Some middle men, then. Plus, the burden would fall on all taxpayers and not just the company.
"All taxpayers" is now just 56% of this country. And the vast majority of that burden would fall on just a few percent. Yet I'm sure the benefits would be equal for 100%.
It's likely overall costs for everyone would go down.
Certainly it's not always "feasible". And no, I don't support laws against monopolies, particularly when they're enforced by an actual monopoly known as government.
One thing I don't quite have a handle on from reading your posts ... who do you think "the government" is in a representative system? You make it sound as though they're some outside entity that has no more to do with you or I than the board of directors at General Motors (assuming you don't have voting rights at General Motors, of course).
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I wonder, should a person be fired if they drink alcohol, which has health risks, or if they get a speeding ticket, again, bad juju...
what about a worker who is diagnosed with a life-threating illness...? why not cut that employee loose...? they're costing the company money...right..?
I bet hilter would have loved the "weed out the weak and unhealthly" mentality...
And now, with genetic testing, it is easy to determine if you are more likely to get breast cancer, heart disease, etc. Should those who are more likely to get sick be excluded from employment?
One thing I don't quite have a handle on from reading your posts ... who do you think "the government" is in a representative system?
A collection of armed representatives who have no inherent obligation to actually represent anyone but themselves.
You make it sound as though they're some outside entity that has no more to do with you or I than the board of directors at General Motors (assuming you don't have voting rights at General Motors, of course).
They are an outside entity with no connection to you or I. As a matter of fact, the board of directors at General Motors has more accountability to me than a political respresentative. I may, in part, withhold the salary or reject the methods of said director legally. I cannot do that with a political representative. Furthermore, my dealings with said director are two-way arrangements based on contracts whereas my dealings with said representative are one-way arrangements based on force.
The director of GM has nothing to offer me, since I have no interest in his products. Therefore, I choose to have no dealings with him. The president of the United States also has nothing to offer me, since I have no interest in his schemes. However, I have no legal right to not have dealings with him.
EDIT: One more thing in the context of my statement that you quoted: If I do not agree with the way the director of GM does things, I am free to become a competitor to GM by forming my own institution. However, the same again does not hold true with the "representatives" you speak of -- my only competitive route is to participate in the same institution.
Would you pay more in taxes so that schools would improve, and as a result, less kids would turn to crime, and thus, you are safer in your city?
I wonder if people ever consider that when forming their opinions?
Consider what? Allowing the government to steal half my income in order to "protect" me from theft? Yeah, I've considered that. I'd rather be mugged once a month. It would be cheaper.
However, the same again does not hold true with the "representatives" you speak of -- my only competitive route is to participate in the same institution.
With the completely legal option of changing said institution to suit your needs once you're in - provided you can convince enough people to join you - and your constituents will allow it.
Consider what? Allowing the government to steal half my income in order to "protect" me from theft? Yeah, I've considered that. I'd rather be mugged once a month. It would be cheaper.
Would you rather get invaded by a foreign country or pay for our military?
With the completely legal option of changing said institution to suit your needs once you're in - provided you can convince enough people to join you - and your constituents will allow it.
No. I cannot change said institution to suit my needs because, as you say, the institution reqiures me to convince others, which is the opposite of my needs.
No. I cannot change said institution to suit my needs because, as you say, the institution reqiures me to convince others, which is the opposite of my needs.
So you have a problem with democracy? I see. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society whose rights are solely decided on the amount of money I have. It's close enough to that already.
Not at all. I have a problem with that which pretends to be democracy.
I see. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society whose rights are solely decided on the amount of money I have. It's close enough to that already.
Well, which is it? Are we a democracy or are we a society whose rights are solely decided on the amount of money we have?
touche', but we pay a lot to protect our "freeedom" at a rate many times more then what we pay to improve social conditions.
Not really, no. We spend around $400B per year on a military. We spend trillions as a nation on schools, social security, etc. But I'm not really pleased with either.
Not at all. I have a problem with that which pretends to be democracy.
A democracy isn't a situation where farfromglorified gets to solely decide the rights, duties, and place in society for everyone. You pretend that's not what you're saying, but if you don't believe in convincing people to go along with your plans, that is what you're saying. And you may think that someone else is solely deciding your rights - but that's not what's happening either. We've all got a say on some level - even those who disagree with the President (like myself) and even those who think the greatest problem in the world right now is the amount of money they are "allowed" to keep.
Not really, no. We spend around $400B per year on a military. We spend trillions as a nation on schools, social security, etc. But I'm not really pleased with either.
A democracy isn't a situation where farfromglorified gets to solely decide the rights, duties, and place in society for everyone.
You're entirely right. Democracy is a situation where farfromglorified gets to soley decide the duties and place in society for himself, not everyone. Democracy is also a situation wherein my rights extend from my existence, not from an edict.
You pretend that's not what you're saying, but if you don't believe in convincing people to go along with your plans, that is what you're saying.
My plans don't necessarily involve other people -- that's what you're missing.
And you may think that someone else is solely deciding your rights - but that's not what's happening either. We've all got a say on some level - even those who disagree with the President (like myself) and even those who think the greatest problem in the world right now is the amount of money they are "allowed" to keep.
I don't think that someone else is solely deciding my rights. I think your democracy has rendered the term "rights" meaningless.
I implied that we're a little of both - but that money thing is becoming more and more of a problem.
Yes it is, in large part because we've put a for sale sign on our rights. We've decided to barter our own rights for immediate benefit. And that means we've gotten much less than we bargained for.
If by "cut" you mean completely eliminate, and I have no choice for both, I'd eliminate the military.
I think we need to make the accounts payable department more efficient......that would free-up funds for their intended use, as opposed to using them to administer the funds.
You're entirely right. Democracy is a situation where farfromglorified gets to soley decide the duties and place in society for himself, not everyone. Democracy is also a situation wherein my rights extend from my existence, not from an edict.
Actually, a democracy is simply a situation where people vote on things and is not a guarantee of any rights. That's why we have a constitutional government. One where we all get to decide what our rights are.
My plans don't necessarily involve other people -- that's what you're missing.
But you're plans do involve slicing up the government into what you want it to be. You simply can't do that without convincing other people you're right.
Yes it is, in large part because we've put a for sale sign on our rights. We've decided to barter our own rights for immediate benefit. And that means we've gotten much less than we bargained for.
I'm not going to argue with you there. However, I'm not quite ready to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do believe we can improve - and I don't think it will take an overthrow of our government.
Yes, but if they are sky-diving for their own enjoyment - they can be fired if it violates their contract. The same would apply to your job, if you knew ahead of time that sky-diving would get you fired.
I'm not talking about extreme sports.. I'm talking about running on a treadmill, lifting weights, riding a bicycle. All of those things are potentially harmful to my health and subject my body to possible injury and higher medical costs.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Actually, a democracy is simply a situation where people vote on things and is not a guarantee of any rights. That's why we have a constitutional government. One where we all get to decide what our rights are.
Democracy requires the right of self-sovereignty, so it is a guarantee of that right.
But you're plans do involve slicing up the government into what you want it to be. You simply can't do that without convincing other people you're right.
No they don't. My plans simply involve slicing myself from your government. You and anyone else are free to do what you'd like.
I'll have to disagree with you there. As bad as this country's been in the past, we are getting better in the rights department (slowly but surely).
No. Some of you are doing better in the "rights" department, meaning that you've traded your objective rights for subjective gifts. In effect, you've robbed the bank and you're now trying to convince people that bank robbery is bad. That won't hold up for long.
I'm not going to argue with you there. However, I'm not quite ready to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do believe we can improve - and I don't think it will take an overthrow of our government.
I think many people make the mistake of thinking that heathcare is a citizen's right in America. For now, it isn't. Therefore, companies can fire someone who doesn't meet their standards for healthcare. It's that simple. Companies can't fire you for having a gun in your home because that IS a right. Healthcare is not.
I think the real issue to talk about is whether healthcare should be a right such as free speech or gun ownership. That's a much more interesting issue than this one smoker case.
Why not just fucking go ahead and make it illegal? People aren't allowed to do it in their own homes. Companies are drug testing employees for nicotine. It's banned from all public spaces. Why not just take the final step and make it illegal? What the fuck are they waiting for? Smokers are already treated and held in the same regard as criminals anyway.
Why not just fucking go ahead and make it illegal? People aren't allowed to do it in their own homes. Companies are drug testing employees for nicotine. It's banned from all public spaces. Why not just take the final step and make it illegal? What the fuck are they waiting for? Smokers are already treated and held in the same regard as criminals anyway.
It's sad that this guy will win his lawsuit. This company should have every right to fire him for smoking, regardless of whether or not it was done on company time.
The soviet union collapsed years ago!! Maybe you could get it goin again??
And if the third is also owned by the same outfit - or perhaps just another large one that functions the same way? Go to a fourth? Fifth? What if it doesn't exist?
this is precisely the problem. unrestrained capitalism was attempted in the 1920s. i think we all remember how that went. a very few people will amass unlimited power. you get monopolies and then you have NO choice. i am amazed that ffg does not see this policy. i am also a bit shocked that corporations enjoy the same status and deference that human beings do in these people. it makes me truly sad that some people are so cold-hearted that they see people as nothing more than a means to an end and that their freedom should be of less importance than profits. esp when that kind of deference to corporate power will lead to an even more appalling lack of freedom than a modicum of restrictions on business conduct ever could.
Comments
"All taxpayers" is now just 56% of this country. And the vast majority of that burden would fall on just a few percent. Yet I'm sure the benefits would be equal for 100%.
And the benefits too.
And now, with genetic testing, it is easy to determine if you are more likely to get breast cancer, heart disease, etc. Should those who are more likely to get sick be excluded from employment?
"Should those with needs get extra help from the wallets of others, or should everyone just fend for themesleves?"
Those with the wallets should be free to help those with the needs - not compelled to at gunpoint.
A collection of armed representatives who have no inherent obligation to actually represent anyone but themselves.
They are an outside entity with no connection to you or I. As a matter of fact, the board of directors at General Motors has more accountability to me than a political respresentative. I may, in part, withhold the salary or reject the methods of said director legally. I cannot do that with a political representative. Furthermore, my dealings with said director are two-way arrangements based on contracts whereas my dealings with said representative are one-way arrangements based on force.
The director of GM has nothing to offer me, since I have no interest in his products. Therefore, I choose to have no dealings with him. The president of the United States also has nothing to offer me, since I have no interest in his schemes. However, I have no legal right to not have dealings with him.
EDIT: One more thing in the context of my statement that you quoted: If I do not agree with the way the director of GM does things, I am free to become a competitor to GM by forming my own institution. However, the same again does not hold true with the "representatives" you speak of -- my only competitive route is to participate in the same institution.
Here is a question:
Would you pay more in taxes so that schools would improve, and as a result, less kids would turn to crime, and thus, you are safer in your city?
I wonder if people ever consider that when forming their opinions?
Consider what? Allowing the government to steal half my income in order to "protect" me from theft? Yeah, I've considered that. I'd rather be mugged once a month. It would be cheaper.
Would you rather get invaded by a foreign country or pay for our military?
No. I cannot change said institution to suit my needs because, as you say, the institution reqiures me to convince others, which is the opposite of my needs.
Last time I checked I got both.
touche', but we pay a lot to protect our "freeedom" at a rate many times more then what we pay to improve social conditions.
Not at all. I have a problem with that which pretends to be democracy.
Well, which is it? Are we a democracy or are we a society whose rights are solely decided on the amount of money we have?
Not really, no. We spend around $400B per year on a military. We spend trillions as a nation on schools, social security, etc. But I'm not really pleased with either.
I implied that we're a little of both - but that money thing is becoming more and more of a problem.
would you rather cut military or schools?
You're entirely right. Democracy is a situation where farfromglorified gets to soley decide the duties and place in society for himself, not everyone. Democracy is also a situation wherein my rights extend from my existence, not from an edict.
My plans don't necessarily involve other people -- that's what you're missing.
I don't think that someone else is solely deciding my rights. I think your democracy has rendered the term "rights" meaningless.
Yes it is, in large part because we've put a for sale sign on our rights. We've decided to barter our own rights for immediate benefit. And that means we've gotten much less than we bargained for.
If by "cut" you mean completely eliminate, and I have no choice for both, I'd eliminate the military.
I think we need to make the accounts payable department more efficient......that would free-up funds for their intended use, as opposed to using them to administer the funds.
But you're plans do involve slicing up the government into what you want it to be. You simply can't do that without convincing other people you're right.
I'll have to disagree with you there. As bad as this country's been in the past, we are getting better in the rights department (slowly but surely).
I'm not going to argue with you there. However, I'm not quite ready to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do believe we can improve - and I don't think it will take an overthrow of our government.
I'm not talking about extreme sports.. I'm talking about running on a treadmill, lifting weights, riding a bicycle. All of those things are potentially harmful to my health and subject my body to possible injury and higher medical costs.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Democracy requires the right of self-sovereignty, so it is a guarantee of that right.
No they don't. My plans simply involve slicing myself from your government. You and anyone else are free to do what you'd like.
No. Some of you are doing better in the "rights" department, meaning that you've traded your objective rights for subjective gifts. In effect, you've robbed the bank and you're now trying to convince people that bank robbery is bad. That won't hold up for long.
Fair enough.
I think the real issue to talk about is whether healthcare should be a right such as free speech or gun ownership. That's a much more interesting issue than this one smoker case.
the tabacky lobby is too powerful.
many people own stock in the companies.
it would effect more then you know!
The soviet union collapsed years ago!! Maybe you could get it goin again??
this is precisely the problem. unrestrained capitalism was attempted in the 1920s. i think we all remember how that went. a very few people will amass unlimited power. you get monopolies and then you have NO choice. i am amazed that ffg does not see this policy. i am also a bit shocked that corporations enjoy the same status and deference that human beings do in these people. it makes me truly sad that some people are so cold-hearted that they see people as nothing more than a means to an end and that their freedom should be of less importance than profits. esp when that kind of deference to corporate power will lead to an even more appalling lack of freedom than a modicum of restrictions on business conduct ever could.