 Author
|
Topic: Reagan voted 'greatest American' (Read 14627 times)
|
|
Green
|
Why do you have a right to be on this forum, a natural right, that is?
He doesn't. That's the point. The owner of the forum is gracious enough to allow it. Tracy No. The owner is gracious enough not to forbid him. The owner could block him, or if the owner doesn't care about the forum just let it go offline, then everyone would be off. But libetyworker being on this forum is his own choice, not because of the grace of the moderator. The act of excluding libertyworker is a conciouss effort on the part of the authority in this case, just as is the issuing of a corporate charter by the government. Now I will restate my question. Please answer it this time- WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT MENTION CORPORATIONS? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 11, 2005, 11:55:54 pm by Green »
|
Logged
|
"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." -Mikhail Bakunin
|
|
|
|
Roycerson
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 12, 2005, 01:25:50 am by Roycerson »
|
Logged
|
He who is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom....Anton LaVey
|
|
|
|
Old Nick
|
No. The owner is gracious enough not to forbid him. The owner could block him, or if the owner doesn't care about the forum just let it go offline, then everyone would be off.
But libetyworker being on this forum is his own choice, not because of the grace of the moderator. The act of excluding libertyworker is a conciouss effort on the part of the authority in this case, just as is the issuing of a corporate charter by the government.
Now I will restate my question. Please answer it this time-
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT MENTION CORPORATIONS? Let me guess: you think the administrator of this forum is/are [an] evil, despicable fascist because they HONESTLY THINK that they have property rights to control this forum as they see fit. Am I on the mark? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
-- George W. Bush to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, July 2003
|
|
|
|
Green
|
No. The owner is gracious enough not to forbid him. The owner could block him, or if the owner doesn't care about the forum just let it go offline, then everyone would be off.
But libetyworker being on this forum is his own choice, not because of the grace of the moderator. The act of excluding libertyworker is a conciouss effort on the part of the authority in this case, just as is the issuing of a corporate charter by the government.
Now I will restate my question. Please answer it this time-
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT MENTION CORPORATIONS? Let me guess: you think the administrator of this forum is/are [an] evil, despicable fascist because they HONESTLY THINK that they have property rights to control this forum as they see fit. Am I on the mark?
No, I do not, because they do not engage in arbitrary blocking of individuals with dissenting views, to the best of my knowlege. The moderators at politicscafe.com, on the other hand, are Fascists. But that forum is dominated by neo-cons anyways, so its to be expected. I've also heard complaints about FreeRepublic being fascist from some people on this forum, again, because it is dominated by neo-cons. My point was that the moderator doesn't have to go out of his way to let any specific individual on the forum. He has to go out of his way to block them, which makes Tracy's point moot. Now again, I will ask- WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT EVER MENTION CORPORATIONS. Several here have complained about the air traffic jobs being unconstitutional, thus creating a rationale to deny them basic workers rights. Yet most of the jobs we hold through corporations are also unconstitutional by this logic, so that means we should deny ALL workers union organizing rights. The air traffic controlers were just looking after themselves and their family when they took that job. I am absolutely appalled at how many on this forum have taken to defending or praising Reagan for breaking their union. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." -Mikhail Bakunin
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT EVER MENTION CORPORATIONS. It doesn't have to. The Constitution is a corporate charter. Several here have complained about the air traffic jobs being unconstitutional, thus creating a rationale to deny them basic workers rights. Yet most of the jobs we hold through corporations are also unconstitutional by this logic, so that means we should deny ALL workers union organizing rights. There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley... The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
libertyworker
|
Why do you have a right to be on this forum, a natural right, that is?
He doesn't. That's the point. The owner of the forum is gracious enough to allow it. Tracy No. The owner is gracious enough not to forbid him. The owner could block him, or if the owner doesn't care about the forum just let it go offline, then everyone would be off. But libetyworker being on this forum is his own choice, not because of the grace of the moderator. The act of excluding libertyworker is a conciouss effort on the part of the authority in this case, just as is the issuing of a corporate charter by the government. Now I will restate my question. Please answer it this time- WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT MENTION CORPORATIONS? LOL, Ok, what did I do this time that was wrong, I'm always the last to find out? I thought maybe after the past few go arounds I would be excluded from the TNLP board but I thought I still had grace with this board. No serious I really am going to stop using cuss words on this board, asSean Gabb says on the libertarian alliance board minors might be present and I know many good Christian adults etc don't appreciate seeing or hearing the words. Of course the owners of this board or the other boards mentioned have a right to exclude any person they want. As one of 4 yahoo board owners there as been a couple of members blackballed but I never voted to, it only takes two votes. I did try to get them to blackball one member because he is a strong member of an anti libertarian board that says it will blackball any libertarian who posts libertarian ideas on the board but no one else agreed. Anyway the guy has not posted on the board for awhile. You should see this board, they call libertarians a cult, they look like a cult to me, they don't want to see any challeges to their antilibertarian posts and the board moderator/ owner has posted he gets aroused by kicking libertarians off the board. Sounds to me like he and the others are your typical power tripping statist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
libertyworker
|
I love how socialists think it's oppression to hire employees, but they're also against discontinuing this "oppressive" relationship.
Its the system which is oppressive, not the individual relationship. Hey man, however you reconcile the contradiction is between you and your God, or Gaia, as the case may be. There is no contradiction here. Yes, there is. You believe an employment relationship is oppressive, and its termination is also oppressive. I believe in worker's rights. You believe in capitalist's right. One of us is a (small d) democrat and the other is an aristocrat.
I believe in a worker's and a capitalists's right, whatever that means. All I ask is that people not claim rights that they deny others. A capitalist can be a worker too, stock picking the right stock can be work. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
libertyworker
|
Does it matter? They are still people. Do they deserve less rights because of who their employer is?
Reagan was also one of the most militaristic presidents in history, intensified the drug war in Central America, and is responsible for funding or supporting numerous rightwing para-military coups throughout Latin America during his term.
Reagan is arguably one of the worst presidents we have ever had. The man was a reactionary to the core. During the 1950s, when he was still a Democrat, he was a union-busting specialist for hire to big businesses.
I hope he burns in hell... figuratively speaking, because I don't believe in hell since I'm an athiest.
                                                                                      Why did they have a right to be air traffic controlers, a natural right that is? Why do you have a right to be on this forum, a natural right, that is? Now as far as a constitutional right goes (which might not be the same as a natural right) Constitutionally they did not have a right to that job because constitutionally the federal government does not have the authority to do air traiffic control. Dare tell me, dear sir- WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT EVER MENTION CORPORATIONS? AS far as the unconstitutional laws and regulations that the federal government makes up as they go alone, I don't think federal employees have a right to strike do they? Then no one has a "right" to strike. Meaning we are all slaves to corporate power, forbidden by law from collectively taking action against our masters lest we disrupt their "natural rights." No, I don't havve a natural right to be on this forum and neither do you. It doesn't matter that corporations aren't mentioned in the US constitution, the constitution only authorizes what the government can do, more specifically the federal government, it does not grant rights but the right to individuals to incorporate would be covered in the ninth amendment, and similar broad declarations of rights statements in state constituations. What I meant by the federal governments band on federal employees striking, is they still can quit in mass and call for contract negotiations but as far as I know Congress has passed laws that the federal government can shut out the strikers, fire them and hire new employees. Now we all pretty much have a natural right to strike, to quit, to quit in mass but that does not mean necessarily the employer does not have a natural right to shut us out and hire new employees. Every employer may not have that right, some employees may have a right to occuply the workplace and take over. Rothbard said the students of Columbia University durning the 60s had a right to occuply and take over the University. I don't know, I don't know much about the cases and no one can know say yes or no on every case, neither Me or you Green, we aren't all knowing, we aint God. Posseion by common law is nine tenths the law but a good faith agreement can go a long way on convincing a jury on that other tenth. Did the defendent willingly agree to work for wages for the plantiff, was he a slave, even a wage slave, or could he quit at anytime and still provide for his family and keep his dignty and liberty? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
libertyworker
|
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT EVER MENTION CORPORATIONS. It doesn't have to. The Constitution is a corporate charter. Several here have complained about the air traffic jobs being unconstitutional, thus creating a rationale to deny them basic workers rights. Yet most of the jobs we hold through corporations are also unconstitutional by this logic, so that means we should deny ALL workers union organizing rights. There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley... The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose. Joe Joe, thanks, short and to the point. By the way I have not seen Greenback Bill posting for awhile even on other boards. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MrVoluntarist
|
Green: I was going to do a really long, in-depth line-by-line response to you, but I realized that every response to you was going to reference one statement you made. So rather than address you point by point, I want to see if I can't get to the root of your objections to capitalism, as its proponents define it. If you want to take this as a sign of cowardice, feel free, but I think this will be the most fulfilling for both of us, assuming you're not trolling. I'm not saying you are trolling, just that I'm going to use as a working assumption that you're not. Here's the statement that has me troubled. When I challenged you to reconcile your defense of your bedroom with your claim that workers have a moral right to take over factories they work in, you said: Any typical workplace is the property of a corporation. A corporation is a government chartered entity. Do not equate my or your bedroom with an assemblyline or shopfloor. They are not the same thing. I don't see why they aren't the same thing. To illustrate I'm going to use a technique called "slicing". Let's say we tried to rectify all past wrongs by starting everyone on the same footing. Let's say we reshuffled the deck and started everyone out with the same amount of physical personal property, however you define that to be (I don't think your precise specification will be relevant to my exposition.) . Let's grant from the outset that given this division, people have the moral right to defend "their" property from aggressors that want to seize it. (Assume that the division is such that everyone is able to provide him or herself with what they need to survive, and that the people in this scenario are all sane when they perform the actions.) Now I'll number the slices, and stop whenever you think an injustice has occurred and explain why. 1) People begin to exchange their property for other property. 2) People perform labor for others in exchange for their property. 3) People exchange acts of labor. 4) People start claiming the moral right to defend not only their initial physical property, but also physical property they have traded for. 5) People use initial and/or traded-for things to modify their property. 6) People do 5) with the intent of producing goods which will be used to produce other goods (like a hammer or scissors). 7) People do 5) with the intent of producing goods which will be used to produce goods which will be used to produce goods (like a hammer mold or a scissor mold). 8 ) People do 5) with the intent of producing goods n-steps away. 9) People trade goods produced in 6), 7), and 8 ) to others. I could go on, but you probably have an objection already. Just to assure you I'm not being pedantic, I want to point out that your entire argument rests on a fundamental difference between ownership of a house and ownership of a factory. e.g., if they're morally equivalent, you would have to admit your indignation about forcibly evicting "peaceful" picketers is baseless. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Green
|
It doesn't have to. The Constitution is a corporate charter.
...
The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose.
Then the Federal government is free to hire whomever they choose. 
It doesn't have to. The Constitution is a corporate charter.
...
The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose.
Then the Federal government is free to hire whomever they choose.
It doesn't have to. The Constitution is a corporate charter.
...
The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose.
Then the Federal government is free to hire whomever they choose.
It doesn't have to. The Constitution is a corporate charter.
...
The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose.
Then the Federal government is free to hire whomever they choose.
It doesn't have to. The Constitution is a corporate charter.
...
The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose.
Then the Federal government is free to hire whomever they choose. Then the Federal government is free to hire whomever they choose. There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley...
The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose.
Then the Federal government is free to hire whomever they choose. There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley...
The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose.
Then the Federal government is free to hire whomever they choose. There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley...
The air traffic control jobs are unconstitutional because the Federal government has no authority to hire air traffic controllers. Corporations are free to hire whomever they choose.
Then the Federal government is free to hire whomever they choose. There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley... There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley... There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley... There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley... There needs to be a "shaking head" smiley... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 12, 2005, 11:37:07 pm by Green »
|
Logged
|
"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." -Mikhail Bakunin
|
|
|
|
Green
|
I could go on, but you probably have an objection already. Just to assure you I'm not being pedantic, I want to point out that your entire argument rests on a fundamental difference between ownership of a house and ownership of a factory. e.g., if they're morally equivalent, you would have to admit your indignation about forcibly evicting "peaceful" picketers is baseless.
So do you now understand why I oppose corporate power but support labor power? GO WOBBLIES!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." -Mikhail Bakunin
|
|
|
|
MrVoluntarist
|
I could go on, but you probably have an objection already. Just to assure you I'm not being pedantic, I want to point out that your entire argument rests on a fundamental difference between ownership of a house and ownership of a factory. e.g., if they're morally equivalent, you would have to admit your indignation about forcibly evicting "peaceful" picketers is baseless.
So do you now understand why I oppose corporate power but support labor power? No, I don't. Not in the slightest. You didn't attempt to answer my very basic, fundamental challenge in any way whatsoever. I thought there was some truth to your beliefs at one point. I didn't agree with you, but you appeared to be an actual, articulate anarcho-socialist. So that gave me this idea that maybe there was some truth to what you were saying. But now, I know I was mistaken. You don't really have a coherent ideology. Soon I'll be posting this exchange for all to see, unless you want to try to address my points. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Green
|
I could go on, but you probably have an objection already. Just to assure you I'm not being pedantic, I want to point out that your entire argument rests on a fundamental difference between ownership of a house and ownership of a factory. e.g., if they're morally equivalent, you would have to admit your indignation about forcibly evicting "peaceful" picketers is baseless.
So do you now understand why I oppose corporate power but support labor power? No, I don't. Not in the slightest. You didn't attempt to answer my very basic, fundamental challenge in any way whatsoever. I thought there was some truth to your beliefs at one point. I didn't agree with you, but you appeared to be an actual, articulate anarcho-socialist. So that gave me this idea that maybe there was some truth to what you were saying. But now, I know I was mistaken. You don't really have a coherent ideology. Soon I'll be posting this exchange for all to see, unless you want to try to address my points. Hey there. I was just being sarcastic towards MaineShark, as I tend to do. I was also a bit tipsy and slightly stoned last night, if ya know what I mean.  I will respond to your post, however, I have to go to work in a few minutes so I can't right now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." -Mikhail Bakunin
|
|
|
|
Green
|
Green: I was going to do a really long, in-depth line-by-line response to you, but I realized that every response to you was going to reference one statement you made. So rather than address you point by point, I want to see if I can't get to the root of your objections to capitalism, as its proponents define it. See, and this is a key thing. Capitalism cannot simply be a system of free-markets, because numerous socialist thinkers have advocated a free-market economy, most notably Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (the first self-described Anarchist) as well as Benjamin Tucker and others. The term "Capitalism" was never used by Adam Smith (nor was "Laissez-Faire" for that matter) It was popularized by Karl Marx, who used it to describe a social system of class relationships between capital-owning employers and wage-earning workers. This is what I consider the core of capitalism, not on an individual level, but wage-labor as an economic institution, imposed and perpetuated by The State through private incorporations.However, there are other possible ways of thinking about capitalism, which are probably closer to the definition used by US-style Libertarians. For example, another key thing about capitalism is that capitalism turns everything into a commodity. Understanding what characterizes a commodity is a discussion I plan on having with Michael (LeopardPM) at some point, when we discuss weather labor can rightfully be considered a commodity (the basis of the Labor Theory of Value vs the Subjective "Theory" of Value/Market Theory of Value dispute) If you want to take this as a sign of cowardice, feel free, but I think this will be the most fulfilling for both of us, assuming you're not trolling. I'm not saying you are trolling, just that I'm going to use as a working assumption that you're not. No, I do not come here to troll. I actually respect US-style Libertarians on an intellectual level more than I do Liberal Democrats. I probably agree with the Libertarian Party about 50% of the time, while the Democratic Party I probably agree with about 25% of the time (although most self-identified Democrats usually can't recognize their own party's deceptions) The Greens are my closest match, obviously, but even there I only agree with them about 75% of the time. For example, I am against gun control, and against the UN. Here's the statement that has me troubled. When I challenged you to reconcile your defense of your bedroom with your claim that workers have a moral right to take over factories they work in, you said: Any typical workplace is the property of a corporation. A corporation is a government chartered entity. Do not equate my or your bedroom with an assemblyline or shopfloor. They are not the same thing. I don't see why they aren't the same thing. To illustrate I'm going to use a technique called "slicing". Let's say we tried to rectify all past wrongs by starting everyone on the same footing. Let's say we reshuffled the deck and started everyone out with the same amount of physical personal property, I understand that this is a highly theoretical excersise, but how do you plan to get that done? however you define that to be (I don't think your precise specification will be relevant to my exposition.) . Let's grant from the outset that given this division, people have the moral right to defend "their" property from aggressors that want to seize it. (Assume that the division is such that everyone is able to provide him or herself with what they need to survive, and that the people in this scenario are all sane when they perform the actions.) If everyone has what they need, then why would there be any need for them to violate others to survive. Now I'll number the slices, and stop whenever you think an injustice has occurred and explain why.
1) People begin to exchange their property for other property.
2) People perform labor for others in exchange for their property.
3) People exchange acts of labor.
4) People start claiming the moral right to defend not only their initial physical property, but also physical property they have traded for.
5) People use initial and/or traded-for things to modify their property.
6) People do 5) with the intent of producing goods which will be used to produce other goods (like a hammer or scissors).
7) People do 5) with the intent of producing goods which will be used to produce goods which will be used to produce goods (like a hammer mold or a scissor mold).
8 ) People do 5) with the intent of producing goods n-steps away.
9) People trade goods produced in 6), 7), and 8 ) to others.
I could go on, but you probably have an objection already. No, actually I don't. I will have a problem when you start equating businesses or property with human beings. Just to assure you I'm not being pedantic, I want to point out that your entire argument rests on a fundamental difference between ownership of a house and ownership of a factory. e.g., if they're morally equivalent, you would have to admit your indignation about forcibly evicting "peaceful" picketers is baseless. No, its not this simple. There is a huge difference between the bedroom and the workplace. In the case of the bedroom, the primary users of the bedroom are also the ones who legally own it. In the case of an assembly line or shopfloor, the primary users of the capital (machinery, like what you described above in points 6-8) are employees of an immortal fictional person created by the government (a corporation) which legally owns the capital. The primary users of the shopfloor or assembly line have little to no control over the enviroment, conditions, and tasks of their lives at the workplace. In the bedroom, the primary users are in full control. That is why I say that socialism is the true system of ownership, because socialism aims to put the direct participants of any given social institution democratically in control of the institution. This is also why I distinguish private property (negative - the legal right to exclude all others from use via state force) from ownership (positive - self-determination, the ability to control the destiny of, so long as not to violate the equal right of others to the same) because private property is often an impediment to ownership. If you want to talk about negative and positive rights, thats also an interesting conversation. I define them differently that you probably would, because I consider all rights systems to be socially constructed rather than "natural" or protected/granted by the government. Positive and negative rights are complimentary, not opposite, because in order to excercise a right you need to both be free from any impeding forces, and have the actual ability to excersise the right in practice. I consider property to be a positive right, in this sense, because it is a actual right TO something, complimentary to the negative right to labor and economically provide for oneself free from coercin. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 13, 2005, 04:21:31 pm by Green »
|
Logged
|
"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." -Mikhail Bakunin
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
