Just get it over with and make it illegal.

farfromglorified

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

would you rather cut military or schools?

If by "cut" you mean completely eliminate, and I have no choice for both, I'd eliminate the military.

JOEJOEJOE

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't think that someone else is solely deciding my rights. I think your democracy has rendered the term "rights" meaningless.

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).

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

chromiam

1970RR wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

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.

Fair enough.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

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.

Vedderlution_Baby

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.

JOEJOEJOE

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

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.

the tabacky lobby is too powerful.

many people own stock in the companies.

it would effect more then you know!

binauralsounds

farfromglorified wrote:

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??

soulsinging

RainDog wrote:

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.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

That's unlikely. But if that was case, there would certainly be a market of those who wished for something "small and local".



Then start a sixth.



I never said the free market was magic. The beauty of it is that it's not magic. It operates on very tangible and real principles.



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.

how do you start a 6th with no capital? given that you seem so terrified and opposed to a monolithic government, how can you possibly support a monopolistic corporate america, run by one giant company that controls the entire supply of goods to all of america? such a company would be far, far worse than government becos it is not even composed of elected or answerable officials. it would lead to a violent revolution like we saw in russia.

but, given your slavish devotion to anything ayn rand ever wrote, you probably like that thought. a violent revolution would give you the anarchy you so badly desire perhaps.