...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?
...snip...
Of course it can't be voluntary. The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union. There would be if the union provided valuable services, such as easier contract negotiation for employees, took care of its own employee benefits so the employer didn't have to bother with that, or provided better employees by being a pool that goes out to find the best qualified workers, and quickly got rid of those dragging them down. An employer would gladly pick a union with all its services over nonunion employees then, and the union would have plenty of negotiating power Um - the union does not provide a service to the employer. The employers best interest is served by screwing wages down to the minimum. The workers best interest is served by not being screwed. The union exists to help the worker. My best interest is having employment. If I can take the job of an organized worker and put money in my pocket, why should I be forced to only work at a higher wage and remain unemployed? To me that's truly being screwed over. |
|
|
|
...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?
...snip...
The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union. I don't see a problem. Maybe the union is overvaluing their labor in this case. If I am willing to work for less, why shouldn't I? Take all the money you don't want out of the fat paycheck your union negotiated for you and give it to your boss. I made an individual contract with my employer. It was his money that he is now giving to me. The history of the contract is irrelevant to me. It's not my fault the Union doesn't have a sustainable business model. Maybe they should be the ones adapting. |
|
|
|
...snip...
So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work?
...snip...
The whole idea of a union is that its 100% of the workers and if the employer is free to replace the unionised workers, there won't be a union. I don't see a problem. Maybe the union is overvaluing their labor in this case. If I am willing to work for less, why shouldn't I? Afraid that I will out-compete you and take your job? |
|
|
|
Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association.
That's BS. Just last year my union made it so that everyone working where I work has to be a member, and has to pay monthly dues (I, obviously, did not want to be a member). They are taken out of our paychecks before we even see the money. If you want to work here, you have no choice but to be a part of the union. This, in my neck of the woods, is called 'racketeering' It's legal if it's a government union apparently. Your only option for not paying dues is to fill a form claiming religious objection, at which point you will be required to make an equivalent donation to a public charity of your choice, and provide them with monthly proof that you are paying. If you don't, they will start charging you automatically again. I wanted to do that and donate the forced money to Ayn Rand Institute, but I could never find that form. Unions get better wages and pensions for their members. You are getting the benefit of that. I can't believe you are complaining about not being allowed to freeload. So organized labor forces and its respective dues can't be voluntary if the whole industry benefits from their work? Should I be forced to pay dues to my caveman forefathers for inventing fire as well? |
|
|
|
I respectfully disagree, Rassah. I do value these people. I don't mind what they say to me. In fact, I just feel I am having a conversation with its usual benefits: I hope they could have something to gain from my statements and vice-versa.
This requires little effort on my part.
That's the problem; by their own statements they are making it perfectly clear that they don't wish to gain anything from you at all. Why give them anything if they don't value and don't want it? In the end all you're doing is making yourself look defensive for no reason. Hm, well, what you say might be certain. Maybe my efforts are in vain but I have to say I do enjoy writing in any case. I don't mind looking defensive. I am not hurting anybody. I still think its clear that I don't depend on any result in these affairs. Anyways, I'll listen to you. I have work to do. |
|
|
|
Teflone is simply a case of low self-esteem. If he was what he espoused, he would have nothing or very little to say to me.
The sad fact is his happiness is dependent on the degradation of my character. Such is the case for many figures on this forum and beyond.
Now, as for the deeper reasons and story behind this, I rather leave that for another day. I see no benefit that can come, from discussing them now.
You give these people way more value than they are actually worth by replying to them, or to any replies of this nature. Just ignore their trolling and let your actions and words speak for themselves, as opposed to your excuses and defenses. If they say crap, you ignore them, and do things to prove them otherwise, only they will look stupid. Regarding your OP, from someone who has had hundreds of bad ideas, and spent lot of time brainstorming to turn them into good ones, the only answer that anyone should have had was "I agree." I respectfully disagree, Rassah. I do value these people. I don't mind what they say to me. In fact, I just feel I am having a conversation with its usual benefits: I hope they could have something to gain from my statements and vice-versa. This requires little effort on my part. Now, if I couldn't type as fast, I probably wouldn't reply. |
|
|
|
|
Teflone is simply a case of low self-esteem. If he was what he espoused, he would have nothing or very little to say to me.
The sad fact is his happiness is dependent on the degradation of my character. Such is the case for many figures on this forum and beyond.
Now, as for the deeper reasons and story behind this, I rather leave that for another day. I see no benefit that can come from discussing them now.
|
|
|
|
|
All I can say is that I am excited.
|
|
|
|
Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association.
They are thugs when they corrupt the taxpayer's only means of negotiation. The main discussion point of the video was public-sector unions. Well, that's a problem with democracy, not with unions. (same thing with corporations) I am glad we can agree. |
|
|
|
Unions are voluntary associations, and you can't disparage them for being "thugs" just because they are exercising their right to free association.
They are thugs when they corrupt the taxpayer's only means of negotiation. The main discussion point of the video was public-sector unions. |
|
|
|
Hell, why do I even bother? You probably stopped reading half-way through the first sentence so you can try to shout over me.
I am trying to remember when I have ever shouted over anyone. Heck, I can't even remember the last time I raised my voice. Maybe when my dog marked the table? It just goes to show how much you guys know about me. For all I know, you might be imagining a Hispanic version of Bill O'Reilly. Now, that's what you call entertainment. This one proves my post Rassah.. Im quite sure Atlas does not know hard knocks, or he would have better answer than his dog pissing on your coffee table..  Teflone, I know nothing. I am a stupid kid. Do you feel better now? |
|
|
|
Hell, why do I even bother? You probably stopped reading half-way through the first sentence so you can try to shout over me.
I am trying to remember when I have ever shouted over anyone. Heck, I can't even remember the last time I raised my voice. Maybe when my dog marked the table? It just goes to show how much you guys know about me. For all I know, you might be imagining a Hispanic version of Bill O'Reilly. Now, that's what you call entertainment. |
|
|
|
|
Teflone, my friend, you have offered nothing but pure emotion when it comes to the quips you make about me. I expect more from you.
...and remember, we're all good friends here. There's no need to be combative.
|
|
|
|
Matthew, I've rejected everything society has tried to shove down my throat; to say I am not self-aware is to say I rely on dogma. My philosophy is nearly set on anti-ideology. Look, you won't understand and it's fine.
You're smart. You're kind. You're special.
The fact you spent two paragraphs justifying your self-worth tells me all I need to know about you, Matt. Get some self-confidence. You don't have to prove squat to me.
Your narrowmindedness is a weakness Atlas. Your confidence is a good thing but you didn't even stop to think I enjoy talking? I can argue you to the grave. If that's what you "figured out" about me then good job! Also, for me personally, I think the biggest argument against my lifestyle is having too much self-confidence. Why are we even talking if everything we say abouf the other is so supposedly glaringly wrong? I call for a rematch later on. You don't seem to like me too much, Matthew. That's why the idea of you enjoying a conversation with me never came to mind. Yes, let's talk later. |
|
|
|
Furthermore, suppose it is just P1 that is required? What is it about P1 that allows something to come into being that just doesn't seem to fit with cosmology and physics. In other words, can you reconcile how physics (in its ultimate form) could essentially explain everything and yet not predict consciousness?
Our current understanding of physics is incomplete and cannot predict many emergent phenomenon. From my reading, Chalmer's thinks that consciousness is a special case because it can not be directly observed by a third party. Thanks for saying what I've been trying to say in less than a paragraph. |
|
|
|
|
Matthew, I've rejected everything society has tried to shove down my throat; to say I am not self-aware is to say I rely on dogma. My philosophy is nearly set on anti-ideology. Look, you won't understand and it's fine.
You're smart. You're kind. You're special.
The fact you spent two paragraphs justifying your self-worth tells me all I need to know about you, Matt. Get some self-confidence. You don't have to prove squat to me.
|
|
|
|
Yet individuals and purported financial experts come along and make false and fearful accusations about Bitcoin, turning potential Bitcoin users away. I imagine this disturbs many of you; however, if you truly believe Bitcoin is a sound product, you will know the truth will inevitably come to light; either through Bitcoin's resilience or more people demonstrating what it truly is.
We know there is no inevitability when it comes to bitcoin. It faces many hurdles. In many ways, it's already overcome the easiest ones: the technical challenges and proof of concept. Now comes the hard part: how a pseudo anonymous currency interacts with the real world banking system, where identification of users and anti money laundering and anti terrorist legislation works against some of the best features of bitcoin. We can't just wave these challenges away or wish they didn't exist. I think the demand for a scarce, sound digital financial instrument is so ubiquitous that Bitcoin will inevitably fill this void. The crown of establishment-based currencies continues to be tarnished. I feel its most probable that Bitcoin will have its day. Of course, people will be people and I can be wrong. |
|
|
|
CornedBeefHash, I listen to people very well. To do otherwise is not in my best-interest.
I am just not tactful. I speak my mind and people take it as a lack of respect. I speak my mind and question what is said -- even when what is said is mostly sound.
My view is that people should be confident enough not to require my reverence. In essence, I like to treat people like gods: Powerful people that can stand on their own two feet without my compliance and conformity.
A person that deserves my respect doesn't need it all.
A true god needs no servants, nobody under him. He stands, sustains and remains content on his own. It is this idol, this vision that I live by. It is this form that I wish for everybody to attain -- in one way or another.
Good grief Charlie Brown did you even read what I wrote. No, on second thought, don’t respond, never mind, my quandary will continue. I did. You said I didn't listen to people. In reality, what you don't approve of is who I am and that's fine. |
|
|
|
CornedBeefHash, I listen to people very well. To do otherwise is not in my best-interest.
I am just not tactful. I speak my mind and people take it as a lack of respect. I speak my mind and question what is said even what is being sound is mostly sound.
My view is that they should be confident enough not to require my reverence. In essence, I like to treat people like gods: Powerful people that can stand on their own two feet without my compliance and conformity.
Not related to respect, grasping why things won't work quickly, admitting it won't work that way, then correcting the direction yourself is what builds 'reverence'. I call it humility, but I'm sure engineers call it common sense. Your major problem is that you try to get involved nonchalantly into politics without the slightest bit of sense for what people want. All the chest thumping and anti-establishmentarianism from you does no good if you talk and act the same as a kindergartener with no self control or humility. Now, I bet you might argue that you don't care what people think, but that basically means you have no business in politics. People who have passion for change, hate the system, and yet don't care what othes want are called self-serving activists. 9-11 was an act of self serving activism. Matthew, I'll put it simply: I admire leaders, egoists and independent people. You like to surround yourself with people who constantly desire approval and guidance. Our philosophies are vastly different and I accept that. As for describing my political philosophy, your assumptions are so far out-of-reality that I see no point in correcting you. If you're genuinely interested in what I have to say, I'll happily try having a discussion with you. May I remind you, you are nowhere near a savant when it comes to people and this is based on reality. Your choices you made regarding Goat were far from clean and mature. You are in no place to mentor anyone in this field. |
|
|
|
|
CornedBeefHash, I listen to people very well. To do otherwise is not in my best-interest.
I am just not tactful. I speak my mind and people take it as a lack of respect. I speak my mind and question what is said -- even when what is said is mostly sound.
My view is that people should be confident enough not to require my reverence. In essence, I like to treat people like gods: Powerful people that can stand on their own two feet without my compliance and conformity.
A person that deserves my respect doesn't need it all.
A true god needs no servants, nobody under him. He stands, sustains and remains content on his own. It is this idol, this vision that I live by. It is this form that I wish for everybody to attain -- in one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
