and quoting you when you deny that you said something you wrot. It gets old, and makes me wonder About your intellectual honesty.
If you oppose legislation that regulates how much a CEO can be paid, then you support a CEO makin 1000 times what the average worker makes. Now, if you will admit this, fine...you have that right, but it puts you in a very rare column, and your ONLY company is far right ideologues.
-----------------------------------------------------

dano bivins, on 22 May 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:

No one has ever suggested hitting anyone or taking their stuff, or forcing someone to run their business the way someone else wants.

Again, it that's the case, then I am truly relieved. However, you must admit that, even without a law dictating the ratio of worker to CEO pay, there still remains a vast amount of legislation that does indeed tell people how to run their business, legislation that is backed up with the threat of fines and/or imprisonment. (Aka hitting people and taking their stuff.)

Those laws don't amount to vast reams, and only regulate things which most reasonable people support and are in the public interest. The govt doesn't tell businesses how to set up displays or whether they can fire someone for how they dress or if they carry around a Bible. You don't have a "right" to go into-- or run--- a business. It's a privilege.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say "the right to open a business shall not be infringed". You need a license. And accreditation in many instances. That's to protect the public and the common welfare.
You better believe there's regulation. If you call that "telling them how to run their business" then you define a daycare center that's shut down for child molestation, or a restaurant that serves e-coli burgers as being "told how to run their business". I'm sure that's not the argument you want to make.

[Pastafarian]

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

Nowhere in the constitution does it say "the right to open a business shall not be infringed". You need a license. And accreditation in many instances. That's to protect the public and the common welfare.
You better believe there's regulation. If you call that "telling them how to run their business" then you define a daycare center that's shut down for child molestation, or a restaurant that serves e-coli burgers as being "told how to run their business". I'm sure that's not the argument you want to make.

Thanks for articulating so well. Capitalists love to skim the cream off the top of our economy and contribute doodly-squat back. There is a demographic in our society who has had a license to steal since the beginning of the industrial revolution. They have colluded with the right side of the political isle to keep control of the top of the money pyramid.

This same demographic howls at the moon if asked to contribute back even a percentage of what they've skimmed off. Not only that, they are pushing legislation to move political power up the ladder by ATTEMPTING to limit voting rights to PROPERTY OWNERS ONLY due to the fact that their agenda is becoming tougher and tougher to sell to a population of increasingly impoverished people.

[longshot]

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

Again, you're bringing up aspects that aren't under discussion. It's irrelavent. We're talkng about profit margins, not overhead.

And just to circle back a little, why are we talking about profit margins again?

[longshot]

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

longshot, on 22 May 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

dano bivins, on 22 May 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:

Why are you saying that there are no liberal businessmen?

I didn't say that there are no liberal businessmen. If you think I did, please point me to the quote.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sure...
"et busy lefties, and get those businesses going. Put your money where your mouth is. You can change the world, instead of just complaining about what others are doing."

"I seriously think that people on the left should start businesses"

Now...if you're going to deny that's the message conveyed by these statements, then I don't know how your brain works, because it isn't working in the same way as everyone else I know.
--------------------------------------------

dano bivins, on 22 May 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:

And no one has argued that a CEO SHOULD'NT be paid "some multiple of the lowest paid employee". That's not what has been said at all. No one ever said that. You won't find such a statement. No place. No way. It just ain't there. It would be an illogical thing to say. It would be silly.

I have seen calls to legally limit the ratio of CEOs to the lowest paid worker. It was mentioned even in this thread:

Pastafarian, on 16 May 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:

It should be socially unacceptable (if not outright illegal) for any person in a company to make more than 10 times the lowest paid worker.

---------------------------------------------
And this supports your argument how? Are you actually READING what you are writing?
-----------------------------------------------

If, however, you are discussing this issue with no intenetion of supporting any kind of legislation that would impose such a restriction, then I apologize for misunderstanding. All I'm opposed to would be a legislative act that would tell businesses and employees what rate of pay they may agree upon.

---------------------------------------------

I am sick and tired of going back and quoting you when you deny that you said something you wrot. It gets old, and makes me wonder About your intellectual honesty.
If you oppose legislation that regulates how much a CEO can be paid, then you support a CEO makin 1000 times what the average worker makes. Now, if you will admit this, fine...you have that right, but it puts you in a very rare column, and your ONLY company is far right ideologues.

You seem very confused. Here's my stance, which has been my stance since we've been discussing this issue. I am opposed to legislation that would tell businesses what rate of pay to which the business and their employees may agree. Is that clear enough? I support the ability of any business and any employee to agree to any wage they both find suitable. If it turns out that one employee makes ten million times more than another employee that is none of my business, nor is it anyone else's business except the business and the employee.

Now the reason I am engagin in this discussion is that I was under the impression that you feel that other people's employment arrangements are your business and that you support legislation that would interfere with people's right to decide their matters for themselves. Is this the case?

[longshot]

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

Those laws don't amount to vast reams, and only regulate things which most reasonable people support and are in the public interest.

The United States Code -- containing federal statutory law -- is more than 50,000 pages long and comprises 40 volumes. The Code of Federal Regulations, which indexes administrative rules, is 161,117 pages long, composes 226 volumes, and occupies 25 feet of wall space.

I'd call that vast reams.

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

The govt doesn't tell businesses how to set up displays or whether they can fire someone for how they dress or if they carry around a Bible. You don't have a "right" to go into-- or run--- a business. It's a privilege.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say "the right to open a business shall not be infringed".

Interesting Constitutional interpretation. So if the Constitution doesn't say you have a right to do something, you don't. Okay, whatever you say.

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

You need a license. And accreditation in many instances. That's to protect the public and the common welfare.
You better believe there's regulation. If you call that "telling them how to run their business" then you define a daycare center that's shut down for child molestation, or a restaurant that serves e-coli burgers as being "told how to run their business". I'm sure that's not the argument you want to make.

Are you serious? Child molestation has nothing to do with running business. It's a crime.

The issue we are discussing has nothing to do with health or safety standards.

Legislative interference in the employer / employee contract IS telling them how to run their business. Do you feel as if you have the right to tell other people to what employment terms they may agree? What gives you that right exactly, to tell your fellow citizens, your supposed equals under the law, that sorts of agreements they may make?

[SlabMaster]

Pastafarian, on 23 May 2011 - 01:52 PM, said:

SlabMaster, on 23 May 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

Why arn't poor people lined up to join? Think of all that free food.

Simplify much? Some don't qualify, frankly. Some have medical conditions. Some may be conscientious objectors. Some aren't physically fit enough or don't care to be physically fit enough. What? A working poor person should have to join the military in order to have all of their needs met? Why can't every person who chooses to work earn adequate sustenance? I didn't bring this up because I'm pro military or anti-military. I was pointing out the absurdity that the military is an example of a socialized workplace and conservatives are almost universally pro-military.

SlabMaster, on 23 May 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

I was doing a little quick math and I figured my son averages about $3/hr in pay.

All humans have to sleep. You can't count the time he's asleep in his rack. Nice creative financing there.

A salaried position pays a flat rate per month. Enlisted personell don't punch an hourly timeclock. I have office staff, mgrs, etc... that are on a salary. Should I inform them I'm going to discount the time they sleep?
In my sons case, I was figuring 16 hour days x 7 days/week, which is generous as they average about 4 hours of sleep if lucky. His last couple weekends, he has had 4 hours liberty on Sat and Sunday because he passed his tests well.
Minimum wage pays about double to what a private or PFC in the military makes.

[longshot]

Pastafarian, on 23 May 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

Thanks for articulating so well. Capitalists love to skim the cream off the top of our economy and contribute doodly-squat back. There is a demographic in our society who has had a license to steal since the beginning of the industrial revolution. They have colluded with the right side of the political isle to keep control of the top of the money pyramid.

This same demographic howls at the moon if asked to contribute back even a percentage of what they've skimmed off. Not only that, they are pushing legislation to move political power up the ladder by ATTEMPTING to limit voting rights to PROPERTY OWNERS ONLY due to the fact that their agenda is becoming tougher and tougher to sell to a population of increasingly impoverished people.

There are only two ways to get something. It can be given, perhaps in exchange for something else. Or it can be taken by fraud, force, or the threat of force.

Now, I don't deny that there is a privileged class that uses the force of the law to skim wealth from the rest of us. I'm sure we both agree that this is immoral, and, as I've mentioned before, I oppose this.

But how can you consider a voluntary agreement to exchange things to be skimming? Is the grocer skimming from his customer by trading tomatoes for money. Is the customer skimming from the grocer? Each participant give something and gets something. Who is skimming whom?

[SlabMaster]

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:20 PM, said:

Are you for real? Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't want to go die in a stupid, senseless war...

FYI'' if your son just got out of boot camp, he makes $8 an hr., and his food, clothes, tech schools, lodging (incl. apartments and houses) materials, medical care and medicine is completely paid for. Everything else including booze can be bought at a deep discount compared to civlandt.

Some don't see their commitment as stupid and senseless. Some give rather than take.

$8/hr in your fantasyland. Food, MRE's, clothing, uniforms, etc... are all deducted from the paycheck. Housing is a bunk and footlocker. 80 soldiers in one room. Average time on the clock in BC was 0400am till 900pm. Sleep was difficult yet a relief.
I've been to the store on base at Pendelton. Some items are cheaper, but I didn't see huge savings over a Walmart. Maybe...I don't know. I wasn't price shopping.
I will say that the Air Force has better accomidations and brag that every other branch wishes they were in the Air Force. I'd say that's mostly true, though a jarhead will never admit it.

[dano bivins]

Quote

Longshot wrot: "You seem very confused. Here's my stance, which has been my stance since we've been discussing this issue. I am opposed to legislation that would tell businesses what rate of pay to which the business and their employees may agree. Is that clear enough? I support the ability of any business and any employee to agree to any wage they both find suitable. If it turns out that one employee makes ten million times more than another employee that is none of my business, nor is it anyone else's business except the business and the employee.

Now the reason I am engagin in this discussion is that I was under the impression that you feel that other people's employment arrangements are your business and that you support legislation that would interfere with people's right to decide their matters for themselves. Is this the case?"

You seem a little confused. I'll try to explain it with another example. You tell your son "Look, I don't care what you do in your room, bring a GF, eat pizza, play your music loud, watch r-rate movies...but I have a few rules, to protect you, and our family...no smoking or alcohol...no candles...no playing baseball..and don't kidnap and kill anyone in here...other than that, it's your room...do as you please".
"Ah dad...you're telling me how to live my life!"
"Nope...just setting a few reasonable guidelines to insure you act responsibly, follow the laws, and act like a good citizen.
Whenever someone says "minumum wages should not be regulated, it's none of the govt's business", what they're really saying is "I do not like anyone stopping me from indulging my unchecked greed and malicious expoitative impulses..if I wanna use my natural advantages and position to exploit, hose, and use desperate workers, that's my business. Let me be a wolf, let me be myself...free, I was born free, and you gotta break a few eggs to make a freedom omelet."
So according to YOUR logic, the govt should NOT be able to tell Dow Chemical not to dump PCB's into the public drinking aquifer. That's your argument longshot. Say "No, it isn'T" You will not be accepted. I will accuse you of "Gomi-ing"...engaging in semantics-based denial in lieu of debate.

longshot, on 23 May 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

Those laws don't amount to vast reams, and only regulate things which most reasonable people support and are in the public interest.

The United States Code -- containing federal statutory law -- is more than 50,000 pages long and comprises 40 volumes. The Code of Federal Regulations, which indexes administrative rules, is 161,117 pages long, composes 226 volumes, and occupies 25 feet of wall space.

I'd call that vast reams." ..longshot

By vast reams, I meant in scope. To actually tell all businesses how to run their business, it would take around 10,000 times as much pages. As it is, the reason the codes are so fat is because the second the govt tries to regulate a business, the first thing the business does is try to find ways to GET AROUND THE LAW. So....the regulators are forced by the business's perfidy and shiftiness to come up with ever more detailed and specific language.
It's fat not because of an over=bearing govt, but because of irresponsible, greedy, dishonest businesses.

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

The govt doesn't tell businesses how to set up displays or whether they can fire someone for how they dress or if they carry around a Bible. You don't have a "right" to go into-- or run--- a business. It's a privilege.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say "the right to open a business shall not be infringed".

"Interesting Constitutional interpretation. So if the Constitution doesn't say you have a right to do something, you don't. Okay, whatever you say." ...longshot

Correct! If the constitution states that you don't have a right but rather a privilege in certain activities, then you don't have a right. Sometimes, it says you have a right, but then says it's conditional, like property ownership.

dano bivins, on 23 May 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

You need a license. And accreditation in many instances. That's to protect the public and the common welfare.
You better believe there's regulation. If you call that "telling them how to run their business" then you define a daycare center that's shut down for child molestation, or a restaurant that serves e-coli burgers as being "told how to run their business". I'm sure that's not the argument you want to make.

"Are you serious? Child molestation has nothing to do with running business. It's a crime." ...longshot

**********So is violating labor laws.************

The issue we are discussing has nothing to do with health or safety standards.

You might just as well argue that the fact that the earth is round(ish) has nothing to do with a discussion about the journey of Columbus (or Magellan).

Legislative interference in the employer / employee contract IS telling them how to run their business. Do you feel as if you have the right to tell other people to what employment terms they may agree? What gives you that right exactly, to tell your fellow citizens, your supposed equals under the law, that sorts of agreements they may make?

I can see that you're stuck in you mindset so no outside logic can break thru. I hope you read and think about what I've written...it certainly seems perfectly clear and reasonable to me. I've explained the concept 3 times already.
There is no agreement between employer and employee. He says what he pays, the employee accepts. In the rare occasions where he doesn't, the next prospect in the 500 person line advances to the chair. The employer sits back and checks his cuticles. Americans don't like sweat shops, the triangle shirt waist fire really pissed us off.
Now we tell businesses that they can't tell employees being paid sweatshop wages that they cannot take breaks in their 14 hr day, cannot go to the bathroom more than once every 6 hrs, and keep them locked into the workroom and chain the fire exits. You support the ability of the shirtwaist factory to do as they please.
That's why I regard you as a very right conservative. It's not like i just came into contact with them last month. I've been observing righties for over 40 yrs. I know them by now. Even when they try to minimize the hallmarks.
Ron Paul is upfront about his rightiness...most aren't.
The entire underlying premise of your wage argument is fundamentally false. Therefore, your entire argument and all it's rationalizations are false.

[dano bivins]

Slabmaster wrot:
"Some don't see their commitment as stupid and senseless. Some give rather than take."

Try to pay attention slabmaster. Are you listening?
I did,nt say service members see their service as stupid and senseless. Never said it. You made that up.
That's weak debate, in fact, it's dishonest.
I said they see the Iraq invasion/occupation as stupid and senseless. Very different. All take slabmaster, I never saw a single service member give back their pay check, or say "I could desperately use this free college, but I don't want to burden the txpayer."

"$8/hr in your fantasyland. Food, MRE's, clothing, uniforms, etc... are all deducted from the paycheck. Housing is a bunk and footlocker. 80 soldiers in one room. Average time on the clock in BC was 0400am till 900pm. Sleep was difficult yet a relief."

FALSE. It's all PAID. On top of the $8 an hr. The housing is beautiful houses. BAH they call it. Paid.
The servicemember works an 8 hr day, just like in an office. Off on wknds...sometimes they pull guard duty, that's not like working. You just hang around...amuse yourself. Then there's the generous paid leave, something private business rarely offers. Hell, you even get free plane trips. Now, for a sailor underway the shift is 6 or 8 hrs on, 6 or 8 hrs off. But you work less than other times. There's nowhere to go either, so you might as well be seen as working.


"I've been to the store on base at Pendelton. Some items are cheaper, but I didn't see huge savings over a Walmart. Maybe...I don't know. I wasn't price shopping.
I will say that the Air Force has better accomidations and brag that every other branch wishes they were in the Air Force. I'd say that's mostly true, though a jarhead will never admit it."...slabmaster

The stores on base are way cheaper, so's the alchohol, gas, and bars. I go to the navy base on Key West, it's really nice. You just have to keep it under 10mph, they'll nail you.

This post has been edited by dano bivins: 24 May 2011 - 11:24 AM

[SlabMaster]

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

FALSE. It's all PAID. On top of the $8 an hr. The housing is beautiful houses. BAH they call it. Paid.
The servicemember works an 8 hr day, just like in an office. Off on wknds...sometimes they pull guard duty, that's not like working. You just hang around...amuse yourself. Then there's the generous paid leave, something private business rarely offers. Hell, you even get free plane trips. Now, for a sailor underway the shift is 6 or 8 hrs on, 6 or 8 hrs off. But you work less than other times. There's nowhere to go either, so you might as well be seen as working.

Strange, someone who's issuing my kids paycheck keeps deducting line items for clothing, uniforms, food, etc...

"Beautiful housing?"
I guess it depends on what your version of beautiful is.

I'll repeat my question from a previous post. If it's all easy money, free this and free that, and piles of money just waiting for someone to bathe in it, why aren't all the working poor clammering to join?
Sounds like paradise.

The airlines do not charge the enlisted for baggage (up to 3 items). I found that a great gesture on the part of those private businesses. Military personel also get called to seat early (after first class).

[dano bivins]

SlabMaster, on 24 May 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

FALSE. It's all PAID. On top of the $8 an hr. The housing is beautiful houses. BAH they call it. Paid.
The servicemember works an 8 hr day, just like in an office. Off on wknds...sometimes they pull guard duty, that's not like working. You just hang around...amuse yourself. Then there's the generous paid leave, something private business rarely offers. Hell, you even get free plane trips. Now, for a sailor underway the shift is 6 or 8 hrs on, 6 or 8 hrs off. But you work less than other times. There's nowhere to go either, so you might as well be seen as working.

"Strange, someone who's issuing my kids paycheck keeps deducting line items for clothing, uniforms, food, etc..."

Never. Not in a million years. You get a clothing allowance, no service-member is charged for grub.[color]
"Beautiful housing?"

"I guess it depends on what your version of beautiful is."

Try this...
http://keywestnavalh...57a80521d30b919

----------------
"I'll repeat my question from a previous post. If it's all easy money, free this and free that, and piles of money just waiting for someone to bathe in it, why aren't all the working poor clammering to join?
Sounds like paradise."
-------------
Good God. It might have something to do with 35,000 guys with missing limbs, permanent head trauma and suicidal tendencies. Then there's the 5000 dead soldiers. All for nothing, just like Vietnam. Vietraq. Yet even in the midst of that, some poor kids who were desperate for an income and/or education joined. BTW $8 an hour isn't good money, even with all the bennies, but it beats zip.
-----------
"The airlines do not charge the enlisted for baggage (up to 3 items). I found that a great gesture on the part of those private businesses. Military personel also get called to seat early (after first class)."

..And they get escorted thru customs without having to wait in line, but I was refering to militry flights...they're free.
On leave? Gotta get to Fresno california and you're in Philly? Find the naval or airforce air base and ask to ride on any mil-flights that are bound close to there. Hop on.

This post has been edited by dano bivins: 24 May 2011 - 05:12 PM

[longshot]

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

You seem a little confused. I'll try to explain it with another example. You tell your son "Look, I don't care what you do in your room, bring a GF, eat pizza, play your music loud, watch r-rate movies...but I have a few rules, to protect you, and our family...no smoking or alcohol...no candles...no playing baseball..and don't kidnap and kill anyone in here...other than that, it's your room...do as you please".
"Ah dad...you're telling me how to live my life!"
"Nope...just setting a few reasonable guidelines to insure you act responsibly, follow the laws, and act like a good citizen.

Interesting analogy. Except you're not my father, nor am I your father. We are independent and equal men. We may each do as we please as long as we keep our promises and don't cause others harm.

Unless you somehow think that you are superior to others in some way?

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Whenever someone says "minumum wages should not be regulated, it's none of the govt's business", what they're really saying is "I do not like anyone stopping me from indulging my unchecked greed and malicious expoitative impulses..if I wanna use my natural advantages and position to exploit, hose, and use desperate workers, that's my business. Let me be a wolf, let me be myself...free, I was born free, and you gotta break a few eggs to make a freedom omelet."

Or perhaps they're living by the principle that other people are not their own personal property. An agreement between two people other than yourself is none of your business. It's their business. What makes you think that you ought to have some sort of veto power over other people's personal affairs?

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

So according to YOUR logic, the govt should NOT be able to tell Dow Chemical not to dump PCB's into the public drinking aquifer. That's your argument longshot. Say "No, it isn'T" You will not be accepted. I will accuse you of "Gomi-ing"...engaging in semantics-based denial in lieu of debate.

Nope. Harming other people or their property IS other people's business. Dumping chemicals into other people's water is harming others. Not the same concept.

We each have the right to stop others from harming us or our property. And that's all. Beyond that, we have no right to boss around other people.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

I can see that you're stuck in you mindset so no outside logic can break thru. I hope you read and think about what I've written...it certainly seems perfectly clear and reasonable to me. I've explained the concept 3 times already.

Correct, you have not helped me to understand how you think one person has the right to interfere with another person who is not harming anyone else.

We both think the other is wrong, but here's the thing. You are the one who wants to point the gun at me, not the other way around. I acknowlege your right to pay anyone anything your want. If you want to pay some minimum wage, then super. You want to limit what you pay your management, fine. I respect your autonomy, and don't interfere with your otherwise peaceful behavior.

You, on the other hand, have expressed the desire to control the peaceful behavior of others, and you advocate the use of aggressive violence to accomplish your aims. Yet you seem to think you stand on some moral high ground. Perhaps someday you will realize that attacking others is wrong. Until you do, I and others who value liberty will simply have to resist you as best we can. You make yourself our enemy by your violent intentions.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

There is no agreement between employer and employee. He says what he pays, the employee accepts. In the rare occasions where he doesn't, the next prospect in the 500 person line advances to the chair. The employer sits back and checks his cuticles. Americans don't like sweat shops, the triangle shirt waist fire really pissed us off.
Now we tell businesses that they can't tell employees being paid sweatshop wages that they cannot take breaks in their 14 hr day, cannot go to the bathroom more than once every 6 hrs, and keep them locked into the workroom and chain the fire exits. You support the ability of the shirtwaist factory to do as they please.

Sorry, but it is an agreement.

And if an employer's negligence harms his employees, the employer is responsible. Whenever a person's negligence harms another they are responsible. I don't support the ability of anyone, including an employer, to harm anyone through negligence or malice.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

That's why I regard you as a very right conservative. It's not like i just came into contact with them last month. I've been observing righties for over 40 yrs. I know them by now. Even when they try to minimize the hallmarks.

You may regard me as a very right conservative, or anything else you wish. I regard you as a threat to the liberty of your fellow man. You have declared yourself my enemy, by declaring your intention to take away my freedom through aggressive force.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

The entire underlying premise of your wage argument is fundamentally false. Therefore, your entire argument and all it's rationalizations are false.

Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking...

[oblivion]

Somehow this managed to deliver.

This post has been edited by Second_AoJ: 25 May 2011 - 01:30 AM

[dano bivins]

longshot, on 24 May 2011 - 09:27 PM, said:

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

You seem a little confused. I'll try to explain it with another example. You tell your son "Look, I don't care what you do in your room, bring a GF, eat pizza, play your music loud, watch r-rate movies...but I have a few rules, to protect you, and our family...no smoking or alcohol...no candles...no playing baseball..and don't kidnap and kill anyone in here...other than that, it's your room...do as you please".
"Ah dad...you're telling me how to live my life!"
"Nope...just setting a few reasonable guidelines to insure you act responsibly, follow the laws, and act like a good citizen.

Interesting analogy. Except you're not my father, nor am I your father. We are independent and equal men. We may each do as we please as long as we keep our promises and don't cause others harm.

Unless you somehow think that you are superior to others in some way?

I knew you would respond with that, word for word, verbatim. It's the argument iof someone that either can't see the simple accuracy of the analogy, or can't admit it.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Whenever someone says "minumum wages should not be regulated, it's none of the govt's business", what they're really saying is "I do not like anyone stopping me from indulging my unchecked greed and malicious expoitative impulses..if I wanna use my natural advantages and position to exploit, hose, and use desperate workers, that's my business. Let me be a wolf, let me be myself...free, I was born free, and you gotta break a few eggs to make a freedom omelet."

Or perhaps they're living by the principle that other people are not their own personal property. An agreement between two people other than yourself is none of your business. It's their business. What makes you think that you ought to have some sort of veto power over other people's personal affairs?

That's just the same discredited, dishonest argument rephrased.

Quote

"if I wanna use my natural advantages and position to exploit, hose, and use desperate workers, that's my business. Let me be a wolf, let me be myself...free, I was born free, and you gotta break a few eggs to make a freedom omelet."

You can be as intellectuially dishonest as you please. You don't fool me.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

So according to YOUR logic, the govt should NOT be able to tell Dow Chemical not to dump PCB's into the public drinking aquifer. That's your argument longshot. Say "No, it isn'T" You will not be accepted. I will accuse you of "Gomi-ing"...engaging in semantics-based denial in lieu of debate.

"Nope. Harming other people or their property IS other people's business. Dumping chemicals into other people's water is harming others. Not the same concept."

It's the exact same concept, you're just in denial of your own bankrupt philosophy.

"We each have the right to stop others from harming us or our property. And that's all. Beyond that, we have no right to boss around other people."

but, you're arguing against regulation, now you're arguing FOR it? You make no sense.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

I can see that you're stuck in you mindset so no outside logic can break thru. I hope you read and think about what I've written...it certainly seems perfectly clear and reasonable to me. I've explained the concept 3 times already.

"Correct, you have not helped me to understand how you think one person has the right to interfere with another person who is not harming anyone else."

Like I've said, I've explained the harm, you simply won't admit it.

"We both think the other is wrong, but here's the thing. You are the one who wants to point the gun at me, not the other way around. I acknowlege your right to pay anyone anything your want. If you want to pay some minimum wage, then super. You want to limit what you pay your management, fine. I respect your autonomy, and don't interfere with your otherwise peaceful behavior."

"I do not like anyone stopping me from indulging my unchecked greed and malicious expoitative impulses..if I wanna use my natural advantages and position to exploit, hose, and use desperate workers, that's my business. Let me be a wolf, let me be myself...free, I was born free, and you gotta break a few eggs to make a freedom omelet" ...that's the argument you are making.

You, on the other hand, have expressed the desire to control the peaceful behavior of others, and you advocate the use of aggressive violence to accomplish your aims. Yet you seem to think you stand on some moral high ground. Perhaps someday you will realize that attacking others is wrong. Until you do, I and others who value liberty will simply have to resist you as best we can. You make yourself our enemy by your violent intentions."

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's almost like you're in some alternate reality. But it sounds like the petulant whining of a spoiled brat that can't do whatever he wants to anybody else and is rationalizing.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

There is no agreement between employer and employee. He says what he pays, the employee accepts. In the rare occasions where he doesn't, the next prospect in the 500 person line advances to the chair. The employer sits back and checks his cuticles. Americans don't like sweat shops, the triangle shirt waist fire really pissed us off.
Now we tell businesses that they can't tell employees being paid sweatshop wages that they cannot take breaks in their 14 hr day, cannot go to the bathroom more than once every 6 hrs, and keep them locked into the workroom and chain the fire exits. You support the ability of the shirtwaist factory to do as they please.

"Sorry, but it is an agreement."

Quote

"if I wanna use my natural advantages and position to exploit, hose, and use desperate workers, that's my business. Let me be a wolf, let me be myself...free, I was born free, and you gotta break a few eggs to make a freedom omelet."

You can be as intellectuially dishonest as you please. You don't fool me.[/b]

And if an employer's negligence harms his employees, the employer is responsible. Whenever a person's negligence harms another they are responsible. I don't support the ability of anyone, including an employer, to harm anyone through negligence or malice.

You just did. You've been doing it thru this whole exchange.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

That's why I regard you as a very right conservative. It's not like i just came into contact with them last month. I've been observing righties for over 40 yrs. I know them by now. Even when they try to minimize the hallmarks.

You may regard me as a very right conservative, or anything else you wish. I regard you as a threat to the liberty of your fellow man. You have declared yourself my enemy, by declaring your intention to take away my freedom through aggressive force.

More crazy-talk. I'm looking out for my fellow man...you are demanding to be able to rape him and poison his land and water.

dano bivins, on 24 May 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

The entire underlying premise of your wage argument is fundamentally false. Therefore, your entire argument and all it's rationalizations are false.

Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking...

Then why don't you stop supporting the rape and aggression and attack of your fellow Americans?

[longshot]

dano bivins, on 29 May 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

"I do not like anyone stopping me from indulging my unchecked greed and malicious expoitative impulses..if I wanna use my natural advantages and position to exploit, hose, and use desperate workers, that's my business. Let me be a wolf, let me be myself...free, I was born free, and you gotta break a few eggs to make a freedom omelet" ...that's the argument you are making.

dano bivins, on 29 May 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

More crazy-talk. I'm looking out for my fellow man...you are demanding to be able to rape him and poison his land and water.

dano bivins, on 29 May 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

Then why don't you stop supporting the rape and aggression and attack of your fellow Americans?

I can't tell whether you are purposely misrepresenting my position or you simply don't understand it. I'll try and recap, and perhaps we can clarify where we disagree.

I start from a premise that, as John Adams wrote: "All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

All our individual liberties are essentially property rights or extensions of them. The freedom to choose one's religion stems from the fact that we each own our own conscience. THe freedom to speak freely stems from the fact that we all own our own mind. The concept of liberty stems from the fact that we each own our own body and may use it as we want, as long as we don't hurt someone else's property.

The fact that we live in a society, with each of our fellows having the same rights, implies that, if we wish to respect the rights of others, we cannot act in a way that violates their property rights. This would include violating their body and their possessions. I also believe that this duty to respect the rights of others applies to all people, including people who are members of the government. That is to say that belonging to the government does not free one of the moral laws that apply to all people.

As far as the role of government, I contend that government cannot create rights. It can recognize them. It can provide a legal system, within which rights can be defended, and it can come to the aid of those whose rights are threatened.

At this point, I think I've explained my position enough to get back to the initial point. You mentioned earlier that I am demanding to be allowed to rape my fellow man and poison his water. Not true, as in the first case I would be violating his property rights to his body and in the second I would be violating his property rights to his water. Given that I believe that it is government's role is to protect property rights, I believe that it is government's proper job to make intervene in both of these cases.

As I write this, I believe our fundamental difference has just dawned on me. And again, it has to do with property rights. Would it be accurate to say that you believe that a worker has a right to a job at a decent wage? That is to say, do you believe that a job with a decent was is the property of the worker? If this is the case, then it would explain perfectly why we have such a big disagreement.

If a job is the property of the worker, then I could see how you would see a reduction in wages as aggression against the property of the worker. Your violent terminology would make sense. Am I on the right track here? What do you think?

[dano bivins]

longshot, on 30 May 2011 - 07:02 AM, said:

dano bivins, on 29 May 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

"I do not like anyone stopping me from indulging my unchecked greed and malicious expoitative impulses..if I wanna use my natural advantages and position to exploit, hose, and use desperate workers, that's my business. Let me be a wolf, let me be myself...free, I was born free, and you gotta break a few eggs to make a freedom omelet" ...that's the argument you are making.

dano bivins, on 29 May 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

More crazy-talk. I'm looking out for my fellow man...you are demanding to be able to rape him and poison his land and water.

dano bivins, on 29 May 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

Then why don't you stop supporting the rape and aggression and attack of your fellow Americans?

I can't tell whether you are purposely misrepresenting my position or you simply don't understand it. I'll try and recap, and perhaps we can clarify where we disagree.

I start from a premise that, as John Adams wrote: "All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

All our individual liberties are essentially property rights or extensions of them. The freedom to choose one's religion stems from the fact that we each own our own conscience. THe freedom to speak freely stems from the fact that we all own our own mind. The concept of liberty stems from the fact that we each own our own body and may use it as we want, as long as we don't hurt someone else's property.

The fact that we live in a society, with each of our fellows having the same rights, implies that, if we wish to respect the rights of others, we cannot act in a way that violates their property rights. This would include violating their body and their possessions. I also believe that this duty to respect the rights of others applies to all people, including people who are members of the government. That is to say that belonging to the government does not free one of the moral laws that apply to all people.

As far as the role of government, I contend that government cannot create rights. It can recognize them. It can provide a legal system, within which rights can be defended, and it can come to the aid of those whose rights are threatened.

At this point, I think I've explained my position enough to get back to the initial point. You mentioned earlier that I am demanding to be allowed to rape my fellow man and poison his water. Not true, as in the first case I would be violating his property rights to his body and in the second I would be violating his property rights to his water. Given that I believe that it is government's role is to protect property rights, I believe that it is government's proper job to make intervene in both of these cases.

As I write this, I believe our fundamental difference has just dawned on me. And again, it has to do with property rights. Would it be accurate to say that you believe that a worker has a right to a job at a decent wage? That is to say, do you believe that a job with a decent was is the property of the worker? If this is the case, then it would explain perfectly why we have such a big disagreement.

If a job is the property of the worker, then I could see how you would see a reduction in wages as aggression against the property of the worker. Your violent terminology would make sense. Am I on the right track here? What do you think?

"I do not like anyone stopping me from indulging my unchecked greed and malicious expoitative impulses..if I wanna use my natural advantages and position to exploit, hose, and use desperate workers, that's my business. Let me be a wolf, let me be myself...free, I was born free, and you gotta break a few eggs to make a freedom omelet" ...that's the argument you are making."

This is what you are saying. Now, maybe you're from another country originally and your idioms are different, making your meaning hard to pin down, but taken at your writ word, you're saying businesses should be allowed to do whatever they please and workers should hve no rights at all and be vulnerable to exploitation.
If we negotiate, and you have a gun to my head, it's not an "agreement".
Seems pretty simple to me. I guess it's not to you.
You are supporting a land where the bulk of the workforce lives in abject poverty and occupies company barracks, and must buy food bars sold in the company store. Then they must work in whatever conditions the employers desire.
You support a vendor being able to sell chainsaws for $500 after a hurricane in the disaster zone.
You support a gas station owner being able to hike the price of his gas 100% after a hurricane.
Most Americans find that deplorable and anti-American.
But you're free to believe whatever you want, it's a free country.