"Rights come and go", right? So who's to say what's a right and what's not? I mean, your thirteenth amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. Interestingly, each employee here voluntarily worked these hours. They chose to do so. However, the fines you're extracting are potentially involuntary. So who's the slavedriver here?
*We* say what a right is through our elected representatives who pass laws and who can amend the Constitution. And part of the price that I pay for living in a society based on law is that I have to obey some laws -- many of which I don't like. But I get so many benefits from living here, that I take the good with the bad. And I try to change the things I don't like.
If you want "free choice," you have to live alone, off the grid. "Man is free and everywhere in chains." And government is the least of your problems.
But you know all this. You're just evading others' arguments with intellectually dishonest comments because you're learning to play in the Objectivist Sandbox. But don't stay too long -- it gets lonely in there.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Your reasoning is flawed. Using that logic, I could ask this question:
"What incentive would any business ever have to hire employees? Zero."
The purpose of the law is to prevent the violation of rights for any individual, regardless of stength. Not a single non-invented right is violated in this case.
businesses have strong incentive to hire employees, they need them to run the business. but the government has set up laws to proect those employees. you may disagree with the laws, but that does not mean you can ignore them. invented or not, they are the law and you do not get to pick and choose which you obey.
businesses have strong incentive to hire employees, they need them to run the business. but the government has set up laws to proect those employees. you may disagree with the laws, but that does not mean you can ignore them. invented or not, they are the law and you do not get to pick and choose which you obey.
Unless you are a Kennedy.
And employers are held to a much higher standard then employees...that is certain.
businesses have strong incentive to hire employees, they need them to run the business. but the government has set up laws to proect those employees. you may disagree with the laws, but that does not mean you can ignore them. invented or not, they are the law and you do not get to pick and choose which you obey.
*We* say what a right is through our elected representatives who pass laws and who can amend the Constitution. And part of the price that I pay for living in a society based on law is that I have to obey some laws -- many of which I don't like. But I get so many benefits from living here, that I take the good with the bad. And I try to change the things I don't like.
Ok. Do you understand that your "*We*" is not just you and WalMart employees?
If you want "free choice," you have to live alone, off the grid. "Man is free and everywhere in chains." And government is the least of your problems
I have much free choice in my life right now, sometimes despite the actions of government and sometimes supported by the government.
A government that grants a WalMart employee a difference set of "rights" than a WalMart manager is a corrupt, unprincipled government. And considering the amount of money spent by our government on guns and bullets each year.....that would not be the least of my problems.
But you know all this. You're just evading others' arguments with intellectually dishonest comments because you're learning to play in the Objectivist Sandbox. But don't stay too long -- it gets lonely in there.
businesses have strong incentive to hire employees, they need them to run the business.
They do need them to run the business. Now can you explain why you just said that WalMart employees are "powerless"?
but the government has set up laws to proect those employees. you may disagree with the laws, but that does not mean you can ignore them. invented or not, they are the law and you do not get to pick and choose which you obey.
I'm not suggesting that WalMart should be able to pick and choose which laws they obey.
if that was supposed to be a personal shot, well done.
yeah, i broke a few of them. but i served my time and i didnt bitch about getting caught. i knew it was wrong and i understood that if caught there would be consequences. so did walmart.
They do need them to run the business. Now can you explain why you just said that WalMart employees are "powerless"?
I'm not suggesting that WalMart should be able to pick and choose which laws they obey.
becos walmart employees are a dime a dozen. the supply vastly exceeds the demand. you may be un unrestrained capitalist, but welcome to america. there are limits and protections for those in a weaker bargaining position and the majority of america does not feel it is right for those with power and money to abuse the less fortunate just becos they can. thus, these laws were passed, and walmart violated them and deserves to pay for it. you can tell me you think the laws are wrong, but you cannot tell me the result in this particular case is.
yes, employers are held to higher standards, becos in many cases they can bear the burden more easily than an employee. it is more cost effective and efficient to place the burden of a safe workplace on walmart than on its employee. for instance, walmart can easily afford $50 to put a handrail on the steps at the loading dock. its employee cannot easily afford a $10,000 medical bill when he slips and cracks his skull trying to carry a 200 pound package up the steps alone becos walmart is too cheap to provide a railing or another worker or a dolly and ramp. you may disagree and think those on top should be able to do whatever they damn well please without consequence, and that is your right. the rest of the country disagrees, and sadly for you, that means we play by the rest of the country's rules.
I'm interested to how some of you would react if the tables were turned. What if Wal-Mart was suing employees who did not do their jobs or slacked off in order to get their money back?
If, if, if. Except that in this case, Wal-Marts employees didn't break the law. Wal-Mart did. And now they have to suffer the consequences. Your hypothetical situation hasn't happened yet. And until it does, I'm not going to debate it
Comments
If you want "free choice," you have to live alone, off the grid. "Man is free and everywhere in chains." And government is the least of your problems.
But you know all this. You're just evading others' arguments with intellectually dishonest comments because you're learning to play in the Objectivist Sandbox. But don't stay too long -- it gets lonely in there.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
that's what happens when you file as a class...
from my window to yours
businesses have strong incentive to hire employees, they need them to run the business. but the government has set up laws to proect those employees. you may disagree with the laws, but that does not mean you can ignore them. invented or not, they are the law and you do not get to pick and choose which you obey.
oh, you support it huh...well, mass-firings are in order
from my window to yours
Unless you are a Kennedy.
And employers are held to a much higher standard then employees...that is certain.
there are also drug and DUI laws...
from my window to yours
Ok. Do you understand that your "*We*" is not just you and WalMart employees?
I have much free choice in my life right now, sometimes despite the actions of government and sometimes supported by the government.
A government that grants a WalMart employee a difference set of "rights" than a WalMart manager is a corrupt, unprincipled government. And considering the amount of money spent by our government on guns and bullets each year.....that would not be the least of my problems.
What argument am I evading?
They do need them to run the business. Now can you explain why you just said that WalMart employees are "powerless"?
I'm not suggesting that WalMart should be able to pick and choose which laws they obey.
if that was supposed to be a personal shot, well done.
yeah, i broke a few of them. but i served my time and i didnt bitch about getting caught. i knew it was wrong and i understood that if caught there would be consequences. so did walmart.
becos walmart employees are a dime a dozen. the supply vastly exceeds the demand. you may be un unrestrained capitalist, but welcome to america. there are limits and protections for those in a weaker bargaining position and the majority of america does not feel it is right for those with power and money to abuse the less fortunate just becos they can. thus, these laws were passed, and walmart violated them and deserves to pay for it. you can tell me you think the laws are wrong, but you cannot tell me the result in this particular case is.
yes, employers are held to higher standards, becos in many cases they can bear the burden more easily than an employee. it is more cost effective and efficient to place the burden of a safe workplace on walmart than on its employee. for instance, walmart can easily afford $50 to put a handrail on the steps at the loading dock. its employee cannot easily afford a $10,000 medical bill when he slips and cracks his skull trying to carry a 200 pound package up the steps alone becos walmart is too cheap to provide a railing or another worker or a dolly and ramp. you may disagree and think those on top should be able to do whatever they damn well please without consequence, and that is your right. the rest of the country disagrees, and sadly for you, that means we play by the rest of the country's rules.
If, if, if. Except that in this case, Wal-Marts employees didn't break the law. Wal-Mart did. And now they have to suffer the consequences. Your hypothetical situation hasn't happened yet. And until it does, I'm not going to debate it