Wal-Mart employees should be thankful they have a job

[Cruella]

See, now we have two differing takes on the question of libertarians.

Seems to me that the libertarian philosophy is the opposite of the big powerful government model.

But, then we introduce the "social conservatism", in which the Libertarians will side with liberals (or at least Democrats) but what has that to do with the size, scope, and expense of government?

Big government does want to control social issues as much as the economic ones, and liberals, socialists and even libertarians seem to be on board with that. Conservatives don't want to control the social issues politically, they just don't want them to change to where the liberals want to take them.

 

[Dr.Who]

Big government does want to control social issues as much as the economic ones, and liberals, socialists and even libertarians seem to be on board with that. Conservatives don't want to control the social issues politically, they just don't want them to change to where the liberals want to take them.

I suspect that a sizeable portion of conservatives would like to control social issues and also dont want them to change to where liberals want to take them. The most relevant example would be gay marriage. Anyone wanting straight marriage to be the only sanctioned form of marriage but not wanting gay people to marry is wanting to control a social issue. I think libertarians have a more cohesive view on marriage - namely to get the state out of it.

Here is a list of libertarian statement on gay rights:

• Repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual acts between adults (with the age of consent reasonably defined). This would include abolition of laws prohibiting prostitution and solicitation, whether gay or straight.
• Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual marriages.
• An end to the use of loitering statutes and entrapment procedures as a means of harassing gays and prostitutes.
• An end to the collection by government agencies of data on the sexual preferences of individuals.
• Elimination of regulations specifying homosexuality as a justification for denying or revoking state licenses (for doctors, lawyers, teachers, hairdressers, etc.).
• Repeal of laws prohibiting cross-dressing.
• Recognition of the right of a homosexual parent to be considered for custody of his or her natural child, and of the child to choose the homosexual parent as guardian.
• Elimination of laws specifying homosexuality as grounds for denying the right of adoption.
• Equality of treatment of gay people in regard to government service, including particularly membership in the armed forces.
• End the usage of zoning and loitering laws to harass gay people and gay-owned businesses.
• Equal treatment for gay immigrants.
• End government sanctioned closing of gay bathhouses.

Notice that it does not state anywhere that gays should be allowed to marry. That would be giving the state the authority to decide. If the libertarian view became law gays would be getting married but it would not be because the state condoned it.

 

[PLC1]

And here is the Libertarian platform on economic policy:

2.0 Economic Liberty
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

That sounds to me like the polar opposite of what has been described on this forum as big government liberalism, as does what Dr. Who posted above.

 

[dogtowner]

And here is the Libertarian platform on economic policy:

That sounds to me like the polar opposite of what has been described on this forum as big government liberalism, as does what Dr. Who posted above.

trrue and complete liberty has become so foreign people have trouble getting their arms around it.

 

[PLC1]

trrue and complete liberty has become so foreign people have trouble getting their arms around it.

The illusion of security is more popular.

 

[dogtowner]

The illusion of security is more popular.

or perhaps its the fear of competition ? but perhaps what you say is one aspect of that ?

this country was founded on the idea that the only limitation on you was your desire to work for it. and people came here in droves for that opportunity. then they achieved as little and were content with it but people kept coming who were dying to work harder than that so instead of being content to be happy with what those first had achioeved they started inhibiting what the new guys could accomplish.

and it was pretty much downhill from there.

 

[PLC1]

or perhaps its the fear of competition ? but perhaps what you say is one aspect of that ?

this country was founded on the idea that the only limitation on you was your desire to work for it. and people came here in droves for that opportunity. then they achieved as little and were content with it but people kept coming who were dying to work harder than that so instead of being content to be happy with what those first had achioeved they started inhibiting what the new guys could accomplish.

and it was pretty much downhill from there.

That sums it up to a degree, but the US is still a land of opportunity, and there are still plenty of people who want to come here and make better lives for themselves. What we need to do is to vet those immigrants, screen out the felons, terrorists, druggies, and assorted rifraff, then encourage the rest to come, work hard, and become Americans. In other words, immigration reform.

but that would require a functioning Congress, wouldn't it?

 

[dogtowner]

That sums it up to a degree, but the US is still a land of opportunity, and there are still plenty of people who want to come here and make better lives for themselves. What we need to do is to vet those immigrants, screen out the felons, terrorists, druggies, and assorted rifraff, then encourage the rest to come, work hard, and become Americans. In other words, immigration reform.

but that would require a functioning Congress, wouldn't it?

we have in place a process such as you describe. what we do not have is a plan for those who choose not to follow that process. Congress has enacted the legislation to make that path punishable but the executive branch chooses not to enforce it.

perhaps the real issue is elsewhere ?

of course a functioning Congress would be nice for other reasons. but one man stands in the way that.

 

[Cruella]

In other words, immigration reform.

but that would require a functioning Congress, wouldn't it?

There will never be a functioning congress until the people who get elected put away their party affiliation and become patriots. Not going to happen.

 

[PLC1]

we have in place a process such as you describe. what we do not have is a plan for those who choose not to follow that process. Congress has enacted the legislation to make that path punishable but the executive branch chooses not to enforce it.

perhaps the real issue is elsewhere ?

of course a functioning Congress would be nice for other reasons. but one man stands in the way that.

Except that illegal immigration has been a problem since that one man was a high school kid, probably longer than that.

 

[Cruella]

Except that illegal immigration has been a problem since that one man was a high school kid, probably longer than that.

Um no. Reagan gave amnesty to illegals, with the understanding that it would get fixed. That one man was in college. We would have had some kind of immigration reform by now, as long as something was done about the border. So here we sit with illegals pouring in everyday and no political will to stop it.

 

[PLC1]

Um no. Reagan gave amnesty to illegals, with the understanding that it would get fixed. That one man was in college. We would have had some kind of immigration reform by now, as long as something was done about the border. So here we sit with illegals pouring in everyday and no political will to stop it.

I remember that amnesty given to illegals. The result was a huge increase in the numbers of illegals coming across the border. It didn't get "fixed", and still isn't some 25 or so years later.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its sad how people think workers should just suck it up and let employeers do anything they want to them, and say well just be glad you have a job...How about I stab you in the leg and say Just be glad I did not shoot you in the head.... CEO's have the right to golden parachutes...and to have a Union ( they call it a board of Directors where they all vote to give each other raises) But if a worker says...you know I would like to be able to earn enough to have health care and a place to live...you guys Bitch about them. You cry about Family Values...but fuck if a employee should get to have time with that family..even more so for a holiday. Maybe one day you guys will care about anyone who does not make a 6 figure income...I don't see it soon though. You got yours, fuck the rest and give me cheep shit no matter who's pay and health care you have to cut.

 

[dogtowner]

Except that illegal immigration has been a problem since that one man was a high school kid, probably longer than that.

I was addressing the cause of a non functioning Congress. but irrespective of his age, BO has decreed that it is unimportant to prosecute significant numbers of illegals on his whim as opposed to the law.

 

[Pandora]

Its sad how people think workers should just suck it up and let employeers do anything they want to them, and say well just be glad you have a job...How about I stab you in the leg and say Just be glad I did not shoot you in the head.... CEO's have the right to golden parachutes...and to have a Union ( they call it a board of Directors where they all vote to give each other raises) But if a worker says...you know I would like to be able to earn enough to have health care and a place to live...you guys Bitch about them. You cry about Family Values...but fuck if a employee should get to have time with that family..even more so for a holiday. Maybe one day you guys will care about anyone who does not make a 6 figure income...I don't see it soon though. You got yours, fuck the rest and give me cheep shit no matter who's pay and health care you have to cut.

I was at a Wal-Mart today buying thanksgiving stuff. I asked a few of the employees about the current situation with the thanksgiving hours and usually they are happy and say nice things about Wal-Mart but all of them today were unhappy and didn’t want to have to work thanksgiving night.



I have a hard time understanding how there isn’t at least some who want to work and that would cover the early shift but apparently not that many do. It’s kind of sad, the best I can do is I do not plan to go shopping there thanksgiving night or even the day after, mostly because I don’t want to be one of the reasons they had to leave their families. I think Wal-Mart should have offered double time or double time and a half instead of time and a half then more people would have wanted to work it instead of being forced to work it.



Business is in business to make a profit not make good jobs with health care. If you can think of a business that’s job is to make good paying jobs with healthcare you should start one, you would be the first (outside of government)



It seems unfair to claim that if you are not for business not making a profit if it means the worker doesn’t make quality wages and have health care exc. Then you are some sort of greedy monster. But I suppose that some of the things I think about the left are equally as dramatic and nonfactual.