Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: elginx on June 10, 2003, 05:36:53 pm

Title: Interested but have a question
Post by: elginx on June 10, 2003, 05:36:53 pm
I am very excited about the FSP but not commited yet. This may seem like a stupid question but it is a very important one to me and I believe it is relevant to larger issues about the rights of some interfering with the rights of others. Right now I am having a particularly difficult time with "anti smoking" laws that are being ignored at my workplace here in California. My situation is one that isnt addressed very often-I became pregnant while working in a bar that unlawfully allows smoking. I never liked the smoke, I had sore throats and respiratory problems while working there but after I became pregnant it became a matter of protecting my unborn child.  I feel that it infringes upon my rights if I cannot work in or even go into a bar or restaraunt because my life span will be shortened by the people who choose to smoke.  If it's ok to smoke cigarettes then when pot and crack are legal will that be ok to smoke in public? Would you take your kids to a restaraunt or park where people were smoking meth and cigs, would you want to go to pub and sip a beer next to a guy who is casually smoking a crack pipe?
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 10, 2003, 06:24:14 pm
Business owners should be allowed to make arrangements for smoking or non-smoking on their own property.  It isn't a health issue - it's a freedom issue.  In most places, there are businesses that have either created non-smoking areas or banned smoking altogether because that's what their customers and employees want.  Those businesses that cater to smokers should be free to do so.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: ShrineGuard on June 10, 2003, 07:19:37 pm
And as far as parks go, if any private citizens set aside parts of their land as parks, they can make similar arrangements.

There are many sides to the smoking issue, but publicly banning smoking altogther destroys any possible realistic solution.  If smoking is legal in a private establishment, then the owner will create seperate smoking and nonsmoking areas if pressure is applied by customers and employees.  If smoking is banned, there is no way to create seperate areas without iliciting suspicion from authorities, and so the smokers smoke while the owner ignores because it's business.

As you yourself said, Elginx, people ignore the smoking laws anyway.  Is there any real point to them, then?
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: elginx on June 10, 2003, 08:29:30 pm
Jason
How can it be argued that smoking in enclosed spaces is not a health issue with all of the evidence linking it to serious medical conditions and DEATHS. As far as seperate sections, that would be a fabulous idea if the smoke and carcinogens that it is comprised of didn't travel anywhere, and instead, stayed with the smoker himself.
I can see the freedom argument but neither of you have addressed why the right of the smoker is more important than the rights of the non smoker.
Is it more important to say you don't have to walk 10 feet to smoke outside than to protect the health of the citizens who include innocent children who might not have the choice to "go elsewhere".
I could understand the freedom argument if it was a question of denying people the freedom to smoke period, however,  I don't see denying them smoking in public places so I can be ensured my right to "Life" (which is essentially what the issue is) an infringement on their Liberties.
On this I feel very passionately and I am certain that there are many people who would like to live to see their great grandchildren that would agree with me.
There are so many little things to consider with this project and I am continuing to examine the arguments and learn. I hope others are as well..
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Victor VI on June 10, 2003, 09:08:09 pm

I can see the freedom argument but neither of you have addressed why the right of the smoker is more important than the rights of the non smoker.

But he did address it. A bar or a restaurant is a private business. Neither the smoker or the non-smoker are the holders of rights, the owner of the business is. It's up to him who he wants to accomodate. His choice. Anyone who doesn't like the house rules is free to patronize a place with rules more to their liking.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: goon on June 10, 2003, 09:38:47 pm
Strictly speaking, I absolutely detest smoking.
I think that it does harm people and even lead to their deaths. That is what the evidence says. I also hate what the tobacco companies do. They get people hooked and add extra nicotine to keep them that way.
In a public building (not a privately owned establishment), no one has the right to blow their fumes in my face.
In a private building that you own, no one has the right to tell you not to. That would be like me coming to your house and telling you that you need to sweep the floor because it is dirty and it bothers me.
You would probably ask me how it is any of my business, and you would be right.
In short, I can understand your concerns. I hate tobacco and what it does to people, but I can't support telling people not to use it and I can't support telling a business owner what he can and can't allow on his property. The only way to deal with that is to not use his establishment.
Also, in our ideal society, you would also have the right to tell people that they couldn't smoke in your establishment just as you would have the right to allow them to.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: elginx on June 10, 2003, 11:01:49 pm
Good rebuttals. It's very hard to give up the good with the bad but I suppose it's necessary.
Unfortunately I am not financially able to be an owner who makes decisions, I am just a peon trying to survive and raise my kids on a bartenders salary.
That is one of my concerns with the project...what kind of jobs will be available for people like me?
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: ShrineGuard on June 10, 2003, 11:14:13 pm
I personally think that you will actually be much more able to find a job than many other Porcupines.  It has been tossed around that many Porcupines will have troubles because too many are entrepreuners and too few are willing to work the jobs that other Porcupines create.  Therefore, as you would definatly be willing to work in a Porcupine-run bar, if not somewhere nicer, you would be first on the list of a Porcupine business owner as an employee.  Others here might have the problem of humbling themselves.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Radar on June 11, 2003, 01:48:26 am
elginx:  You knew people smoked in bars before you took the job.  If you don't like being exposed to smoke, you have the right to leave that job and seek work elsewhere.  But telling people they can't smoke in a bar is like telling people they can't read in a Library.  Also, the people who frequent bars or work in them, are accepting the health risks involved with the smoke and the alcohol.  

Bar owners should choose for themselves whether their bar to be a smoking or non-smoking one, or whether or not they'll have a non-smoking section.

I have never smoked a single ciggarette, but I've worked in Casinos as a dealer and bars as a bartender for years.  It would be ignorant for me to expect others to stop smoking in either of these environments for my comfort.

I have no problem working for others or for myself.  In fact I would like to open a bar with a kitchen, pool tables, darts, a stage for bands or karaoke, and slot machines/video poker in the free state.  If I can swing it you are welcome to apply for a job providing you agree to work in a smoke filled bar.

As far as people using drugs in public I don't see a problem with it.  Seeing someone smoke a crack pipe is no more offensive to me than seeing them smoke a 25 cent el stinkadora cigar.  Watching someone inject themselves with heroin is no different to me than watching them inject themselves with insulin.  
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: elginx on June 11, 2003, 09:58:34 am
Radar
Talk to me when you are 60 and are dragging an oxygen tank behind you. I agree however, that I knew they smoked in this bar before I started but after I became pregnant, everything changed. I continue to work because I need the $, and I don't allow smoking while I am there. I am not popular with everyone, including my boss. Thankfully, the laws protect me against being fired for being pregnant which leads me to another question...if I were living in a free state, would there be labor laws?

A note to anyone who might have some advice: I am really excited about this and am ready to sign. I sat my fiance down to tell him about it and he dismissed it without even looking into it. He has very liberal views on many issues and when I said the words free state project, he envisioned a compound full of anti government militants carrying m-16s. His question to me was "Who backs this thing? It has to be funded by some group like the NRA (what's wrong with the NRA?" I ask)  or some neo nazi group (I don't know where that came from) so if anyone knows, who, if anyone, contributes to this thing and does anyone have any suggestions on how to approach him again.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Stumpy on June 11, 2003, 10:23:27 am
...if I were living in a free state, would there be labor laws?

Initially many labor laws will exist but we will seek to do away with as many of them as possible.

A business owner should be free to set the working conditions of a business. Employees negotiate the terms of their employment with their employer.

If you cannot come to terms with your employer you should find a job where you can. Don’t enlist the aid of gov’t to force your employer to do something he or she wouldn’t voluntarily do.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 11, 2003, 10:25:26 am
Thankfully, the laws protect me against being fired for being pregnant which leads me to another question...if I were living in a free state, would there be labor laws?

Well, here again government's only role is to protect individual rights.  So employers should be free to hire and fire on any criteria they wish - except that government entities should be subject to anti-discrimination rules.  Discrimination and smoking are both nasty habits, but those of us affected by them have no right to control the resources or private behavior of those who indulge in them.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: elginx on June 11, 2003, 10:36:39 am
So if there are no employment protections for women who get pregnant, or people who become partially disabled, or people who are seniors and there is no welfare for these unemployed, what happens to them?

In a perfect world, all of the above would be looked at for their skills but this is not a perfect world and employers might feel uncomfortable about having them around, worried about the effects of "maternity leave" or the need for elderly to use the restroom more or needing time off to go to the doctor more often etc... By eliminating the requirement on employers to provide a valid reason for discharge, you would be hurting the working poor, who already suffer as it is now. It would also be a huge burden on the private welfare organizations.
I am not trying to be argumentative, I am really curious about these things because this has to be a society where everyone can prosper and enjoy happiness and freedom, not just upper classes.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: cathleeninsc on June 11, 2003, 11:44:47 am
Hi and welcome,

The free society that most of us imagine is a benefit to employers and employees alike. No more restrictions on entry to professions. A New Yorker with a car can taxi without the high cost of the privilege. A hair braider can set up shop without paying for required schooling that doesn't even teach braiding. An employer can structure jobs for the low skilled or mentally challenged worker at below minimum wage IF there are workers willing to take them. Comfortable Americans will have more resources in their pockets to take care of family members and contribute to charities that funnel more money to the needy than a government can.

Americans are capable ad compassionate. We don't want to hold anyone back from being all they can be. Let's make a place for the less emloyable rather than continue a system that doesn't work well for anyone.

Cathleen in SC
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: BobW on June 11, 2003, 12:06:09 pm
Hi Elginx,

I've been following this thread and understand why your posts are negative.

I hope there is a future with no employment protections.  Our country is loaded with regulations "for women who get pregnant", "people who become partly disabled", "people who are seniors [the richest segment of American demographics are seniors, B.W.]".

Have you noticed that the laws, regulations and taxes collected to support these programs aren't filtering down to the folks in need?!  

There are better, private sector methods to answer your question.  Our headache is an entrenched bureaucracy and their contractors who absorb the funds intended to reach those categories you mentioned.

It's not that employers are uncomfortable about "maternity leave".  The leave can place the business at risk.  You have a problem in your current employment.  Your situation would be worse if the bar closed down.

Some employers need not give a valid reason for discharge.  Even with a valid reason and it was exercised, the employee still had the same requirement; plan for emergencies.

The working poor do have problems.  The problems are tracable to government.  Your posts validate this.

It is NOT a huge burden on private welfare organizations.  They exist - and been around for a long time  (earlier than the welfare state)-because they thrive and grow in assisting others.  The US is different than most other countries. I belong to one of these organizations.  We are in better shape than the related state agencies.

I'm also trying to ditch the employer requirement to accomodate National Guard and active duty for training reserve time off.  Businesses are bearing a burden placing them at risk.

Misc;
Don't believe all that health "evidence" about smoking.  It's annoying and definitely affects the laundry loads and dry cleaning bill but for all the conferences and rooms Ive been in where the place looked like Napolean's artillery just closed down the Russians - I'm still typing here.......

You can handle your pregnancy.  In a short time your child will be in school.  You wrote that you're in California.  Elginx, the smoking problem is nominal compared to finding a school where education is involved in the daily routine.

I am not in the upper class.

BobW
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Stumpy on June 11, 2003, 12:44:41 pm
I am not trying to be argumentative, I am really curious about these things because this has to be a society where everyone can prosper and enjoy happiness and freedom, not just upper classes.
Sure.

I have a close friend who makes his employer very uncomfortable. His employer tolerates him because he is an exemplary employee. He understands the job and makes his company money.

I’ve found that employers usually make allowances to keep employees who do a good job and have a good attitude.

There are two routes to job security.
1) Make yourself very valuable to your employer
2) Enact laws to tie the hands of your employer
I believe option number 1 to be the only one consistent with the principles of limited government and freedom.   :)

Of course, you can always start your own company and become the employer. But beware! In some states, employing someone is very close to adopting them.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Radar on June 11, 2003, 01:25:21 pm
Quote
I agree however, that I knew they smoked in this bar before I started but after I became pregnant, everything changed.

If everything changed and you were uncomfortable with the smoke at your job, you should have gone to another bar, or another profession.  

Quote
He has very liberal views on many issues and when I said the words free state project, he envisioned a compound full of anti government militants carrying m-16s

The free state project probably isn't for him.  Liberals are opposed to personal responsibility, private ownership, and personal protection.  This is clearly aparent in his attitude against the NRA.

As far as funding goes, a project like this doesn't require too much funding.  Everyone will cover their own moving costs.  But some individuals donate to the FSP to cover costs.

Quote
Thankfully, the laws protect me against being fired for being pregnant which leads me to another question...if I were living in a free state, would there be labor laws?

Pregnancy is your personal choice.  Why should you be protected for making a choice that makes you less available to work?  If I had a pregnant woman working for me, I'd pay her less than the other employees even if she had the same qualifications because she'll miss days from work and others will have to take up the slack, etc.  and if she bothered my patrons and told them to put out their ciggarettes, I'd fire her on the spot regardless of what the law says about smoking.

When you take a job, you and an employer are agreeing that you'll work under the conditions he has at his place, that you'll be there to work, and that you'll get an agreed upon salary.  If you violate your end of the contract, why should he stick to his end?

There are many states that are "right to work" states which means an employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all and the employee can leave for any reason or no reason.  I'm sure the free state will be one of these because it's what is mutually best for both parties.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 11, 2003, 01:36:11 pm
The more regulations you put on the hiring and firing process, the more costly and risky you make it for an employer to hire someone.  When you make it costly and risky to hire someone, fewer people get hired - unemployment rises.  The French are beginning to discover this.  Their laws are even worse than ours, including a mandated 35-hour work week.  Their unemployment rate is also out of control, and urban crime is rising there.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: elginx on June 11, 2003, 03:37:49 pm
 
Quote
If everything changed and you were uncomfortable with the smoke at your job, you should have gone to another bar, or another profession.
I had not planned on continuing the debate on the smoking issue but I find your post very offensive. As you state below, YOU would not hire a pregnant woman so why would any other employer when a woman comes to them and asks for a job after being fired from her previous employer for being pregnant? So the woman who becomes pregnant has no right to  employment according to you. I'm afraid that most women would disagree with you and would also find your position offensive.
Quote
Pregnancy is your personal choice.  Why should you be protected for making a choice that makes you less available to work?
I could go on forever about this but I will just say that it is not always a choice, sometimes it is un planned. More importantly, if women didn't make that "choice" then you wouldn't be here.
Quote
If I had a pregnant woman working for me, I'd pay her less than the other employees even if she had the same qualifications because she'll miss days from work and others will have to take up the slack, etc.  and if she bothered my patrons and told them to put out their ciggarettes, I'd fire her on the spot regardless of what the law says about smoking.
Proving my point again that regardless of what kind of employee this person is, you would fire them based solely on the fact that they are pregnant. This in particular is extremely offensive to me because I support my family on my salary and I am also a good mother who is concerned about the welfare of her child. I should NOT have to make the choice between the LIFE of my child and the ability to support myself and my family without being a welfare recipient.
The comment that you would pay a pregnant woman less because she will miss more work is an assuption and is heinous. Who says that she will miss any more work than the next guy who might have a hangover 3 days a week, or the guy who gets diagnosed with cancer (especially working in your smoky dream bar) or the woman who has sick children. Humanity cannot be lost in this search for freedom and just hoping that the right thing will be done isn't enough.( No one has responded to what happens to the elderly, pregnant, disabled, individuals stricken by illness or accidents in the family etc... with no employment protection and no welfare)
(Jason to respond to your post, I do agree that there is such a thing as going overboard with anything, but completely eliminating all protection doesn't seem right...have you considered ways to limit it?)
Quote
When you take a job, you and an employer are agreeing that you'll work under the conditions he has at his place, that you'll be there to work, and that you'll get an agreed upon salary.  If you violate your end of the contract, why should he stick to his end?

So when you have the flu and you have to take time off, you are violating the contract? Be realistic. Your attitude is discriminatory against this specific issue of pregnancy and this is exactly the problem I have with letting people who have no conscience run things.  Of course you don't care because it will NEVER happen to you!
and by the way, since you got personal and said you would fire me if you owned the establishment where I work, you should know that I am the only employee who doesn't take off work or call in sick and I am the only employee who consistently covers for people who call in sick. Unfortunately, I think if the matter of the law did not exist, the only reason my boss would keep me employed is because the sales at the end of the night are good. Why? Because men are uncomfortable with pregnant women and judging from your comments, have little respect for what it takes to bring them into world happy and healthy.
I actually feel ill right now, and very disappointed that the world I envisioned when I read about the project isn't the reality. I guess I have a lot more thinking to do before I commit myself to this project.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Radar on June 11, 2003, 04:45:48 pm
I find your post offensive as well.  Nobody is entitled to special treatment simply because they've chosen to have kids.  And yes, if you are having a child it is because you chose to.  Even if you're raped, you can choose to not have the child.  

Why should employers be forced to hire people who will miss more time from work? (and yes pregnant women miss more time from work than a man with a hangover...typically several months after they have the child).  This isn't an assumption, it's a fact.  The reason women don't typically make it as high in companies as most men is because they choose to have children and can't devote the long hours to work that a man can.

I'm all about meritocracy.  I don't care if someone is a man or a woman.  I reward performance and if a woman gets pregnant and pisses off my customers by telling them they can't smoke, she'll find herself unemployed.  If a man missed work because he chose to stay home and help his sick mother, and chased away my regulars because he decided he didn't like smoke, I'd treat him the same way.  I wouldn't be firing the person because they were pregnant, I'd be firing them for missing work, and annoying my customers.

Typically employers make allowances for sick days, but not sick months.  And it's not fair or reasonable to expect an employer to keep your job waiting for you while you take several months off to care for a child you CHOSE to have.

You remind me of the people who inconsiderately bring their noisy children to the movies or nice restaurants where they don't belong.  You expect everyone else to conform to your wishes and whims and ignore what's best for their business.  

If you don't like what's on television, change the channel.  If you don't like smoke in a bar, don't work in one.  If you don't like being paid less for being pregnant, don't get pregnant or come to work the day after you give birth.

Those that demand special treatment for their own personal choices are offensive to me and disgust me.  

I love children and want to have some of my own.  But I wouldn't expect to be paid the same money if I missed a lot of work because of them.  And I wouldn't expect my employer to chase away his loyal customers because I suddenly didn't like the smoke anymore.  



Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Dalamar49 on June 11, 2003, 05:33:51 pm
G'day, Elginx.

I hope you haven't left yet. In answer to your question about labor laws. I think that the Free State Project will be taking it slowly. We'll see what works and go from there instead of throwing the state into anarchy in one day.

Sadly, our world has disrepectful employers who'll endanger their employees and fire workers for unfair reasons. That's why consumers need to regulate businesses by refusing to shop or eat at businesses that practice discrimitory behaviors.

So instead of the government forcing employers into submission it'll be us the customers of the Free State who'll police our communties and boycott businesses and employers who warrant punishment.

Thank you for your interest in the Free State Project. I hope to see you, your husband and children there someday.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: elginx on June 11, 2003, 06:24:45 pm
IYou remind me of the people who inconsiderately bring their noisy children to the movies or nice restaurants where they don't belong.  You expect everyone else to conform to your wishes and whims and ignore what's best for their business.  
Obviously you don't have children.  I suppose people wanting to go out to eat with their children is  your idea of a violation of YOUR "individual freedoms" (by the way, all kids are noisy, yours will be too) My problem with you, and with what has been discussed is that yes, you have rights, employers have rights, but so do I, so do employees, WOMEN, elderly, handicapped.We all have equal rights and why is some joe's right to smoke in a bar more important than my child's right to life? Why is your comfort in a movie or restaraunt more important than my right to have dinner with my family? Who choses who's rights are more important or valid than others. God forbid that it's you or someone like you.
Quote
I love children and want to have some of my own.  But I wouldn't expect to be paid the same money if I missed a lot of work because of them.  And I wouldn't expect my employer to chase away his loyal customers because I suddenly didn't like the smoke anymore.
Maybe there is a woman in this country who would be willing to overlook your sexist attitudes and sacrifice so much to provide you with an offspring but if someday you find her, pray that you never get laid off, or killed and she has to be the sole breadwinner for the family. It is very easy to make statements like yours when you have never had to protect and provide for someone who's life means more than your own. This is a guess, but you don't seem like the kind of person who has ever experienced anything even remotely close to suffering, or struggle, and therefore your attitude doesn't surprise me.

Dalamar

Quote
I hope you haven't left yet. In answer to your question about labor laws. I think that the Free State Project will be taking it slowly. We'll see what works and go from there instead of throwing the state into anarchy in one day

I appreciate your response to my question. What was began as a serious inquiry about important issues pertaining to labor laws has turned into a sexist and personal attack. Your response is about action and realities, it's not rhetoric about how employers are going to do what's right...because I know all, if not most, won't.  I also agree that throwing everything out the window at once is going to put even the most radical into shock, and that experimentation with different things will be a must.
Quote
So instead of the government forcing employers into submission it'll be us the customers of the Free State who'll police our communties and boycott businesses and employers who warrant punishment.
On this I am curious if there is a plan to establish consumer groups (private or not) or if it is the assumption that this will just miraculously happen. Groups or individuals who try to organize boycotts now are not too successful. I believe that consumer groups in the free state would be more effective than they are now because the people who reside there would obviously not be as apathetic as the general citizenry is now but I don't think they would be effective enough.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Radar on June 11, 2003, 10:05:30 pm
Quote
Obviously you don't have children.  I suppose people wanting to go out to eat with their children is  your idea of a violation of YOUR "individual freedoms" (by the way, all kids are noisy, yours will be too) My problem with you, and with what has been discussed is that yes, you have rights, employers have rights, but so do I, so do employees, WOMEN, elderly, handicapped.

Actually I have a daughter.  But she's not living with me.  And I didn't say you shouldn't be able to take your kids out to eat, just that most parents with little kids take them to inappropriate places like fancy restaurants.  If you want to take your kids to McDonalds, Chuck E. Cheese, etc. people expect kids.  But if you're in a movie theater or a nice restaurant on a date and someone brings in their misbehaving loud screaming brats those people have no class or consideration of others.  

Quote
We all have equal rights and why is some joe's right to smoke in a bar more important than my child's right to life?

First off the right to life only belongs to those who already possess human life and a fetus does not.  Secondly you don't have a right to not be offended.  And if someone wants to smoke in a bar and the bar owner doesn't mind, it's none of your business.  If you work there and don't like the smoke or don't want to endanger your fetus, you have every right to seek employment elsewhere.

Quote
Why is your comfort in a movie or restaraunt more important than my right to have dinner with my family?

See Above.  I didn't say one person's rights are more important than anothers.  But your right to breath is no more important than someone else's to smoke.  Nor is that of your fetus.  If you don't like smoke-filled bars you are not being forced to work in them or even visit them.

Quote
Maybe there is a woman in this country who would be willing to overlook your sexist attitudes and sacrifice so much to provide you with an offspring but if someday you find her, pray that you never get laid off, or killed and she has to be the sole breadwinner for the family.

There's nothing at all sexist about my attitude.  There is a lot of sexism in your attitude though.  You expect others to bend to your will simply because you're pregnant and a woman.  I'm all about equality and meritocracy while you seem to think women, handicapped people, and others should have special treatment or be held in higher regard than men.  And when I say I'm for 100% equality and meritocracy I mean it.  That means equality not only in freedom but in responsibility.  I am against a draft, but as long as we have one, women should be drafted and sent to the front lines just like men.  And nobody should get paid time off for having a child what-so-ever unless the employer wants to do so on their own.  Having a child is a personal choice and shouldn't entitle you to anything single people without children don't have.

And don't worry about me getting a woman.  I've got an extremely beautiful and intelligent woman who loves me dearly and I love her too.  We're going to be married in February and will have several children.  But I don't expect other people to curb thier habits or actions simply because I have kids.  I am also considerate enough to keep my kids out of a movie theater or a nice restaurant so I don't disturb other people.  

Quote
It is very easy to make statements like yours when you have never had to protect and provide for someone who's life means more than your own.

I was married for 8 and a half years and I protected and provided for my wife.  So once again you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote
This is a guess, but you don't seem like the kind of person who has ever experienced anything even remotely close to suffering, or struggle, and therefore your attitude doesn't surprise me.

My life has been filled with suffering and struggle.  But my struggles don't entitle me to anything.  I'm suffering right now because my daughter is living away from me and I rarely see her.  I've financially struggled my whole life, been the victim of child abuse, etc.  Does that matter?  Is it important to this topic?  Not at all.

You being pregnant doesn't entitle you to any special treatment and you're way off base if you think it does.  

Quote
What was began as a serious inquiry about important issues pertaining to labor laws has turned into a sexist and personal attack

The only sexism is this thread is coming from you.  And I haven't attacked you at all.  All I said was you knew they had smoking before you took the job and it's unreasonable for you to expect people to stop smoking for your comfort level.  Tell me how that is an attack.

I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you rationally and intelligently.  All that needs to happen is for you to speak rationally and intelligently instead of making emotional pleas and unreasonable demands.  Also it would be nice if you'd stop your sexist comments.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: elginx on June 11, 2003, 11:02:02 pm
This is my last visit to this post as I am not interested in hearing your opinions. My last words are these.
1. I don't think it is just a fetus and has no right to life
2. God did not make us equal. Men will never have to experience the burdens or the joys of carrying a child in their bodies for almost an entire year. As you yourself stated, women make less money because of this biological function, and you consider that fair and reasonable.  I am truly sorry to hear that you have a daughter.
  If your wife to be is sharing in this debate, I hope it prompts her to seriously consider exercising her rights to not have children, or at least not with you.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: jgmaynard on June 11, 2003, 11:17:04 pm
I just graduated with a BS in chemsitry, physics and history - all of which applies here.... :) Plus I did a paper on it about a year 1/2 ago...

Yes, cigarette smoke can be irritating, and when directly inhaled, as through a cigarette, can be dangerous.

BUT....

The EPA report which is the centerpiece of the 2nd hand smoke arguments was not a study - It was a meta-analysis; a study of other studies.
They announced their results BEFORE compling their report - This should set off red-alerts to any scientists - that is NOT how good science is done!
After they compiled their results, guess what! The study did NOT prove what they wanted, SO......
The EPA threw away 27 of the 41 studies to arrive at their already-announced results!

Cigarette smoke is made of hundreds of chemicals.... Some will sink, some will float, and some will rise. that means that 2nd hand smoke in a room only contains certain of the chemicals...

Our bodies encounter bad stuff all the time... It is only a matter of how much it can clean up....

I'm not trying to turn you into an anti-smoking ban crusader, but letting you know that the science is NOT cut and dried here... Anyone who tells you that all scientists agree on something, is wrong.

Take a look at http://www.junkscience.com sometime - it is a GREAT site!

Here's an article I wrote on it in 2001.... http://www.keenenh.us/jgm/articles/smoke.html

JM
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: BobW on June 11, 2003, 11:35:02 pm
Hi Elginx,

A major flaw in your positions you take is that you frame them only to fit your circumstances.  Try to look at the broader picture.

A pregnant employee is a risk to a business just like a member of the National Guard.  I wrote this yesterday.  Businesses are not cash cows.

Actually, "most women" agree with Radar and me.  Most American women realize the US labor market is in decline and worsening.  The Family Leave Act was another reason for companies to relocate overseas.

If you do some R&D on the various societies of the world for the last 200 years, you will see a relationship between maximum freedom and the prosperity of humanity.

You are wrong in your statement that "(No one has responded to what happens to the ..disabled.."). I explicitely mentioned that I belong  to a private sector organization performing  work efforts to assist -----and I also mentioned we outperform the related state agencies.

Again, Elginx, after you do some R&D, you will understand that workers like yourself, who bring in the business, don't share in this because of government programs stiffling this.  

I personally give you the benefit of the doubt maybe because  you write from California.  The world is neutral.  You are making it negative.  Don't generalize.  What men are uncomfortable with pregnant women?  My crowd in Virginia glorifies this.

If you were here for our upcoming 4th of July picnic, you'd love it.  True, some of the guys and gals smoke.  Many drink beer and you wouldn't be the only pregnant women present.  I guarantee you noone would smoke near you.  You'd be offered chocolate substitutes all day long.  And etc.  And you'd have fun.

That California environment must be distorting things.  Then, again, whatever your situation, you are in better shape than others.

There are picnics in California also. Maybe it's not California but how you are reacting to the world.

BobW
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: goon on June 12, 2003, 07:40:37 pm
This thing is kind of getting out of hand.
This person shows up here and checks the FSP out and is pushed away because they have a concern.
I will admit that I am new and that I don't have business telling you guys what to say or how to run your forum, but this doesn't seem like the way to keep interested people interested.
I was in the military, and then I worked construction.
When something doesn't go my way by the third try, I curse like a drunken sailor.
Force of habit coupled with a short temper.
But I do try and stay civil whenever I can.

Elginx- As I have already stated, I hate cigarettes. People who hate cigarettes still have to eat too. You would most likely be able to find a job, but tomorrow is promised to no man.
You place your bet and you play your cards.
The rest of us will also take the same risk as you.
The founders risked getting their necks stretched for liberty but they didn't let that stop them.
I am young, but I have learned that life will never wait for you to get all your ducks in a row. Sometimes you just gotta wing it.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: BobW on June 13, 2003, 12:41:59 am
Hi Goon,

Your point is well taken.  I accept it.

The thread in general and my posts were offered to help and not annoy someone or drive them away.  

Elginx posed a situation.  Replies were presented.  

When stuff gets rough to the point of insult, attack, etc, many here jump in and correct.

BobW
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onyx_goddess on June 13, 2003, 05:49:39 am
This thread is definitely disturbing.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything Radar said in his last long post.

However, it's pretty clear we just lost a potential member, so something went wrong.  Maybe that's inevitable, but maybe not.  Several times I've wondered if this thread should be moderated strictly like the religion thread.  After all, if potentials are routed here, then this spot should be potential-friendly.

Now, some might argue that elginx isn't a liberty lover after all.  But I'd argue that she's like a lot of Americans - complacent with the status quo, but open to being educated about freedom.  I have had very similar discussions about smoking in restaurants, and for some reason that's a hard one to grasp right away for complacents.

There's an episode of King of the Hill where Hank explains his technique for selling more propane than all the other salespeople.  He educates his customer, and then lets then go home and make the right decision for themselves.  I think that's what went wrong.  Sometimes debating a point with someone can't do any good.  It's best to lay the cards out on the table in a clear, but gentle manner, and then let them go home and think about it.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Zack Bass on June 13, 2003, 08:33:43 am

Now, some might argue that elginx isn't a liberty lover after all.


That is correct, she is not.

Quote

  But I'd argue that she's like a lot of Americans - complacent with the status quo


That is correct.
We will never ever ever persuade the vast majority of Americans to have libertarian views.  And we ought not to.  They like the State, and that is their choice.  We must remove ourselves from their tyranny and free up a small area where we ourselves are Free.  And not worry about how the Statists are doing.  Who knows, maybe they will survive.  Or not.  Who cares.

I believe it was in Heinlein's Glory Road that a character describes a project he is involved in, which gathers up democrats when they are discovered and dumps them on this one planet.  The project has been going on for a couple of hundred years, and occasionally there is talk of dropping in to see how they're doing, but no one bothers.

Quote

It's best to lay the cards out on the table in a clear, but gentle manner, and then let them go home and think about it.


That is correct.  And that is what happened here.  And she, like 98% of Americans, found our views distasteful.
That is no reason to change our views, or to pretend that they are not our views.

Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 09:57:29 am
Quote


Now, some might argue that elginx isn't a liberty lover after all.

That is correct, she is not.

I did not leave, I am still interested in the project and I have been checking in to hear opinions and comments from people who are addressing this issue. I could not stand the thread the way it was going and I was actually having abdominal pains as a result. I am a liberty lover, considered (you have to remember I am from California) very conservative. I am also a realist, and I know that throwing 100 years of society out the window is unrealistic and dangerous. This issue isn't just about labor laws, that is a small piece of a bigger problem.

Quote

  But I'd argue that she's like a lot of Americans - complacent with the status quo
That is correct.
We will never ever ever persuade the vast majority of Americans to have libertarian views.  And we ought not to.  They like the State, and that is their choice.  We must remove ourselves from their tyranny and free up a small area where we ourselves are Free.  
OK, now that cannot be what this project is about, creating your own little compound state and saying *@?! the rest of the country. My concept when I read about it was that it was to be a model to show the world what good can come from scaling down the gigantic and fast growing monster that is government.
Quote
she, like 98% of Americans, found our views distasteful.
That is no reason to change our views, or to pretend that they are not our views.

Amen! I am just like 98 % of Americans and that is the most important point you have made. Most of the people who live in the state that is chosen, no matter how freedom loving they are, are probably going to fall within the 98%, and no matter how apathetic they were before, when a troop of what they might consider"extremists" come in and try to take over, they will enter the voting booths in record number. So you have to care what the 98% think. There is also the rest of the country to consider, and you are delusional if you think it doesn't matter what they think of the free state. This may be an oversimplification but joe electrician is not going to be ok with working with asbestos without safety equipment and level testing because the laws that forced his employers to use it were abolished. (please don't tell me the employers will use this expensive equipment anyways because even with the laws in place they try to get away with it but here the people's rights and health are protected!)
 I completely understand everyone's idea of the perfect free state but the world is not the same world that it was when the government was that limited, and the world wasn't that great either. To say that the current society to can survive with none of the systems and laws in place is a very risky gamble and I honestly think that even if it was feasable, the majority of people, conservative or not, are not ready for it.

I had to add one last thing, isn't it better to achieve success by limiting government than hold on to dreams of abolishing it?
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Zack Bass on June 13, 2003, 10:12:50 am

  ... joe electrician is not going to be ok with working with asbestos without safety equipment and level testing because the laws that forced his employers to use it were abolished. (please don't tell me the employers will use this expensive equipment anyways because even with the laws in place they try to get away with it but here the people's rights and health are protected!)


Some jobs are dangerous.  Shall we abolish them, and put those who assess the risk as tolerable out of work?
If joe electrician doesn't want to work with asbestos, then he may work for another employer who, of course, must pay less because he uses the expensive mathods to assure ultra-safety.  Or he may decide he wants more money and is willing to put up with the risk.
If no one is willing to put up with the risk (and they are the only ones who can properly decide whether the risk is worth the money or not!!!!), then the risk-laden employers will be out of business and their lower-paying-but-safety-conscious competitors will hire all the workers.
But of course you want to FORCE all employers to be safety-conscious-according-to-government-standards, and still pay the higher salary.  Can't be done.  You make them pay for all that safety, and also pay the higher salary, and they can't make a profit; all the joe electricians will be out of that job market.
Please let joe be free to choose.

Quote

  ... the majority of people, conservative or not, are not ready for it.


That is correct.  So let them stay where they are, and let us have our Freedom.

Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 10:27:31 am
you missed my point. Joe electrician represents the 98% or more that you spoke of. Your utopia will not exist unless you can bring more people to the "freedom" way of thinking. To do that, you will have to compromise some freedoms to gain others.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Zack Bass on June 13, 2003, 10:28:12 am

Quote

We will never ever ever persuade the vast majority of Americans to have libertarian views.  And we ought not to.  They like the State, and that is their choice.  We must remove ourselves from their tyranny and free up a small area where we ourselves are Free.  


OK, now that cannot be what this project is about, creating your own little compound state and saying *@?! the rest of the country.


It has to be.
As you yourself have pointed out, we cannot persuade the Statists.  To attempt that route will result in failure of our goal, which is real Freedom.
Therefore our best bet is to get one small place where we do have enough power to become very Free, and hope thereby to attract liberty lovers to spread to the whole State.  Growing by immigration, not conversion, is the answer.

Quote

  ... isn't it better to achieve success by limiting government than hold on to dreams of abolishing it?


No.
To achieve a slightly Freer State is worthless to me and to people like me.  We want real Freedom.  It's not worth moving to be a little bit more Free.  I'm pretty free where I am now, and I know how to work the System; why should I move to where libertarians will be 15% of the voters instead of 2%?  We'd still lose every important issue.
But gather together into one Western county, and we will have most of the Freedom we want in a single day!  That coup will attract the additional 100,000 we need to take the State.

Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Zack Bass on June 13, 2003, 10:36:25 am

you missed my point. Joe electrician represents the 98% or more that you spoke of. Your utopia will not exist unless you can bring more people to the "freedom" way of thinking. To do that, you will have to compromise some freedoms to gain others.


But then we wouldn't have brought people to the "freedom" way of thinking, would we?  They would have brought us to their way of thinking!  Phooey on that.

Either our goal is real Freedom, or we're just another wishy-washy group with nothing to offer a libertarian.  Someday the real libertarians will gather together and carve out real Freedom for themselves.  Maybe the FSP will be it.  Maybe not.

If we adopt your vision, then someone will have to start The Really-Free-We-Really-Really-Mean-It-This-Time State Project.

http://rfwrrmittsp.org     ;D

Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 11:12:07 am
You guys are not willing to compromise your ideals for any one or any thing. I respect that. I used to be more like that but over the years I have found that I have more success when I am somewhat flexible.
I do have one question
How many of the 3,900 or so signed members are women? I haven't seen very many on these boards.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: BobW on June 13, 2003, 11:13:16 am
Hi 1 in 98%,

I admit I laughed when reading your post.  Please accept that I wasn't laughing at you but just the material you wrote.

Guess who is the employer with the largest number of asbestos claims still waiting to be settled! It is the US Government, in particular the US Navy.  They are still stalling.

I mirror your statement in saying employers try to get away with it.

Slang expressions eg "100 years of society" don't convey much without explaining your position.  In 1903 the situation was upbeat.  Today, we have much work to do.

Don't use California for a model for anything. The Great West and New Hampshire have a different ethnic.

You are not correct in saying that companies treat workers worse than the Government, eg safety equipment.  Cyber space is too limited to list examples.

BobW
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 11:25:09 am
Quote
Guess who is the employer with the largest number of asbestos claims still waiting to be settled! It is the US Government, in particular the US Navy.  They are still stalling
I don't doubt that! and my claim is not that the government is wonderful, they should be held to the same standards as everyone else and that is a big beef I have with them.
Quote
Slang expressions eg "100 years of society" don't convey much without explaining your position.  In 1903 the situation was upbeat.  Today, we have much work to do.
"upbeat" is a slang expression with no explanation as well. Life was not good for everyone, working conditions were poor, women had no rights, minorities were treated like animals, children were not protected...I could go on and on. Just who is it that life was "upbeat" for?
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Jack Harrison on June 13, 2003, 11:49:11 am
VERY interesting thread! Elginx, or whatever name you have wound up with - welcome aboard.

I tried to read all 3 pages of responses but must admit I nodded off towards the end.

Elginx - smoking is your medical issue/pet peeve. Suppose mine was perfume? Suppose I had terrible allergies to perfume, or wool, or the smell of garlic, or the color of your shoes made me gag. Suppose the simple smell of chemicals in the air at the chemical plant where I worked made me sick. What then? Those would be health issues, and according to your ideas as they apply to pregnancy - I should be able to make the same arguments about your choice of perfume. I should be, by your argument, able to force my employer to rid his chemical company of the chemical smell, or to force you to stop wearing that perfume.  Someone is always going to be affected by something in the workplace. In this light the laws never end.

In the FreeState of the past, people had to make hard choices to live free - weighing, for example, the negatives of another mouth to feed for years before it became old enough to do work vs. the future need of children to help out on the farm. Or maybe it was living somewhere medical attention was close by because you were sick frequently vs. living out on the range.

In today's society - the same one that many of us are seeking to move away from or at least improve on, people are encouraged to forget that choices have consequences, and to assume someone (big daddy government) will always jump in and help them.

Most of us in the FSP do not agree with this line of thinking. We think that you should be just as free to work in a smoke free company as a smoke filled one. We think that choice should be that of the employer, and if there aren't enough employees who agree with his choice - he'll have to change it. Simple market forces at work. We think that if you are the single provider for your family you should not assume that you will continue to be able to provide for that family should its numbers grow. We think your employer should be able to fire you for putting out less work than another able bodied and willing person.

We (many of us) think that there are consequences to actions and choices. To me that is the one biggest difference between FSPrs and others - we see that you can't have everything, and have decided that the really important things are worth giving up some things.

There are plenty of non-FSPrs that agree on that - but the things they deem most important cause them to be willing to give up the very things we deem most important to keep.

Welcome to the FSP - don't make the mistake of thinking all FSPs think alike - we surely do not. I for one, don't think you're even close to ready - but there are plenty like you who have already signed on nonetheless.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 11:58:03 am
I really don't want to debate the smoking issue any further. I will say this...100 years ago, cigarette smoke, asbestos, mold, chemicals etc.. were not known to cause the serious health problems that they now know they do cause. Perfume is not a carcinogen, cigarettes are. People suffer and die from the effects of these things. That should fall under the governments responsibility of protecting LIFE. Period. Protecting someone's right to convenience is not as important as protecting their right to LIFE. I firmly believe this and I also believe that it does not violate the principles of this project if looked at in that manner.
I hope you continue to read because alot of interesting things have come out of this thread.
You are right that I am not ready, it would be a disservice to everyone who is serious (and I don't think everyone is) to sign when I have so many questions and doubts.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Jack Harrison on June 13, 2003, 12:08:17 pm
I really don't want to debate the smoking issue any further. I will say this...100 years ago, cigarette smoke, asbestos, mold, chemicals etc.. were not known to cause the serious health problems that they now know they do cause. Perfume is not a carcinogen, cigarettes are. People suffer and die from the effects of these things. That should fall under the governments responsibility of protecting LIFE. Period. Protecting someone's right to convenience is not as important as protecting their right to LIFE. I firmly believe this and I also believe that it does not violate the principles of this project if looked at in that manner.
I hope you continue to read because alot of interesting things have come out of this thread.
You are right that I am not ready, it would be a disservice to everyone who is serious (and I don't think everyone is) to sign when I have so many questions and doubts.

Doubts are fine. But WHERE do you get the notion of "government's responsibility to protect life" ??? Holy canoli, heaven forbid. The only thing the government has a responsibility to protect is itself. Even the Founders wrote it so that it said you have the right to PURSUE life, liberty, and happiness.

Government has no responsbility to you - it is the other way around. That is one of our biggest problems - we have no way of holding our government responsible today, its bigger and stronger than anyone ever imagined. You work 1/3 of the year for your government - is that worth all of the protection you get from your government - 1/3 of your life? Did they do anything to protect you today? The guy next to you in line at the grocery could kill you with a frozen steak. How does the government's responsbility to protect your life work into that one?

Ok, so you don't want to debate the cig issue any longer when it becomes more difficult to debate. I'm ok with that. Lets talk about your ideas of what the government really does for you, what you think it does, and what its supposed to do.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 12:17:33 pm
It's not that it's a difficult debate, I simply have had enough (if you have read the earlier posts) and I am unwavering in my opinion.
Yes I believe that the government has the responsibility to do everything in it's power to protect the lives of it's citizens. That is why we have stop lights, jails etc...countries that don't have governments who actively protect the lives of their citizens are called third world countries.
Mr. Bass
I'm a little disappointed that you haven't come back to defend your mail order brides. I am dying to hear this one!
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onyx_goddess on June 13, 2003, 12:22:55 pm
Regardless of what our government has become, it is still the job of any government to "protect life".  By that, I mean prevent one person from using force to injure another person.

If my neighbor takes a gun and starts shooting vaguely in my direction there's an x% chance a bullet will hit me, causing me injury.

If my neighbor takes a cigarette and starts smoking it around my child, next to the property line, there is an x% chance some carcinogenics will hit him, causing some injury.

I think that sums up the "protects life"/smoking issue.

The debate is over two issues - externalities and ownership:

1- (Externalities): When there's an externality such as cigarette smoke from a neighbor, or smoke from a factory, who is going to do something about it?
2 - (Ownership): When you scrimp and save your money for 20 years to start up a bar called "Smokeys' Den of Cigars and Whiskey", and then the government bans smoking in all bars, is that really fair?

Also, I wonder, what percentage of FSP members are really "ready" by some reasonable standard?  What does "ready" mean?  There's got to be some minimum amount of readiness.  Like, what if I'm ready to move to the Free State, and always vote libertarian, even if I'm not 100% sure about some libertarian philosophy.  Am I ready?  If not, what harm is there in me joining?
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Jack Harrison on June 13, 2003, 12:29:58 pm
Regardless of what our government has become, it is still the job of any government to "protect life".  By that, I mean prevent one person from using force to injure another person.

How does the government prevent this, exactly? I mean, it happens every single day, everywhere in this country. Where is the prevention you mention?

If my neighbor takes a gun and starts shooting vaguely in my direction there's an x% chance a bullet will hit me, causing me injury.

If my neighbor takes a cigarette and starts smoking it around my child, next to the property line, there is an x% chance some carcinogenics will hit him, causing some injury.

I think that sums up the "protects life"/smoking issue.

I TOTALLY disagree. If someone starts shooting all around you and you get hit and killed, how has the government protected your life? Can you reasonably make an argument that someone should have been there to prevent it. Can you seriously make a post on the FSP board that suggests if the government had confiscated the gun it would not have happened?

The debate is over two issues - externalities and ownership:

1- (Externalities): When there's an externality such as cigarette smoke from a neighbor, or smoke from a factory, who is going to do something about it?

YOU and your neighbors should do something about it. Burn the place down if they won't listen to you. We call that Island Justice where I'm from.

2 - (Ownership): When you scrimp and save your money for 20 years to start up a bar called "Smokeys' Den of Cigars and Whiskey", and then the government bans smoking in all bars, is that really fair?

Nope. Not in the least.

Also, I wonder, what percentage of FSP members are really "ready" by some reasonable standard?  What does "ready" mean?  There's got to be some minimum amount of readiness.  Like, what if I'm ready to move to the Free State, and always vote libertarian, even if I'm not 100% sure about some libertarian philosophy.  Am I ready?  If not, what harm is there in me joining?

If you're not ready, neither am I. I would never call myself a Libertarian. Too close to socialism for me.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 12:38:58 pm
Quote
2 - (Ownership): When you scrimp and save your money for 20 years to start up a bar called "Smokeys' Den of Cigars and Whiskey", and then the government bans smoking in all bars, is that really fair?
There's so much going on I haven't had a chance to leave my computer!
To respond to this...As everyone has been telling me about the pregnancy and smoking and fairness, it's not about what's fair. I believe that we have the right to LIFE, first and foremost. If the man who scrimps and saves is endangering our lives then the govt. has a responsibility to step in and say no more. If it was not deadly, just annoying, I would agree that the government would have no reason to say anything at all.
I would also like to address the issue of the cost to consumers by having safety laws. The expression goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It costs more for companies to settle lawsuits than it does to comply with laws that prevent illness, injury or death.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Jack Harrison on June 13, 2003, 12:46:23 pm
Quote
2 - (Ownership): When you scrimp and save your money for 20 years to start up a bar called "Smokeys' Den of Cigars and Whiskey", and then the government bans smoking in all bars, is that really fair?
There's so much going on I haven't had a chance to leave my computer!
To respond to this...As everyone has been telling me about the pregnancy and smoking and fairness, it's not about what's fair. I believe that we have the right to LIFE, first and foremost. If the man who scrimps and saves is endangering our lives then the govt. has a responsibility to step in and say no more. If it was not deadly, just annoying, I would agree that the government would have no reason to say anything at all.
I would also like to address the issue of the cost to consumers by having safety laws. The expression goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It costs more for companies to settle lawsuits than it does to comply with laws that prevent illness, injury or death.

Well! We have much to discuss! And of course we disagree. I much prefer this to talking to someone I agree completely with, by the way.

If Mr. Smokerguy bar owner is doing something in his privately owned bar that might endanger folks in that bar - they are free to leave. It is, after all, his bar. No one has forced anyone to patronize such bar, nor to work there. The federal government has no right nor responsibility to stick its nose inside that bar door. NONE! I'm not totally clear on where the state government line is drawn in this case though, but most of FSP issues are with the central government.

So you believe you have a right to life. OK, fine. You apparently also believe that the government has a responsibility to protect that life. Does that include filling in swimming pools, burning baseball bats, dulling kitchen knives, and melting down firearms, and welding the wheels of your automobile so it can't move anymore? It'd better include those, or I'm going to be all over you for only thinking it applies to those things that bother you at the moment.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onyx_goddess on June 13, 2003, 12:53:40 pm
Jack - I think the issue between you and others who disagree is the difference between anarchist captitalists and limited government libertarians.  I definitely sympathise with the anarchists, but I still believe police officers could play a role in a free society.   However, your point about WHO is actually a good point.  In the case of the shooter, you could pull out your own gun and protect yourself, why "call 911 and die"?  However, let's say a police officer did in fact walk up behind the shooter and club him with a nightstick.  Is that so wrong?  Maybe I got a cramp in my arm and didn't have time to pull out my own nightstick.  And your vigilante burning down example is horrible.  Again with the anarchy.  I burn down my neighbors house, he shoots me in the process, my wife sets him on fire, his wife takes a knife and ....  At some point wouldn't it be easier to use some sort of tort system instead of mob rule?

onein98percent - The owner of the bar is in no way hurting anyone who doesn't choose to be hurt.  The only case is if poor ventilation is sending the smoke right into your living room somehow.  Otherwise, the name of the bar should be enough to clue you in that if you don't want to expose yourself to risk, don't enter the bar.  If your concern is that the state should protect us from injury, then I agree.  If a factory starts belching out sludge that lands in my yard, I don't want to have to go with Jack and burn the factory down.  I'd like to make a few phone calls and have someone else shut them down through government action.  It's just more sane to me.  But, if that factory is in no way actually forcing some harm on me, then I shouldn't have any rights in the situation at all.  If I walk into the factory and jump into a vat of sludge, that's my own fault.  Now, replace "sludge" with "smoke" and "factory" with "bar".
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 12:54:29 pm
It's my house, is it ok for me to beat my kids with an electrical cord, or starve them?
It's his bar, is it OK for him to pull a gun out and start shooting? Come on...private ownership does not mean that you have free reign to do whatever the hell you want.
As far as banning autos etc...I could repeatedly play baseball, or drive an automobile, or swim and I may never experience injury, illness or death. If I repeatedly am exposed to smoke, chemicals, mold etc...I am guaranteed to experience injury, illness or death.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Jack Harrison on June 13, 2003, 01:03:41 pm
It's my house, is it ok for me to beat my kids with an electrical cord, or starve them?

NO. And your good neighbors in the FSP would know something's wrong and do something about it, because they would be true neighbors.

It's his bar, is it OK for him to pull a gun out and start shooting?

No. See, he knows he might get ONE shot off before he's shot himself. Everyone in that bar would probably have a gun in a free world. Maybe even only one or two - its just not knowing which one thats the problem.

I don't believe that there are no responsibilities for your actions. Quite the contrary. Freedom means doing what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's ability/desire to do the same.


Come on...private ownership does not mean that you have free reign to do whatever the hell you want.
As far as banning autos etc...I could repeatedly play baseball, or drive an automobile, or swim and I may never experience injury, illness or death.

Funny, I am repeatedly exposed to guns, ammo, explosives, archery equipment....and I never experience any of it either. Guess what - others do. A very large number of people are killed in swimming pools every year - just maybe not you. Suggesting that the government do something about only one of the things that can kill you is, well, you get the idea.

If I repeatedly am exposed to smoke, chemicals, mold etc...I am guaranteed to experience injury, illness or death.

If exposed to clean air for long enough you will experience same.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 01:11:17 pm
Quote
[If I walk into the factory and jump into a vat of sludge, that's my own fault.  Now, replace "sludge" with "smoke" and "factory" with "bar". /quote]
I see your point and in the matter of patrons, I agree. Employees, I disagree and I know there are alot of people who will be screaming about this comment.
My opinion is based largely on where I live. Here in California the cost of living is so high that many people fall under the "working poor" and people that are considered middle class in the national averages are living hand to mouth. There are also many unemployed and the competition for even the most menial jobs is fierce.
If I am a construction worker and I apply for a job where the owner tells me that I am guaranteed the job but I will be exposed to carcinogenic chemicals, how am I to make the choice between the feeding the children I had when times were good and causing myself serious health damages years from now. The immediate need vs. long term consequences. love for family vs. love for self.  Having been out of work for months, bill collectors on his back, knowing he won't have another offer for many more months, the construction worker has no choice but to endanger his health and take the job. This may not be a reality for any of you, I don't know your situations, but this is life here in California and maybe I am being too "emotional" instead of looking at the "greater good" but I do not think it is right. If jobs were plentiful and the companies cared more about people then profit, if money trees existed...it just isn't reality to say that the best will always happen. You have to be prepared for the absolute worst and hope for the best.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Jack Harrison on June 13, 2003, 01:15:40 pm
Quote
[If I walk into the factory and jump into a vat of sludge, that's my own fault.  Now, replace "sludge" with "smoke" and "factory" with "bar". /quote]
I see your point and in the matter of patrons, I agree. Employees, I disagree and I know there are alot of people who will be screaming about this comment.
My opinion is based largely on where I live. Here in California the cost of living is so high that many people fall under the "working poor" and people that are considered middle class in the national averages are living hand to mouth. There are also many unemployed and the competition for even the most menial jobs is fierce.
If I am a construction worker and I apply for a job where the owner tells me that I am guaranteed the job but I will be exposed to carcinogenic chemicals, how am I to make the choice between the feeding the children I had when times were good and causing myself serious health damages years from now. The immediate need vs. long term consequences. love for family vs. love for self.  Having been out of work for months, bill collectors on his back, knowing he won't have another offer for many more months, the construction worker has no choice but to endanger his health and take the job. This may not be a reality for any of you, I don't know your situations, but this is life here in California and maybe I am being too "emotional" instead of looking at the "greater good" but I do not think it is right. If jobs were plentiful and the companies cared more about people then profit, if money trees existed...it just isn't reality to say that the best will always happen. You have to be prepared for the absolute worst and hope for the best.

Just a thought...would you Californians still be so poor if 2/5 or more of your income didn't go to paying taxes - and for illegal immigrants to go to school, and health care. Suppose you had that other 1/3 of the year you work to pay for taxes to do something else with? Would you be better off or worse? Just a thought.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Karl on June 13, 2003, 01:16:55 pm
It's my house, is it ok for me to beat my kids with an electrical cord, or starve them?
It's his bar, is it OK for him to pull a gun out and start shooting? Come on...private ownership does not mean that you have free reign to do whatever the hell you want.

No(?), no, and no.  You do not have the right to beat your kids with an electrical cord if you cause serious injury, but surely your have the right to inflict SOME pain for misbehavior, such as in a spanking.  You can't starve them either.   And you can't start shooting people in your bar except for an act of self defence.  People must still be held accountable to their actions if the commit force or fraud.

Quote
As far as banning autos etc...I could repeatedly play baseball, or drive an automobile, or swim and I may never experience injury, illness or death. If I repeatedly am exposed to smoke, chemicals, mold etc...I am guaranteed to experience injury, illness or death.

Nonetheless, you have a choice in both matters.  You can choose not to expose yourself to these chemicals, just as you can choose not to drive a car, play baseball, or swim.  In any case, you're wrong -- I have been to countless smoke-filled bars, drank chlorinated water from swimming pools,  and I have in no way been injured.  I have also consumed alcohol and caffeine, substances proven to have harmful effects.  It was my choice every time -- nobody made me do those things.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 01:29:53 pm
Quote
Just a thought...would you Californians still be so poor if 2/5 or more of your income didn't go to paying taxes - and for illegal immigrants to go to school, and health care. Suppose you had that other 1/3 of the year you work to pay for taxes to do something else with? Would you be better off or worse? Just a thought.  
 
Paying for illegal immigrants and health care for children and seniors is such an infintesmal part of our taxes that it isn't worth counting. Our taxes are insane and our shady and bungling governor wwww.recallgraydavis.com (http://www.recallgraydavis.com) is raising them more. Yes, alleviated tax burdens would help us alot but it wouldn't touch the huge problem of unemployment and the outrageous cost of living (In my area the AVERAGE cost of a home is close to half a million dollars).
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: BobW on June 13, 2003, 01:39:35 pm
Hi 1 in 98%,

Now, I understand the problem and why we disagree on some points.

I was discussing the United States.

In 1903, the various categories of people were at the height of civilization (I'll accept some arguments here.)

The working conditions were supurb compared to Europe and Asia.  Women had more rights in the US than in Europe and Asia.  Believe Wyoming was a first in voting rights for the ladies.  Minorities were in great shape compared to the European minorities and Asian minorities.  Children were protected better in the States than elsewhere.  Now, of course, I know this wasn't a weekend event where the citizenry went from rags to riches in 72 hours .....

Life was "upbeat" for the loads of immigrants from all over.  There were many problems.  For example, in California Oriental Asians were forbidden to marry whites.  Still, the problems were less than elsewhere.  

Now, you know I'm using a little sarcasm here, 1/98%.  What is important is that you read up on a little of this stuff.  You've got a lot happening all in a compressed time.  

As an aside, I was discussing with a friend in California, the Orphan Trains; circa 1875 -1920. The kids were sent "out west".  tTere were probably many a scandal hidden.  In the meantime, the counterparts elsewhere were in virtual slavery.  This place was better.

BobW
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: onein98percent on June 13, 2003, 01:47:11 pm
Quote
The working conditions were supurb compared to Europe and Asia.  Women had more rights in the US than in Europe and Asia.  Believe Wyoming was a first in voting rights for the ladies.  Minorities were in great shape compared to the European minorities and Asian minorities.  Children were protected better in the States than elsewhere.  Now, of course, I know this wasn't a weekend event where the citizenry went from rags to riches in 72 hours .....
How conditions compared to europe and asia isn't relevant. How they compare to conditions now is.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: BobW on June 13, 2003, 03:32:06 pm
Hi Karl,

Here's a private sector study by Fred Reed on the subject;

http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/reed/102401.htm


BobW
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Radar on June 18, 2003, 01:01:45 am
Quote
I would never call myself a Libertarian. Too close to socialism for me.

Libertarianism is the polar opposite of Socialism.  They are diametrically opposed.  NOTHING could be further from socialism than Libertarianism.  
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Chad Warner on June 18, 2003, 03:24:10 pm
Hello All,

I have spent the afternoon reading through this thread and have decided to put in my two cents worth.

I don't think that the Free State will be a Utopia.  There will be practical problems the porcupines will have to deal with.  Repealing laws that are for the "common good" may have the effect of hurting some.  But in the long run, people will learn again to make decisions for themselves.  It may be a little Darwinian, survival of the fittest, but that's not a bad thing.  Making laws that give the government control over private business is not democracy.  It is socialism.  Telling people that they can't choose one thing or another is fascism.  That is the argument as I see it.


I wish I remembered where I read it, but an interesting quote was "All laws prohibit something therefore removing a choice or freedom, therefore aren't lawmakers really freedom-takers?"  As I said, I don't remember where I read it and I had to paraphrase, but the concept is true.  People who see something happen and say "There ought to be a law!" are the ones who are advocating less freedom.

Everyone dies, that's a fact.  Why does the government feel the need to tell me how to live my life?  Even if they are correct that I will adversely affect my health by doing <insert vice here>.  If I want to smoke and die at a young age, that's my decision.  The responsibility of my action is my own.  If I want to live in a place where my actions are not my own and I NEED to have someone else in charge of my life, I'll move there.  I am choosing freedom.  I am moving to the Free State.

I don't want anyone else telling me what I can or can't do.  That's why I joined the FSP.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Stumpy on June 18, 2003, 03:34:50 pm
Welcome to the Free State Project Chad. ;D

BTW, where did you hear about the FSP?
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Chad Warner on June 18, 2003, 04:55:44 pm
Good to be here.

I saw  Elizabeth McKinstry on MSNBC.  
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Radar on June 18, 2003, 05:02:40 pm
Welcome Chad!  You seem like a great addition to our little group.  You seem to have a firm grasp on the concept of freedom.  And you're lucky to have seen Elizabeth on MSN.  She represented the FSP well.  


Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: LeopardPM on June 21, 2003, 10:11:40 pm
LOL - lots of time reading thru this thread - very interesting...my unimportant opinions follow:

1/98% - Re: the whole smoking thing....
I agree with you that smoking/2nd hand smoke does violate other peoples right to pursue life... but, you must understand, in a free state, the non-smokers are also free to create a community that is smoke-free, with ordinances and CC&Rs, and probably signs at the entrances to these towns that state in no uncertain terms "This is a TOTALLY Smoke-Free Community, you are welcome to visit, move here, start a business, or what have you, BUT, do not smoke or you will be in direct violation of our rules and fined(???) accordingly" - It seems to me that you would welcome the chance to be a part of such a community, the exact type of community which is outlawed in your state right now.  Being free to smoke allows others the freedom to not smoke or even ever having to deal with smokers also.

re: Fillipino brides et al....
Zack, I don't think I have yet to read a thread in which you don't bring up your whole fillipino bride stuff.  I must admit that these days I look forward to your posts to see how exactly you are going to work it into the conversation at hand - Love ya Man - You make me smile!  BTW - if this date with Jacqueline doesn't work out I might just go your way... lol j/k

re: employment, safety, etc...
the problem that libs have in discussing these issues with others is that we come from what has been pointed out as 'utopia' or the final end-result of lib principles upon a society.  the people (1/98% in this instance) are taking the current state of society and applying our principals point blank - which would cause tremendous pain to people in general.  For instance: joe worker and his family - he is unemployed, he has choice of working for unsafe employer or not being able to feed his family.  This situation is totally out of context.  The whole premise of lib society is one of freedom=responsibility... so, in the end result society, joe worker would have been taught about self-reliance, how to make good life decisions, the potential for his unemployement, etc AND would (if he was responsible) have taken steps BEFORE his unemployment to make sure he had more choices than only to work for Mr. HazardousWork employer.  Perhaps by putting enough money away to ensure his ability to move his family to a place where Mr. Safe employer has a business, or even better, become skilled in other trades so he can easily change into another less-hazardous field should the need arise.  The point is... it is a fallacy to take Joe Worker from the statist society we have today and through him into the Free State of the FUTURE.  thats like throwing a caveman into a job working at a Silicon-chip Manufacturing plant and pointing to his inadequacies and saying that proves we can't ever have a Chip business because no one will know how to run it. (well, a bad metaphor, but ya'all know what I mean)

ok, enuf of me already - can't wait to read more from you guys/gals...

Viva la Liberty,
michael
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: shere on June 23, 2003, 08:40:38 pm
I just went through all five pages and have some random comments.  

It is most likely that 98 percent of americans feel as 1in98 does.  Does that justify ramming "government protection" down our throats?  It seems to me that it indicates that we 2% are being taxed and receive no representation.  That sounds familiar....  We cannot change the whole country.  That is why we are trying to find a place where we can live as we wish without interference from others.

There was once a time when the States enjoyed autonomy.  If one disliked the political climate in Georgia one could move to New York.  There were options.  That is no more, THX1138 seems to be just around the corner.  Or perhaps it's the Borg, "Resistance is futile, you WILL be assimilated!"  Do you suggest that we simply roll over and succumb?  

1in98, with all due respect, your attitude distresses me.  You accuse others of being unyielding and then confesses to being unyielding yourself.  You claim to seek liberty yet wish to deprive others of theirs.  You compare the act of others smoking in your presence to the beating of children and worse.  You responded to what I read as cogent arguments with what I perceived as snide and inflamatory remarks.  In addition to this you spoke of your fiancee's uninformed reaction to the FSP in a manner that indicates him to be a closed-minded prejudiced individual.  I am sure that he is a fine person; however I wish to live among people who are more open-minded and tolerant than portray him to be.

I, too, live in California.  When the smoking ban was applied to bars I asked "if there is such a demand for smoke-free bars, why has no bar owner voluntarily banned smoking and capitalized on it?"  I have yet to receive an answer.

Those who would have liberty must accept the responsibility that comes with it.  That includes not crying for the government to restrict the liberties of others because it is an inconvience to us; no matter how severe that inconvience is perceived to be.  Once the government is given the power to restrict any freedom a line has been drawn, and once the line has been drawn it is all to easily moved until no freedoms exist.

This used to be called "The land of opportunities".  When did it come to be viewed as "The land of guarantees"?

I'm sorry if I sound harsh; but LIFE is harsh and it's hard enough without people invoking the "democratic government" to unduely restrict our freedoms.  It is my honest opinion that the global problems of famine, wars, and disease are a direct result of over-population.  Do I have the right to infringe on your reproductive rights?  I thought not.
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: RhythmStar on June 23, 2003, 09:08:45 pm
This thread is definitely disturbing.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything Radar said in his last long post.

However, it's pretty clear we just lost a potential member, so something went wrong.  Maybe that's inevitable, but maybe not.  Several times I've wondered if this thread should be moderated strictly like the religion thread.  After all, if potentials are routed here, then this spot should be potential-friendly.

Now, some might argue that elginx isn't a liberty lover after all.  But I'd argue that she's like a lot of Americans - complacent with the status quo, but open to being educated about freedom.  I have had very similar discussions about smoking in restaurants, and for some reason that's a hard one to grasp right away for complacents.

There's an episode of King of the Hill where Hank explains his technique for selling more propane than all the other salespeople.  He educates his customer, and then lets then go home and make the right decision for themselves.  I think that's what went wrong.  Sometimes debating a point with someone can't do any good.  It's best to lay the cards out on the table in a clear, but gentle manner, and then let them go home and think about it.

When people have a need, they must find a way to satisfy it.  If FSP folks cannot realize this and find a way to present alternatives that address these needs, rather than castigation for having needs and thinking they should be addressed somhow by society in the first place, then the FSP will end up like the LP, just on a smaller, more localized scale.   Dynamical systems look the same, no matter what scale you observe them at.  For the FSP to avoid becoming the mini-LP, the dynamic must change.

People come here with a lifetime of conditioning as to what they should expect.  A little sensitivity and less venom would go a long way. The frontal assault only digs in heels, is almost never successful, and is always costly.

RS
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Zack Bass on June 23, 2003, 10:38:46 pm

When people have a need, they must find a way to satisfy it.  If FSP folks cannot realize this and find a way to present alternatives that address these needs, rather than castigation for having needs and thinking they should be addressed somhow by society in the first place, then the FSP will end up like the LP, just on a smaller, more localized scale.


When people feel a "need" to do something that restricts my Freedom, it is not true that they must find a way to satisfy it.  What they must do is put up with their plight.
The existence of your "need" does not create a corresponding obligation on my part.  If you want to ask for Charity, I am compassionate.  If you want to insist, you can pound sand.

Quote

People come here with a lifetime of conditioning as to what they should expect.  A little sensitivity and less venom would go a long way. The frontal assault only digs in heels, is almost never successful, and is always costly.


Not true.  It is not our job to cater to those who will never ever ever support our reforms.  Not only is it a waste of time, but it turns away those who would support us.  Real libertarians will cheer our frontal assault and derive much amusement from gleefully observing The Digging In Of The Heels.
The Liberals of the early 70's didn't shrink from making great fun of their opponents, and we are living under their heel today.

Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: RhythmStar on June 24, 2003, 12:47:46 am
So, Libertarians always have to seem like they have a great big chip on their shoulder?  Why so defensive?

RS
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: jenlee on June 24, 2003, 01:10:05 am
What about the women and yes the men of the state everyone is supposed to move to? Aren't you forgetting them?


You guys are not willing to compromise your ideals for any one or any thing. I respect that. I used to be more like that but over the years I have found that I have more success when I am somewhat flexible.


That's not success, that's settling.

Quote

How many of the 3,900 or so signed members are women? I haven't seen very many on these boards.


Very few.  And the ones you do see are already taken, except for two or three.
Not to worry, I've got that covered:  http://Filipina.com

So see, we don't have to worry about your warning that no American women will find our attitudes attractive.  We will not burden them with that which they despise.


Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Zack Bass on June 24, 2003, 06:35:50 am
What about the women and yes the men of the state everyone is supposed to move to? Aren't you forgetting them?


Quote

How many of the 3,900 or so signed members are women? I haven't seen very many on these boards.


Very few.  And the ones you do see are already taken, except for two or three.
Not to worry, I've got that covered:  http://Filipina.com

So see, we don't have to worry about your warning that no American women will find our attitudes attractive.  We will not burden them with that which they despise.




No.  I remember that they are there, for now.  What about them?

Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Zack Bass on June 24, 2003, 06:39:46 am

So, Libertarians always have to seem like they have a great big chip on their shoulder?  Why so defensive?


Same reason Frederick Douglass had a chip on his shoulder.
The Majoritarians are imprisoning innocent people.  A reasonable and natural response to an attack is defensiveness.

Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: skeeterroo2 on July 28, 2003, 02:19:51 pm
As I sit at my job, waiting for reports to come back I am reading this. Sadly the continuing theme on every page is your selfishness against one or the others views. This sickens me as I was coming to this site to be enlightened with wisdom of people like myself. What I have found is that no matter what, John Q. Public (even if given the chance to make things better for everyone) is a selfish bastard. I too worked in a bar as a bartender when I was pregnant. I also got into a fight (verbal) when I was 8 months pregnant because a certain former congressman decided to give me his useless two cents. He told me because I was working in a bar and not yet married to the father of my chlid ( am now thanks for the concern) I was not going to amount to anything and I had no self respect( and thus would be the world's worst mother) because I was a barmaid in a smokey bar. I politely dumped his drink and told him to escort himself to the exit, gave him his money back too. Now according to Mr. Smokey Bar Snotty Pants I should have been fired. And any of you would think that considering the fact that I also offended his lawyer son, his circuit court judge son and an eight-top worth of high profile B.S.r's. But  I wasn't because my boss realized that my feelings were more important than money. Rocket Science for some I know but I  would never live in a world where I need to walk on eggshells for any man, money or anything else you may deem far more important than human life( is there?). Look I am truly interested in the project but I am truly weary because in a true free society yes we should be able to say what we feel. However there is something to be said for tact, and dude you have none. I have since left the bar so I can give many other countless people fits. But I stick to my guns, and there is something to be said for a woman who does not need your approval to survive. Big ups to the lady who initiated this convo. You do have rights, so exercise them and quit your damn job if it makes you that miserable. Bartenders can get jobs anywhere doing anything, your charisma will lead the way. ;)
Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: Zack Bass on July 28, 2003, 07:26:01 pm

  ... I politely dumped his drink and told him to escort himself to the exit, gave him his money back too. Now according to Mr. Smokey Bar Snotty Pants I should have been fired.


No one can reasonably say that you ought to have been fired for that - unless, of course, the Owner of the bar wanted to fire you.  It is entirely up to him, and I will defend to the death his right not to fire you if he doesn't want to.  No one ought to say that he must fire you.  Who said that?  Such a requirement would violate the Property Rights of the Owner of the Bar.  That's just as bad as saying that he must not fire you.  Either way is his business and no one else's.

Title: Re:Interested but have a question
Post by: goon on August 03, 2003, 01:33:25 pm
I also got into a fight (verbal) when I was 8 months pregnant because a certain former congressman decided to give me his useless two cents. He told me because I was working in a bar and not yet married to the father of my chlid ( am now thanks for the concern) I was not going to amount to anything and I had no self respect( and thus would be the world's worst mother) because I was a barmaid in a smokey bar. I politely dumped his drink and told him to escort himself to the exit, gave him his money back too.


You sound like one hell of a woman. ;)