That's a pessimistic way of looking at it. I see it as giving the people a start or a hope. Once the business becomes entrenched there, they can then organize and make demands to try and improve their conditions. Without the jobs, they have no bargaining power.
That's the way it happened in the U.S.
When it happened in the U.S., the U.S. didn't have someone as large and powerful as the current U.S. demanding that everything stay the same. If you're going to judge events in the past through context, you have to do the same with the present.
Companies do not make their success of the backs of anyone. Unless you believe Pearl Jam is exploiting you.
if Pearl Jam didnt have a road crew, drivers, management, manufacturers, etc. then they would have no career or business. so they have been built on the back of american labor. that doesnt mean they are exploiting people? but i would guess that after all is said and done they wont be outsourcing their "roadies" to find someone cheaper. they will be loyal to what made them what they are. and that is why they are loyal to their fans. just the fact that they have $50 tix tells me that.
if Pearl Jam didnt have a road crew, drivers, management, manufacturers, etc. then they would have no career or business. so they have been built on the back of american labor. that doesnt mean they are exploiting people? but i would guess that after all is said and done they wont be outsourcing their "roadies" to find someone cheaper. they will be loyal to what made them what they are. and that is why they are loyal to their fans. just the fact that they have $50 tix tells me that.
Do you realize that Pearl Jam effectively outsourced their live concert cd's? They stopped having American companies produce, distribute and sell them. And instead went to a model that is out of reach of poor people. An internet based model that is built upon people using computers made in foreign countries. Pearl Jam demands you outsource jobs in order to listen to their recorded concerts. Shame, shame, shame. How can you support them?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Right - that's why I put the "I don't know" phrase into my original statement that confused you.
Unless it's me losing the job, or perhaps one of my friends or relatives, it shouldn't matter whether it's an American or someone of another nationality who gets it.
But some people - like the original post I quoted - seem to think that it's better for an "American" to have a job as opposed to someone from a different background.
It's not about John or Jose "getting" a job, they have jobs. It's about fair competition of "keeping" their jobs. Under this proposed pilot program, there's little if any oversight for the influx of these long haul carriers or drivers within the U.S. borders that the government is willing to outline specifically. What is the carrier's responsibility to the public, especially for contact information in the case of an emergency or spill that presents a danger to the public. Is the carrier considered a foreign entity not subjected to the U.S. civil judicial system or only the driver as an individual? Will drivers under this pilot program be subject to the same rules, regulations and requirements placed on other long haul drivers by state and federal regs. or are they exempt to only federal laws or laws specific to NAFTA?
No, everyone's job can not be protected under trade deals, but here is a "backbone" industry of america what's the rush? So much has been not "clearly" addressed by DOT to the American Trucking Industry and all they're seeking are the rules on the playing field.
As far as technologies goes. High speed internet is good, but a couple of high speed train systems would be better. Right now the only thing reducing highway congestion is the price of gas.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
It's not about John or Jose "getting" a job, they have jobs. It's about fair competition of "keeping" their jobs. Under this proposed pilot program, there's little if any oversight for the influx of these long haul carriers or drivers within the U.S. borders that the government is willing to outline specifically. What is the carrier's responsibility to the public, especially for contact information in the case of an emergency or spill that presents a danger to the public. Is the carrier considered a foreign entity not subjected to the U.S. civil judicial system or only the driver as an individual? Will drivers under this pilot program be subject to the same rules, regulations and requirements placed on other long haul drivers by state and federal regs. or are they exempt to only federal laws or laws specific to NAFTA?
No, everyone's job can not be protected under trade deals, but here is a "backbone" industry of america what's the rush? So much has been not "clearly" addressed by DOT to the American Trucking Industry and all they're seeking are the rules on the playing field.
As far as technologies goes. High speed internet is good, but a couple of high speed train systems would be better. Right now the only thing reducing highway congestion is the price of gas.
So before this program, were American drivers/companies the ones making the runs from the U.S. to the plants in Mexico?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
When did I say that at some point money wouldn't be a necessity?
You didn't. I'm asking you if money were not a necessity, how we'd be less enslaved?
You're the one that brought slavery into it.
No, I didn't. You said this:
"In the society we live in, money is a necessity. All able bodied individuals 'forced' to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."
The above implies that if money were not a necessity, no would would be forced to work. Since you've already correctly identified "food and shelter" as the real reason you are "forced" to work, I'm wondering why you're blaming money as the root of our slave status.
"In the society we live in, money is a necessity. All able bodied individuals 'forced' to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."
The above implies that if money were not a necessity, no would would be forced to work. Since you've already correctly identified "food and shelter" as the real reason you are "forced" to work, I'm wondering why you're blaming money as the root of our slave status.
I'm not. I'm pointing out that money, like regulations, are a necessity. Since you have to follow regulations, you consider yourself a slave. I'm just extending the same consideration to money. Personally, I don't think either necessarily makes anyone a slave. They can, but they don't always nor do they necessarily have to.
You're asking me to argue for something I don't believe is possible, i.e. a society without money.
???
Many societies have existed and exist today without money.
I'm not. I'm pointing out that money, like regulations, are a necessity.
Neither are "a necessity". Just because they exist, or are widely used, doesn't make them necessary.
Since you have to follow regulations, you consider yourself a slave. I'm just extending the same consideration to money.
But that extension makes no sense. I am forced to follow the regulations of others. And I am forced to do so often at the cost of my own freedom and my own purposes. Absent those regulations, my freedom would not be charged.
On the other hand, you're suggesting that you are forced to use money because without money you'd have no food and shelter. Based on the extension you're making from my statements, it implies that if money were not a part of the equation, you'd somehow magically have food or shelter. This makes no sense and invalidates your extension.
Personally, I don't think either necessarily makes anyone a slave. They can, but they don't always nor do they necessarily have to.
A regulation agreed upon by all who must follow it would not be slavery. Obviously there are many consumers in this country who have little use for your trucking regulations.
???
But that extension makes no sense. I am forced to follow the regulations of others. And I am forced to do so often at the cost of my own freedom and my own purposes. Absent those regulations, my freedom would not be charged. On the other hand, you're suggesting that you are forced to use money because without money you'd have no food and shelter. Based on the extension you're making from my statements, it implies that if money were not a necessity, you'd somehow magically have food or shelter. This makes no sense and invalidates your extension.
Again, you're asking me to argue for something I don't believe is possible. But, if it's that difficult for you, substitute the word money with exchange. No society has ever existed without some form of exchange. Nor has a society existed that didn't have some form of social construct akin to regulation.
A regulation agreed upon by all who must follow it would not be slavery. Obviously there are many consumers in this country who have little use for your trucking regulations.
How many times are you going to throw this argument at me until you actually think about it?
You're implying here that there is a causal link between geography and consent. Can you at least try explaining that causal link, rather than saying "put out or get out"?
Again, you're asking me to argue for something I don't believe is possible. But, if it's that difficult for you, substitute the word money with exchange. No society has ever existed without some form of exchange. Nor has a society existed that didn't have some form of social construct akin to regulation.
Excellent. No society, or any society worth noting, has existed without exchange. Now, how are exchange and slavery related? I'll repost your earlier statement here.
"In the society we live in, [exchange] is a necessity. Not a luxury, not some sort of game piece to be played with, but a necessity. All able bodied individuals "forced" to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."
How many times are you going to throw this argument at me until you actually think about it?
You're implying here that there is a causal link between geography and consent. Can you at least try explaining that causal link, rather than saying "put out or get out"?
You live here. The regulations are for here. No one is forcing you to live here. Therefore, you consent. You also have the right to change those regulations if you don't like them. Unfortunately, you need a lot of people to agree with you.
You live here. No one is forcing you to live here. I have a gun. I'm going to shoot you. Therefore, you consent. Does that make sense to you? Does your mere existence give me consent to do whatever I wish to you?
Consent implies will and purpose. I cannot consent to something that is against my will and stands opposed to my purposes. Without the latter, the definition of the former is destroyed. Your logic is self-defeating and no different than the person who says "standing disproves gravity" -- without gravity, standing is a null concept. Similarly, without me stating that a direction is consistent with my will and purpose, consent becomes a null concept.
You also have the right to change those regulations if you don't like them. Unfortunately, you need a lot of people to agree with you.
Excellent. No society, or any society worth noting, has existed without exchange. Now, how are exchange and slavery related? I'll repost your earlier statement here.
"In the society we live in, [exchange] is a necessity. Not a luxury, not some sort of game piece to be played with, but a necessity. All able bodied individuals "forced" to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."
You are forced to exchange something to survive - therefore slavery. I don't agree with the definition, but it fits by your standards.
Now, explain to me how a society can exist without social constructs?
You live here. No one is forcing you to live here. I have a gun. I'm going to shoot you. Therefore, you consent. Does that make sense to you? Does your mere existence give me consent to do whatever I wish to you?
No. We have regulations (in this sense, laws) to keep you from doing just that. If you do anyway, you are punished; provided you are caught.
Consent implies will and purpose. I cannot consent to something that is against my will and stands opposed to my purposes. Without the latter, the definition of the former is destroyed. Your logic is self-defeating and no different than the person who says "standing disproves gravity" -- without gravity, standing is a null concept. Similarly, without me stating that a direction is consistent with my will and purpose, consent becomes a null concept.
While all this rigamoral might define consent to you, "consent" itself can simply mean compliance.
No. We have regulations (in this sense, laws) to keep you from doing just that. If you do anyway, you are punished; provided you are caught.
What happens to me isn't my question. My question is whether or not you consent to me shooting you?
While all this rigamoral might define consent to you, "consent" itself can simply mean compliance.
Sweet fancy moses....
First, consent does not "simply mean compliance". Compliance simply means compliance.
Second, compliance is not immune from the same standards I detailed above. You cannot have compliance without agreement. You cannot have agreement without will.
In other words, you cannot replace my brain with your weapon.
hehehe, no. You don't have the right to singularly change society to fit your wills and purposes.
Ok.
A moose once bit my sister.
Awesome. Maybe you could use angry moose to get you that "power".
First, consent does not "simply mean compliance". Compliance simply means compliance.
Second, compliance is not immune from the same standards I detailed above. You cannot have compliance without agreement. You cannot have agreement without will.
In other words, you cannot replace my brain with your weapon.
Awesome. Maybe you could use angry moose to get you that "power".
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".
I didn't claim someone is shooting me. I'm telling you that I'm about to shoot you. And I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent?
"Can," far. Consent "can" simply mean compliance.
Hehe...either way, you're using words in a manner that destroys their meaning. You've taken consent, and then you took compliance, and you stripped both of individual will. It's like suggesting that "exchange" could mean "slavery". Exchange could mean slavery if you took away the functions of each party to evaluate the deal on their own terms, relative to their own purposes. However, that completely invalidates the concept of exchange to begin with.
"Let thy words be keen heeders of truth, for truth is no heeder of words." -David King
I didn't claim someone is shooting me. I'm telling you that I'm about to shoot you. And I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent?
Typical Bond villian. You're never, never supposed to tell the hero what you're about to do.
Hehe...either way, you're using words in a manner that destroys their meaning. You've taken consent, and then you took compliance, and you stripped both of individual will. It's like suggesting that "exchange" could mean "slavery". Exchange could mean slavery if you took away the functions of each party to evaluate the deal on their own terms, relative to their own purposes. However, that completely invalidates the concept of exchange to begin with.
"Let thy words be keen heeders of truth, for truth is no heeder of words." -David King
Neither do taxes equal theft, or regulations a firing squad.
Typical Bond villian. You're never, never supposed to tell the hero what you're about to do.
This doesn't answer my question.
I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent to be shot?
Neither do taxes equal theft
Theft is the taking of property by force and/or coersion. Taxes are the taking of property by force and coersion. The only difference is that taxes are taken by the state, whereas theft is done by people or corporations.
regulations a firing squad.
Regulations are not the same as firing squads. Regulations often require things that resemble firing squads or, in some places, are firing squads.
Theft is the taking of property by force and/or coersion. Taxes are the taking of property by force and coersion. The only difference is that taxes are taken by the state, whereas theft is done by people or corporations.
See, now I prefer to think of taxes as a form of rent.
And I figured by now you'd realize that I'm not going to answer your question.
I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent to be shot?
See, now I prefer to think of taxes as a form of rent.
Where's your lease? Who's your landlord? What are you renting from him?
So there isn't someone sitting in every trucker's passanger seat pointing a gun at them and forcing them to comply to regulations?
No. There is someone sitting in an office in Washington pointing a gun at them. And in the event those regulations are broken despite their coersion, those guns will be used. It remains as the primary foundation of your legal system.
Comments
if Pearl Jam didnt have a road crew, drivers, management, manufacturers, etc. then they would have no career or business. so they have been built on the back of american labor. that doesnt mean they are exploiting people? but i would guess that after all is said and done they wont be outsourcing their "roadies" to find someone cheaper. they will be loyal to what made them what they are. and that is why they are loyal to their fans. just the fact that they have $50 tix tells me that.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I demand - through force and violence - that Pearl Jam play here. It's enough to just say it, right?
"In the society we live in, money is a necessity."
I'm asking you if money weren't a necessity, how we'd be less enslaved?
It's not about John or Jose "getting" a job, they have jobs. It's about fair competition of "keeping" their jobs. Under this proposed pilot program, there's little if any oversight for the influx of these long haul carriers or drivers within the U.S. borders that the government is willing to outline specifically. What is the carrier's responsibility to the public, especially for contact information in the case of an emergency or spill that presents a danger to the public. Is the carrier considered a foreign entity not subjected to the U.S. civil judicial system or only the driver as an individual? Will drivers under this pilot program be subject to the same rules, regulations and requirements placed on other long haul drivers by state and federal regs. or are they exempt to only federal laws or laws specific to NAFTA?
No, everyone's job can not be protected under trade deals, but here is a "backbone" industry of america what's the rush? So much has been not "clearly" addressed by DOT to the American Trucking Industry and all they're seeking are the rules on the playing field.
As far as technologies goes. High speed internet is good, but a couple of high speed train systems would be better. Right now the only thing reducing highway congestion is the price of gas.
So before this program, were American drivers/companies the ones making the runs from the U.S. to the plants in Mexico?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You didn't. I'm asking you if money were not a necessity, how we'd be less enslaved?
No, I didn't. You said this:
"In the society we live in, money is a necessity. All able bodied individuals 'forced' to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."
The above implies that if money were not a necessity, no would would be forced to work. Since you've already correctly identified "food and shelter" as the real reason you are "forced" to work, I'm wondering why you're blaming money as the root of our slave status.
I'm not. I'm pointing out that money, like regulations, are a necessity. Since you have to follow regulations, you consider yourself a slave. I'm just extending the same consideration to money. Personally, I don't think either necessarily makes anyone a slave. They can, but they don't always nor do they necessarily have to.
???
Many societies have existed and exist today without money.
Neither are "a necessity". Just because they exist, or are widely used, doesn't make them necessary.
But that extension makes no sense. I am forced to follow the regulations of others. And I am forced to do so often at the cost of my own freedom and my own purposes. Absent those regulations, my freedom would not be charged.
On the other hand, you're suggesting that you are forced to use money because without money you'd have no food and shelter. Based on the extension you're making from my statements, it implies that if money were not a part of the equation, you'd somehow magically have food or shelter. This makes no sense and invalidates your extension.
A regulation agreed upon by all who must follow it would not be slavery. Obviously there are many consumers in this country who have little use for your trucking regulations.
I hear Dubai is nice this time of year.
How many times are you going to throw this argument at me until you actually think about it?
You're implying here that there is a causal link between geography and consent. Can you at least try explaining that causal link, rather than saying "put out or get out"?
Then why don't you take your regulations there?
Excellent. No society, or any society worth noting, has existed without exchange. Now, how are exchange and slavery related? I'll repost your earlier statement here.
"In the society we live in, [exchange] is a necessity. Not a luxury, not some sort of game piece to be played with, but a necessity. All able bodied individuals "forced" to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."
I'm all for it. If I ever have the power, I will.
Correct.
Correct.
Correct.
Huh? How about this?
You live here. No one is forcing you to live here. I have a gun. I'm going to shoot you. Therefore, you consent. Does that make sense to you? Does your mere existence give me consent to do whatever I wish to you?
Consent implies will and purpose. I cannot consent to something that is against my will and stands opposed to my purposes. Without the latter, the definition of the former is destroyed. Your logic is self-defeating and no different than the person who says "standing disproves gravity" -- without gravity, standing is a null concept. Similarly, without me stating that a direction is consistent with my will and purpose, consent becomes a null concept.
Hehe...so in other words I don't have that right?
http://thegunsource.com/
Now, explain to me how a society can exist without social constructs?
What is forcing you?
No, it doesn't.
It can't. But "social construct" doesn't have to mean violent gang of thugs.
While all this rigamoral might define consent to you, "consent" itself can simply mean compliance.
hehehe, no. You don't have the right to singularly change society to fit your wills and purposes.
A møøse once bit my sister.
Oh yeah. Well. Yes it does.
Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
What happens to me isn't my question. My question is whether or not you consent to me shooting you?
Sweet fancy moses....
First, consent does not "simply mean compliance". Compliance simply means compliance.
Second, compliance is not immune from the same standards I detailed above. You cannot have compliance without agreement. You cannot have agreement without will.
In other words, you cannot replace my brain with your weapon.
Ok.
Awesome. Maybe you could use angry moose to get you that "power".
What biology?
It doesn't. You don't have to trust me. You'll see why from your own answer above.
"Can," far. Consent "can" simply mean compliance.
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".
I didn't claim someone is shooting me. I'm telling you that I'm about to shoot you. And I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent?
Hehe...either way, you're using words in a manner that destroys their meaning. You've taken consent, and then you took compliance, and you stripped both of individual will. It's like suggesting that "exchange" could mean "slavery". Exchange could mean slavery if you took away the functions of each party to evaluate the deal on their own terms, relative to their own purposes. However, that completely invalidates the concept of exchange to begin with.
"Let thy words be keen heeders of truth, for truth is no heeder of words." -David King
Neither do taxes equal theft, or regulations a firing squad.
This doesn't answer my question.
I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent to be shot?
Theft is the taking of property by force and/or coersion. Taxes are the taking of property by force and coersion. The only difference is that taxes are taken by the state, whereas theft is done by people or corporations.
Regulations are not the same as firing squads. Regulations often require things that resemble firing squads or, in some places, are firing squads.
See, now I prefer to think of taxes as a form of rent.
So there isn't someone sitting in every trucker's passanger seat pointing a gun at them and forcing them to comply to regulations?
I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent to be shot?
Where's your lease? Who's your landlord? What are you renting from him?
No. There is someone sitting in an office in Washington pointing a gun at them. And in the event those regulations are broken despite their coersion, those guns will be used. It remains as the primary foundation of your legal system.