A real buzzkill (seriously; the environment dudes)

[wufwugy]

Fundamentally this is what makes a difference between a conservative and a liberal. A job is not a right IMO... it is a privilege... one you have to earn and deserve to keep.

A highly sought job should be a privilege, but the right to any job should absolutely be a right. We live in a society with all sorts of interdependencies, and we have virtually no choice in the matter. The backbone of this society is the ability to work to provide for oneself.

There is nothing fundamentally different between a social right to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself and the social right to speak or congregate or practice religion. As long as I'm a mandatory citizen of my society, I should have the right to adequately function in that society. Not providing the right to employment in this society is like not providing the right to chop trees or hunt animals on whatever land you currently occupy in tribal societies

The right to employment is just as basic as any of our other established rights. The difference is it's not been established in this society.

[Monty3038]

A highly sought job should be a privilege, but the right to any job should absolutely be a right. We live in a society with all sorts of interdependencies, and we have virtually no choice in the matter. The backbone of this society is the ability to work to provide for oneself.

There is nothing fundamentally different between a social right to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself and the social right to speak or congregate or practice religion. As long as I'm a mandatory citizen of my society, I should have the right to adequately function in that society. Not providing the right to employment in this society is like not providing the right to chop trees or hunt animals on whatever land you currently occupy in tribal societies

The right to employment is just as basic as any of our other established rights. The difference is it's not been established in this society.

I fundamentally disagree with these statements. It is my belief that in a tribal society if you are unable to contribute, you are cast out of that society, as they are unwilling and unable to support you. It is your choice to survive or not to survive, to work to improve your condition or not to. The 'right' you mention to provide your basic needs of shelter, clothing and food is a choice, you choose to provide them or you choose not to.

Let me try to explain it a bit differently. Without providing some value to the society, even in tribal societies, you are a burden to that society, not a contributing member. Thus you don't get to have any power or any 'value' to the society. The only members of tribal society that I have learned of that do not work are usually the shamans. They provide value by contributing the knowledge and 'mysticism' that the society feels it needs. If they stop providing that value, they are forced to either work or are cast out.

Another way to look at it, if this was a right, why are there still starving peoples in third world areas of this planet of ours?

[wufwugy]

I fundamentally disagree with these statements. It is my belief that in a tribal society if you are unable to contribute, you are cast out of that society, as they are unwilling and unable to support you. It is your choice to survive or not to survive, to work to improve your condition or not to. The 'right' you mention to provide your basic needs of shelter, clothing and food is a choice, you choose to provide them or you choose not to.

Let me try to explain it a bit differently. Without providing some value to the society, even in tribal societies, you are a burden to that society, not a contributing member. Thus you don't get to have any power or any 'value' to the society. The only members of tribal society that I have learned of that do not work are usually the shamans. They provide value by contributing the knowledge and 'mysticism' that the society feels it needs. If they stop providing that value, they are forced to either work or are cast out.

Another way to look at it, if this was a right, why are there still starving peoples in third world areas of this planet of ours?

Yeah dude you misunderstood me. I'm not talking at all about this. I'm talking about the system itself. You're referring more to a response to that system.

In a tribalism, the system itself is predicated upon the ability for every member to provide for themselves. There are some outliers and examples of this not being the case, but in general, the capacity to provide exists

In modernism, however, this is not the case for many people. We have designed this artificial construct called an economy that virtually replaces many foundational aspects of the kind of society humans evolved for. Our current rendition of this artificial construct systemically denies the capacity to provide for many, many people. The overwhelming majority of the poor and starving in our world are so not because they choose not to provide for themselves, but because they can't. The system will not let them.

Providing for oneself in modernism is predicated upon the existence of adequate employment. When that employment is not adequate, the people are systemically denied the ability to provide for themselves. The ability to provide for oneself is a basic human right that has only achieved some level of actualization in a small number of nations. US is maybe about halfway there.



Besides all that, a society that designates the right to employment is a much, much better one to live in. Production, health, happiness and a whole bunch of good stuff increases dramatically when the least fortunate of a society receiving a helping hand. Instead of dragging it down and going for things like crime, they become productive members. Don't let some arbitrary political philosophy hinder actual good policy

[Monty3038]

Our current rendition of this artificial construct systemically denies the capacity to provide for many, many people. The overwhelming majority of the poor and starving in our world are so not because they choose not to provide for themselves, but because they can't. The system will not let them.

I'm not sure I can buy into this statement as well... let me explain after your next paragraph...

Providing for oneself in modernism is predicated upon the existence of adequate employment. When that employment is not adequate, the people are systemically denied the ability to provide for themselves.

Hmm... so if there is unemployment, one cannot provide for themselves? I see where you feel that I cannot provide for my family if I cannot find work, but if that work is inadequate to provide for my family, then just having employment is not sufficient. You have to have a 'livable income' or work for the state, and let the state provide you what is determined to be your basic subsistence. This is the basis of a 'minimum wage' which, while we all know is not enough to support a family, is a start down this road... of which I also disagree with.

The ability to provide for oneself is a basic human right that has only achieved some level of actualization in a small number of nations. US is maybe about halfway there.

The ability to provide for oneself is a skill, not a right. When you are born you cannot provide for yourself, you learn to as you are raised... and if you are not taught how to provide for yourself, you become a ward of the state and thus the cycle continues... I really don't like this type of thinking as it proliferates the need for welfare and state run subsistence of people, which I think leads directly down the road to socialism/communism, which is where I think a lot of your thinking is heading. If the state/country/government/tribal leaders determine that this is the minimum you must have to survive, and they will provide it for you.. and you will work this job to obtain it... I think we can all see where that leads... to doing the bare minimum to obtain the bare minimum for survival...

Besides all that, a society that designates the right to employment is a much, much better one to live in. Production, health, happiness and a whole bunch of good stuff increases dramatically when the least fortunate of a society receiving a helping hand. Instead of dragging it down and going for things like crime, they become productive members. Don't let some arbitrary political philosophy hinder actual good policy

I don't think this is arbitrary political policy. A society that designates the right to OPPORTUNITY is a much better one to live in. I don't want one where everyone is guaranteed a job... not everyone wants a job, not everyone deserves a job. I also don't want minimum wages, you earn what you are worth. If an employer feels you are worth more, you make more. If an employer cannot afford to pay you what you feel you are worth, they will not hire you.

I agree it is noble to lend a helping hand. That is what a limited unemployment program of 13 weeks is for. That is what limited welfare with restrictions including no further payments for further family size increases, and limited terms on benefits for able bodied adults is for... the relentless never ending welfare cycle we currently live in, in the US, is a self-defeating prophecy that keeps people down as they have no incentive to change.

Ok... soap box over... I'm sure our views don't coincide, and I'm not sure we would find a middle ground, but that is the point of a democratic society...

[wufwugy]

The ability to provide for oneself is a skill, not a right. When you are born you cannot provide for yourself, you learn to as you are raised...

Kinda like how we learn how to speak, how to congregate, or how to marry? Human rights are social constructs for the purpose of social benefit. Origin or naturalism is no bearing

and if you are not taught how to provide for yourself, you become a ward of the state and thus the cycle continues... I really don't like this type of thinking as it proliferates the need for welfare and state run subsistence of people, which I think leads directly down the road to socialism/communism, which is where I think a lot of your thinking is heading. If the state/country/government/tribal leaders determine that this is the minimum you must have to survive, and they will provide it for you.. and you will work this job to obtain it... I think we can all see where that leads... to doing the bare minimum to obtain the bare minimum for survival...

Sorry dude but you don't know what socialism is. We have some very strong socialistic principles in our society that nobody other than a handful of the incredibly rich would wish to delete, and only a small number of people actually understand are socialism.

Virtually everybody you know is a closet socialist. The disconnect is that most people have silly ideas of some kind of nanny state gulag mill servitude poor fantasy about socialism. Socialism is merely a socioeconomic construct for the purpose of the society, the populace. Civil rights, individual freedoms, virtually every form of egalitarianism is socialism on some level.

I always find it interesting when I discuss policy with uber right-wingers without designating politics. They always have incredibly liberal and socialistic ideals, yet the moment they realize the political designation, they oppose.

I don't think this is arbitrary political policy. A society that designates the right to OPPORTUNITY is a much better one to live in.

I completely agree. The difference is that in order to actually live in that kind of society, you need heaps of socialism. My beef with conservatism and libertarianism ultimately boils down to them saying one thing yet promoting policy that does a different thing. Conservative and libertarian ideals are very good things, but they are clueless as to how to actually achieve those ideals.

I don't want one where everyone is guaranteed a job... not everyone wants a job, not everyone deserves a job. I also don't want minimum wages, you earn what you are worth. If an employer feels you are worth more, you make more. If an employer cannot afford to pay you what you feel you are worth, they will not hire you.

That sounds good on paper, but isn't how it works in reality. If you were right, worker compensation would be incredibly high right now since individual production has dramatically increased over the decades

I agree it is noble to lend a helping hand. That is what a limited unemployment program of 13 weeks is for. That is what limited welfare with restrictions including no further payments for further family size increases, and limited terms on benefits for able bodied adults is for... the relentless never ending welfare cycle we currently live in, in the US, is a self-defeating prophecy that keeps people down as they have no incentive to change.

This argument is popular due to propaganda, not data. When it started it was called the Welfare Cadillac Queen, now it's a more subtle "entitlement lazy drag blah blah blah". It exists because it gets votes

[Monty3038]

Sorry dude but you don't know what socialism is.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. For some reason though, your clarification sounds more like an attack, but that is probably me internalizing your comment.

We have some very strong socialistic principles in our society that nobody other than a handful of the incredibly rich would wish to delete, and only a small number of people actually understand are socialism.

Apparently, since I don't understand socialism, I don't understand your comments. Please explain in a better way that someone with a public school education can understand.

Virtually everybody you know is a closet socialist. The disconnect is that most people have silly ideas of some kind of nanny state gulag mill servitude poor fantasy about socialism. Socialism is merely a socioeconomic construct for the purpose of the society, the populace. Civil rights, individual freedoms, virtually every form of egalitarianism is socialism on some level.

Again, my understanding of socialism is in opposition to what you are stating. I will have to do more research on socialism to understand how you come to the conclusion that civil rights and indvidual freedoms are part of a socialistic society.

I always find it interesting when I discuss policy with uber right-wingers without designating politics. They always have incredibly liberal and socialistic ideals, yet the moment they realize the political designation, they oppose.

I guess I don't see your point. Are you trying to call me an uber right winger who has conflicting ideals or are you stating an opinion on people you normally discuss with?

I completely agree. The difference is that in order to actually live in that kind of society, you need heaps of socialism. My beef with conservatism and libertarianism ultimately boils down to them saying one thing yet promoting policy that does a different thing. Conservative and libertarian ideals are very good things, but they are clueless as to how to actually achieve those ideals.

All political systems are compromise. So I don't know whether you are calling the system the problem or you are saying that politicians who represent conservative ideals are failing. So far, I've seen very few conservatives who actually are conservatives.

That sounds good on paper, but isn't how it works in reality. If you were right, worker compensation would be incredibly high right now since individual production has dramatically increased over the decades

Sure, individual production has dramatically increased, so has inflation, cost of living, etc... everything expands, so now I can produce more than someone 50 years ago... but if my skill set is still average among others in the workforce... I still earn approximately the same standard of living. The thing a lot of people don't seem to get is if you increase one thing, you increase another... raising the minimum wage, raises prices as companies compensate for it to maintain profits, which in turn lowers the standard of living again, which means minimum wage has to be raised... etc.. etc. etc.

Now, what I was referring to, is a person who can push a button and watch an assembly line has one value to a business owner, while a product design engineer has another. If you have a society where ability and value are not properly rewarded, there is no encouragement to achieve more.

It isn't how it works in reality because no one can truly achieve a market driven society without damaging a large number of people in the process... and because that violates popular opinion, it gets voted down, also it leaves a number of people out in the cold... but if a true market driven society could be founded, I think this would work.

This argument is popular due to propaganda, not data. When it started it was called the Welfare Cadillac Queen, now it's a more subtle "entitlement lazy drag blah blah blah". It exists because it gets votes

I'm not sure if you mean the argument gets votes or the welfare state gets votes?


---

I am not an economist, I have little formal economic training, I have a public school education and two college degrees. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable and able to understand concepts. I am hoping to gain something from this conversation and discussion, as well as am trying to keep my opinions and mind open. If you want to keep it going, I'm glad to, I'm actually enjoying it. I don't get to have these discussions often as they normally devolve into name calling by either myself or the other side and anger on both parts. So I'm trying to do my best to keep it civil and open-minded. Bear with me.

[wufwugy]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. For some reason though, your clarification sounds more like an attack, but that is probably me internalizing your comment.

Oh I'm not attacking. I'm just blunt. The moment I feel a discussion turns into attacks, I leave it

Apparently, since I don't understand socialism, I don't understand your comments. Please explain in a better way that someone with a public school education can understand.

Public education you say? Hmmm

That's some pretty nice socialism there. Granted, it is more socialism via proxy, but it is still socialism. There is a whole lot of confusion in some of the social sciences over vernacular because they're changing so rapidly and so unexhaustive. The strict definition of economic socialism is along the lines of collective management. So a company where every employee is partial employer is socialism. The system has been shown to be incredibly effective. Its overall effects are of much improved wealth distribution and economic health. Our current system is more a feudal hybrid than anything that reflects sustainability and egalitarianism

Things like public education are not strictly socialistic based on a myopic view, yet they are philosophically and effectively socialistic. Voting, for example, is one of the most socialistic things any society has. Seriously, our democratic process is complete socialism. Collective influence over proceedings = socialism


Also, do research on socialism by watching some of this guy's lectures or reading stuff

Professor Richard D. Wolff | Economics Professor

Again, my understanding of socialism is in opposition to what you are stating. I will have to do more research on socialism to understand how you come to the conclusion that civil rights and indvidual freedoms are part of a socialistic society.

Look at the words dude. Socialism, society, communism, community. Governing systems that are made up for the people, by the people, are socialism. The words have simply been demonized. We say that communism failed, yet it never actually failed. Not only was the Soviet Union not a communist country, but they failed due to being beaten up by the US. They failed due to lack of resources, not lack of a specific governing philosophy. Not to mention, it was more crony-ism than commune-ism. Blame their geography and the fact that their industry was decimated in WWII

I guess I don't see your point. Are you trying to call me an uber right winger who has conflicting ideals or are you stating an opinion on people you normally discuss with?

Referring to others

All political systems are compromise. So I don't know whether you are calling the system the problem or you are saying that politicians who represent conservative ideals are failing. So far, I've seen very few conservatives who actually are conservatives.

I'm saying that the policy doesn't reflect reality. Also, neocon are more fuckbags than conservatives. Actually, they're corporatists exclusively.

Sure, individual production has dramatically increased, so has inflation, cost of living, etc... everything expands, so now I can produce more than someone 50 years ago... but if my skill set is still average among others in the workforce... I still earn approximately the same standard of living. The thing a lot of people don't seem to get is if you increase one thing, you increase another... raising the minimum wage, raises prices as companies compensate for it to maintain profits, which in turn lowers the standard of living again, which means minimum wage has to be raised... etc.. etc. etc.

Now, what I was referring to, is a person who can push a button and watch an assembly line has one value to a business owner, while a product design engineer has another. If you have a society where ability and value are not properly rewarded, there is no encouragement to achieve more.

You're absolutely right. That's all I want, things to be properly rewarded. Many people (mainly rich corporation owners) don't want this though because it means the society needs to be more egalitarian, they end up with more competition, they don't get to rob the masses via labor abuses and such

Correctly rewarding means correctly rewarding. Remember that. You wanna start correctly rewarding people, and you have to do whole heaps of socialistic things in order to achieve egalitarianism so as to actually promote opportunity which allows people to be able to achieve in the first place. If you don't do this then the rewards are simply going to the special few who are in the right place at the right time

It isn't how it works in reality because no one can truly achieve a market driven society without damaging a large number of people in the process... and because that violates popular opinion, it gets voted down, also it leaves a number of people out in the cold... but if a true market driven society could be founded, I think this would work.

I sorta disagree. While "market driven society" is a silly designation, an actual free market is way way way way better than our monopoly market. We have nothing close to a free market. We only say we do because the propaganda wants control. Or we say that if we do such n such we will get a free market when reality is that's also propaganda by the same people.

You want a free market? Great, so do I. In order to get that free market we need some serious socialistic regulations in order to make and keep it free. We've seen what letting the corporations run the show does, it creates unfree monopolies, devastating middle classes, and crumbling economies.

I'm not sure if you mean the argument gets votes or the welfare state gets votes?

The argument gets votes. Republicans 101. It began with the Southern Strategy, but flows into all sorts of vilifications.

---

I am not an economist, I have little formal economic training, I have a public school education and two college degrees. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable and able to understand concepts. I am hoping to gain something from this conversation and discussion, as well as am trying to keep my opinions and mind open. If you want to keep it going, I'm glad to, I'm actually enjoying it. I don't get to have these discussions often as they normally devolve into name calling by either myself or the other side and anger on both parts. So I'm trying to do my best to keep it civil and open-minded. Bear with me.

Totally cool.

I guess I'm confused by this as I don't hear any conservatives claiming the new deal was their idea.

They do. However, unwittingly and via proxy. An example is how conservatives love the good ol real America great middle class Eisenhower days etc etc. That was some liberal socialism that got that shit done. The right-wing was opposed the entire time, but now that they've forgotten history they think they were on the side all along. This is how it is with nearly everything. Socialists and liberals are on the right side, conservatives on the wrong side, then the conservatives flip flop after they forgot what happened. The Founding Fathers were the biggest liberals in history at the time, the North were the liberals of the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement of the 60s was a very basic liberal movement with the opposition coming from the cranky right-wing that wants nothing more but to conserve the old ways and conserve the special interests.

Look over historical policy issues, and look at who was on which side. You'll see every freaking time that it's either poor public vs powerful private or progressive liberalism vs fuckheads that dont wanna give up their ways and their slaves

Just look at the health care stuff that happened a while back. "Get your gubmint hands off my medicare!" Oh you mean the government subsidy that you receive and your side rallied against 40 years ago?

So what was the point of Obama's stimulus package that is rebuilding approximately 30 bridges in my area, running High speed internet throughout rural areas, etc... all of which are multi-year projects... as well as many short term projects. If it wasn't the point of putting people to work and jump starting the economy, what was the point of it?

The point was to help the economy, which it has. There is a big difference between helping and fixing though.

Our problems run sooooooo deep that the specific bill couldn't do what people hoped it would. What the bill actually did, though, is a bit better than projected by the people in charge of correctly determining what the bill would do.

Ok, I had to look deleterious up to be sure it was what I thought it was. I don't know who Barry No Balls is, so let me try to find that out. I don't know what awful tax cuts you are talking about, so I don't know how to take your discussion here. Wait, are you talking about Obama? Ok, it appears to be what you mean. Obama doesn't seem to be too concerned with conservative values, as government continues to expand and spend, spend, spend. Bush wasn't a conservative either, as he expanded and expanded government.

In regards to the R&D stuff, I hope some of it pays off over decades, I hope something some of these guys do actually pays off. I would rather government get out of the way in most things, but sometimes they do something right.

Well it's good that think Bush wasn't conservative because it shows you're not a neocon, but I already figured that. On our political spectrum, though, Obama is actually more right-wing than Bush was. It's pretty ridiculous.

The awful tax cuts were the extension of the Bush ones as well as some addons. I'm pressed for time so I can't explain the awful right now, but if you wanna hear it I'll do so later

Also, if you're going to deride the government, be sure to be consistent. There is some stuff they do wrong, but let's not kid ourselves and imagine that all the stuff they do well doesn't exist. Not to mention that a Democratic government is meant to be by the people and for the people. Governing under that paradigm demonstrates excellent results. The times that government sucks is when 1) people simply just don't know what they're talking about and repeat corporate propaganda, or 2) the government loses its public base and begins to operate under corruption and private interests. Our government is sort of half and half. But the solution to fix the havoc of special interests isn't to completely destroy the competition for those special interests. Which is sadly the goal of the propaganda and the endgame of philosophies like conservatism and libertarianism

While conservatives and libertarians have some excellent ideals, the policy they think actually achieves their ideals simply doesn't work. I mean liberals and libertarians are basically the exact same idealistically. It's just the policy to get there that's different. The former cares more about what actual data says, the other is stuck in some fantasy Ayn land. My ideals haven't changed one bit since leaving libertarianism, only my understanding of how to achieve those ideals

[Lukie]

A highly sought job should be a privilege, but the right to any job should absolutely be a right. We live in a society with all sorts of interdependencies, and we have virtually no choice in the matter. The backbone of this society is the ability to work to provide for oneself.

There is nothing fundamentally different between a social right to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself and the social right to speak or congregate or practice religion. As long as I'm a mandatory citizen of my society, I should have the right to adequately function in that society. Not providing the right to employment in this society is like not providing the right to chop trees or hunt animals on whatever land you currently occupy in tribal societies

The right to employment is just as basic as any of our other established rights. The difference is it's not been established in this society.

what about people that just suck at everything they do? either due to inability or lack of caring, possibly because they know they are always guaranteed a job

[wufwugy]

what about people that just suck at everything they do? either due to inability or lack of caring, possibly because they know they are always guaranteed a job

They exist, but they're a small segment of society, and also largely representative of poor social constructs anyways. They also get way too much flak given actual welfare numbers. Wall Street has received more government aid in just a couple years than every poor person in US history. Why are the people who claim to hate welfare not smashing down the doors of Goldman Sachs? Those are the real welfare dogs. The effects are exponentially expanded when you factor in that there is a huge economic multiplier for a good welfare system for the poor while the secret welfare systems we have for the wealthy actually have negative multipliers on the economy


I'm not saying everybody should be guaranteed an easy, well paying job. Not at all. There are millions of American men who would dig ditches in a blizzard in order to feed their families. But they can't because nobody will pay them to do that or anything else in such a crummy economy. Fortunately we have some safety nets like unemployment insurance, but there are much, much better ways to go about doing it than UI despite the fact that the positive multipliers of UI are among the best things possible for the economy

What Monty says about freedom for opportunity is exactly what I've been driving at. The right to employment or to education would not be welfare for schmucks, but Opportunity 101. In fact, my ideas on the matter would completely eliminate so many social subsidies that many people say they don't like. A big reason we have those subsidies in the first place is simply the lack of actual opportunity. Just look at the current economy. Executive profits have been skyrocketing for a while. The richie rich economy is doing better than fucking ever, but because we have shit labor laws, the average worker gets dumped into joblessness and onto government subsidies but then he goes and votes for the politicians who are in the pockets of his former employers who canned his ass for profit incentives. Our economy is very quickly molding into full form corporatocracy, and those provide very little opportunity

[Lukie]

They exist, but they're a small segment of society, and also largely representative of poor social constructs anyways. They also get way too much flak given actual welfare numbers. Wall Street has received more government aid in just a couple years than every poor person in US history. Why are the people who claim to hate welfare not smashing down the doors of Goldman Sachs? Those are the real welfare dogs. The effects are exponentially expanded when you factor in that there is a huge economic multiplier for a good welfare system for the poor while the secret welfare systems we have for the wealthy actually have negative multipliers on the economy

this isn't really the route i was trying to take it.

say i'm a business owner, i should be able to (based on performance and at my discretion) hire, fire, promote, or demote people as i see fit. do you agree with that?

[wufwugy]

this isn't really the route i was trying to take it.

say i'm a business owner, i should be able to (based on performance and at my discretion) hire, fire, promote, or demote people as i see fit. do you agree with that?

For the most part, yes. But not entirely. Keep in mind that this is part of the argument that is used to justify abuse.

Economics is about aggregate effects, not isolated and myopic effects. Something that makes sense on a small economic scale doesn't necessarily on a large scale. It is very important to make sure that the large scale is addressed correctly because if it is not then the small scale suffers.

So basically, I want a balance between your rights as a business employer and other peoples rights as business employees as well as the rights of other competing business owners etc etc. Egalitarianism like that is truly the only way we know how to avoid totalitarianism



Here's an example of why we need macro regulations despite how things appear on the micro. If you fire your lowest value employee you're probably making a good move and the economy isn't hurt and maybe it's even a wee bit better, but when every business fires their lowest value employee the entire economy suffers a ton as well as nearly every other employee of any business in the entire economy suffers. We are currently seeing this happen in our economy. So many people have gotten fired that the glut of supply has allowed owners to suppress wages and pocket the profits.

It's basic Tragedy of the Commons. When some people do things for their benefit, it benefits, but when everybody does that something, the entire system teeters

The answer to your question is both yes and no. Societies are made up of a whole lot of interdependencies and they must all be addressed. A narrow view does not do that

[Monty3038]

this isn't really the route i was trying to take it.

say i'm a business owner, i should be able to (based on performance and at my discretion) hire, fire, promote, or demote people as i see fit. do you agree with that?

Absolutely. It is your business. I also agree you should be able to run it however you want... and I also believe that your customers can decide to do as they see fit, buy from you if they WANT to.

For example, would I buy my water from the company dumping the filtered sludge into the great lakes? No... I'd pay the extra $.02 a bottle and buy from someone more aware of the consequences...

But would everyone? No... and that is where activism has its place, to educate those who don't know and encourage them to follow your ideals... but that is kind of what this whole thing has been about.

[boost]

Absolutely. It is your business. I also agree you should be able to run it however you want... and I also believe that your customers can decide to do as they see fit, buy from you if they WANT to.

For example, would I buy my water from the company dumping the filtered sludge into the great lakes? No... I'd pay the extra $.02 a bottle and buy from someone more aware of the consequences...

But would everyone? No... and that is where activism has its place, to educate those who don't know and encourage them to follow your ideals... but that is kind of what this whole thing has been about.

So can I sell bottle water laced with arsenic? There clearly is a place for regulation in society.

[Monty3038]

So can I sell bottle water laced with arsenic? There clearly is a place for regulation in society.

Ok... and once you start selling it, how long do you think you will be in business?

Again, it is a self correcting problem. Sure, there is a place for government, certain things are necessary... but some are not. In business, if you sell a product that sucks, you are going out of business. Plain and simple. Selling a product that is outright harmful is a method for getting the public to burn down your house... with you in it.