Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 127

Thread: Anti-Smoking Fascists won't hire smokers

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    You... are inferring that I called for employers to be forced to employee smokers. I said no such thing.
    You are inferring that I inferred that you called for that. I said no such thing.

    If you need a job, and your only option is an employer that demands you not to be a smoker, then you can't smoke. Your right to smoke has been effectively lost.
    If you need a worker, and your only option is an employee that demands to smoke and that you give him free cigarettes, then you can't oppose smoking with regards to him. You have to support smoking. Your right to oppose smoking has been effectively lost. Your right to a tobacco-free workplace has been effectively lost.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Unions have also learned that labor surplus creates a demand for Unions, thus Unions and Corporations/Government can grow together in perfect harmony.
    Thus explaining the seemingly counter-intuitive union action supporting more immigration.

    The simple fact of the matter is "we" are not going to get anywhere promoting, what boils down to, indentured servitude or the notion that you can be forced to fellate your boss as a condition of employment.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Any private company should be able to discriminate against whomever and whatever they want.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    You are inferring that I inferred that you called for that. I said no such thing.
    "Stomp on your head and taser" you?

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Who are you to say I can't, and then to stomp on my head and taser me to back up your words? I don't think you should do that.

    It isn't very nice.
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    If you need a worker, and your only option is an employee that demands to smoke and that you give him free cigarettes, then you can't oppose smoking with regards to him. You have to support smoking. Your right to oppose smoking has been effectively lost. Your right to a tobacco-free workplace has been effectively lost.
    Yep. It works both ways. When supply and demand is out of balance, contract demands can increase and become unreasonable on either side of the equation.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    "Who are you to say I can't, and then to stomp on my head and taser me"
    The "you" was directed at, and I quote: "those who oppose it". That is, those who oppose the situation wherein employers and employees can make whatever demands they wish on each other, including demanding that they use no nicotine.

    If you, Brian4Liberty, are not one of those "those," then it was not directed at you.

    unreasonable
    I do not think that seeking assistants who are not impaired by drugs is unreasonable. Nor do I think that wanting to be provided with basic human amenities like cigarettes while on the job is unreasonable.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post





    Yep. It works both ways. When supply and demand is out of balance, contract demands can increase and become unreasonable on either side of the equation.
    Who is to determine that a the terms of a free trade are unreasonable? Markets set prices. If the price an employer is willing to pay for your labor includes you not smoking, you take the deal or not, just like any other transaction. If I am a plumber and a customer tells me that my prices are "unreasonable", I get to tell the customer to beat it.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    Who is to determine that a the terms of a free trade are unreasonable?
    Either of the parties involved in the transaction.

    And to a certain extent, outside observers:

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The simple fact of the matter is "we" are not going to get anywhere promoting, what boils down to, indentured servitude or the notion that you can be forced to fellate your boss as a condition of employment.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by ctiger2 View Post
    Any private company should be able to discriminate against whomever and whatever they want.
    Is a company in partnership/cooperation with the Federal Government a private company?
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    There is no loss of freedom in this situation (a strict nicotine-free workplace). It is those who oppose it who seek to impose a loss of freedom.

    No one has an advantage over anyone else in this situation. Every individual has an equal right to demand anything, and every individual also has absolute veto power over those demands.

    If I want to go work at a strictly nicotine-free workplace, shouldn't I be free to do so? Who are you to say I can't, and then to stomp on my head and taser me to back up your words? I don't think you should do that.

    It isn't very nice.
    The Loss of Freedom doesnt come from either Nicotine or Nicotine Free workplace. The loss comes from the lack of ability for people to be able to decide for themselves, the "allowance" of people to Cooperate. Obamacare for example is not a business transaction created from a Supply and Demand situation which results in a Voluntary Agreement. Obamacare is Mandatory. Thus, the recipients dont get to negotiate the terms of the Agreement. Thats a Loss of Freedom.

    Im not an Anarchist, maybe a Minarchist, but definitely not a full blown Anarchist. I believe some Govt is a necessary force. But at either end of the extreme of Total Govt or Total Lack of Govt, Freedom is lost. To try to validate this statemet, I'll make some statemets I dont actually believe. Get rid of ALL Govt period. Total Anarchy. Society can still exist with Cooperation. However, in that society, if you leave your house to go somewhere, you leave your home unprotected. If someone takes your stuff while you leave, there is no way to hold them accountable. If you were to try to hold them accountable in an Anarchy, you'd again have to leave your home leaving yourself again unprotected, only to possibly be robbed again, or property damaged / destroyed. You are not as Free as you'd like because you can not leave anything that is yours unprotected. Thats Total Anarchy. And as much as we want to believe people would be willing to mutually Cooperate with each other, many wont. Many will resort to taking what ever they can get their hands on from Desperation. Out of water, they kick in your door to steal your water. Or your food. People in apartments dont exactly have enough land to grow their own food. Another problem with Total Anarchy is that it does not last. You and I might have the physical ability to defend ourselves, and even be willing to commit to said actions, but we are not immortal, and we arent measuring things in a large enough time scale. The time scale that Im referring to when I say "Anarchy doesnt last" is multiple hundreds of years. Anarchy is a void where something will rush in to fill that void. And often, it will be a group that has tremendous physical power (IE guns, rockets, tanks) that fills the void replacing Anarchy with another Dictatorship maintained through physical violence.

    I doubt I need to explain the problems of too much Govt.

    The essence of Liberty comes from the Proper Limitation of Government. But Govt is dangerous as a Servant of the People in its minimal form, and Destructive to Unlimited Ends at its worst.

    Changing gears for a moment. Tobismom is basically against hiring smokers also. I do not agree with her expressed opinion, but unfortunately I have to defend her Right to hold said position. It isnt because we have the same position that I should defend her decision, but because we have a different opinion, as dangerous as that expressed opinion is in the long run (again, hundreds of years) where employees are turned into willing slaves. She also did a good job of rightfully limiting her own power. "Dont hire a smoker" wasnt a demand to make smoking illegal, and the Scope seemed to only be applied to "on the job". It is because of her limitations of her own power to not call to come into someones home and demand the power to dictate what someone else can and can not do. Her position is slightly different from that of the "wont hire any smoker period" crowd, where they demand that they have Authority to test for any nicotine in a persons system, even if that nicotine is used "off the clock". Thus, I'll support reasonably limited claims to Self Authority, but not the Unlimited Authority of "smoking should be made illegal completely".

    Now "shouldnt I be free to do so", referencing your statement to have a nicotine-free workplace. If nicotine is already in someone elses bloodstream, it isnt going to get into your system unless they literally bleed or urinate all over you. You should be free to decide what happens to you, yourself, your body, agreements you enter into, but the scope of that Self Authority ends where the Self Authority of another begins, and that is not always clearly defined. Thus, yes, "free" to control yourself, but to push the most extreme version of that "free to do so", no, you should not have such Authority over another individual. But likewise, I should not be able to require you to have nicotine in your system because it exceeds the Limits of my Rights over you. I should not have such an authority over you, as that is no longer Self Authority or Self Ownership. Im not disagreeing with you, but just trying to more clearly define in a reasonably fair manner what we can both do that allows us both to have the Maximum Level of Freedom for both of us.

    We have lost so many Rights already that our natural instinct is to take as many Rights back as we can, however, we can go too far when we try to claim what we have Rights to. If we start recognizing that we need to put Limits on our own Rights when it involves someone else, we start to regonize that Everyone can be Free. Not Freedom for a few, or the Rich, or the Employers. Totally free when it comes to ourselves and ourselves alone, but beyond the Scope of our Self Authority when trying to take freedoms that involve the Rights of another.

    Im not trying to be a hardass and cross that line defined by your Equal Rights. Im trying to get close to that line and getting close to that line is where people say to each other "Step Back or else". I have no intention of crossing that line. Many Employers have EVERY intention of not only crossing the line, but eliminating that "line" completely, just as Govt has EVERY intention of crossing and eliminating the "Line" of Limits of Equal Rights. I think I am coming across as aggresive because everyone is stepping closer to that line, and its a simple misinterpretation because of an expectation that I'll cross the line. I intend on stopping where my own Rights end. If I feel the need to cross that line into your Rights, I'll ask for you permission and wont claim to have Rights that extend completely over you. Basically, if you let me come onto your property, I'll be respectful of your stuff, but I wont submit to an Anal Cavity Search on your property, nor will I demand that you cant drink or surf porn on the internet when I come to your home. This would be the same as you entering my property and demanding I cant smoke at home. Reasonable Limits to the Scope of our Self Authority. "Do you mind if I borrow a tool"? Your property, your Rights. I cant smoke on your Property. Thats fine. Heck, you could even say "No" and tell me I can not borrow that.

    This is turning into another rant, and its not intended as such. Its longwinded because "Reasonable" is just one word but isnt very specific, and trying to define a Limit as to what I think we can and can not do gets very specific. When we seek to cross the line that defines the Limits of our Rights, we enter into Mutual Agreement and Cooperation. If no one ever crossed those lines, we'd end up all being Isolationists or Authoritarians. That isnt my goal either. Just trying to say "this is where I draw the line", but Im also willing to Cooperate. Im not willing to be Obedient as so many demand as that is just as Authoritarian as a Totalitarian Govt.

    How about you guys make a Rant where you all would put Limits on your own Rights, what is considered Cooperation, what is considered Obedience? How would you make sure we both retain the maximum level of Freedom? Not just in regards to Smoking, but ANY trigger topic...
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Is a company in partnership/cooperation with the Federal Government a private company?
    Not too many I can think of that are not.

    While I certainly understand and agree to point with the ana-cap position on this, I wish that somebody would have the courage to admit that, with no checks on employer's demands, the net result will be less personal freedom.

    Compliance does not care how it is achieved, whether throwing you in a cage or throwing you out of work, you will comply



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    Pretty petty; I wouldn't want to work for you if you were that concerned about a couple minutes. The other employees simply find other ways to take time from you anyway. We're human beings, not machines.
    Not exactly. Before my employer went entirely smoke free, I worked extra because three people had to have their smoke breaks. Assuming that's 15 minutes three times a shift per smoker, when do I get to walk down to the restroom? Customer reliant businesses have to be staffed.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    How about you guys make a Rant where you all would put Limits on your own Rights, what is considered Cooperation, what is considered Obedience? How would you make sure we both retain the maximum level of Freedom? Not just in regards to Smoking, but ANY trigger topic...
    Cooperation, to me, is that I do what is required by an employer on their time. Cooperation from them is that they allow me to do what I want on my time.
    Unless they are contracting to pay me 24/7/364. In which case all my time is their time. If they are only contracting to pay me 40 hrs. per week then 40 hrs. per week is all I owe them.
    Which is neither here nor there because... f-'em. This is exactly why I choose to work for cash outside of the "system."

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Cooperation, to me, is that I do what is required by an employer on their time. Cooperation from them is that they allow me to do what I want on my time.
    Unless they are contracting to pay me 24/7/364. In which case all my time is their time. If they are only contracting to pay me 40 hrs. per week then 40 hrs. per week is all I owe them.
    Which is neither here nor there because... f-'em. This is exactly why I choose to work for cash outside of the "system."
    well said, comrade. Let us hope that working for cash is always an option and Big Brother doesn't force us into a nationalized digital currency scheme.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  17. #44
    I only hire smokers.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    I only hire smokers.
    And that is your right.
    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


    A police state is a small price to pay for living in the freest country on earth.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    well said, comrade. Let us hope that working for cash is always an option and Big Brother doesn't force us into a nationalized digital currency scheme.
    Cash in trade or trade in trade will always be an option.

    Interesting story....

    Was talking to my brother and I told him..."I mentioned to the lady I'm working for that I fired the sister of a mutual friend." I then went on to describe the circumstance. I told her "That's what I like about working for myself. I can fire my employer." She had been pretty "on me" about how the project was going. Later in the day she asked me if I had entertained thoughts about firing her. Lol. My brother said " That's what I love about you, bro. You can turn an employer into an employee."
    Don't get me wrong. She is a wonderful person that has her own way and as a contractor for her I try to meet her needs. But, at some point, I have to make clear the situation.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Cash in trade or trade in trade will always be an option.

    Interesting story....

    Was talking to my brother and I told him..."I mentioned to the lady I'm working for that I fired the sister of a mutual friend." I then went on to describe the circumstance. I told her "That's what I like about working for myself. I can fire my employer." She had been pretty "on me" about how the project was going. Later in the day she asked me if I had entertained thoughts about firing her. Lol. My brother said " That's what I love about you, bro. You can turn an employer into an employee."
    Don't get me wrong. She is a wonderful person that has her own way and as a contractor for her I try to meet her needs. But, at some point, I have to make clear the situation.

    (no sarc intended. That really is a cool story. I am impress.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  21. #48
    In today's news 99% of AmeriKas corporations have said that they will only hire Nationalist Party members. The government fully backs this proposal and has, at the companies behest, enacted new legislation backing this measure.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Thus explaining the seemingly counter-intuitive union action supporting more immigration.

    The simple fact of the matter is "we" are not going to get anywhere promoting, what boils down to, indentured servitude or the notion that you can be forced to fellate your boss as a condition of employment.
    How can you equate a corporate policy that treats everybody equally (anybody who smokes will not be considered for the position) with what essentially amounts to extortion?

    You can't.
    SUPPORT LIBERTY IN 2016

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Nice strawman. You completely ignored my point, and are inferring that I called for employers to be forced to employee smokers. I said no such thing.

    If you need a job, and your only option is an employer that demands you not to be a smoker, then you can't smoke. Your right to smoke has been effectively lost.
    The hypothetical situation where your only option is an employer that demands you not be a smoker is unrealistic at best. It may be the "only option where the combination of hours, pay & benefits makes you happy", but there is no right to have a job nor a right to have a job that provides you a comfortable lifestyle. You merely have the right to pursue happiness and to pursue a comfortable lifestyle.

    Under your completely unrealistic scenario, where the only option period, is an employer that refuses to hire smokers, you merely lost the right to smoke and concurrently hold a job with that specific employer. You have the right to continue to smoke, but you won't have a job with that company.
    SUPPORT LIBERTY IN 2016

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Massachusetts View Post
    How can you equate a corporate policy that treats everybody equally (anybody who smokes will not be considered for the position) with what essentially amounts to extortion?

    You can't.
    Of course you can.

    The ana-cap position is that an employer can demand whatever he wants from you as a condition of employment.

    And that your only option is to leave and seek employment elsewhere.

    So how would that not include daily fellatio, especially if that was the only job open to you?

  26. #52
    ////
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 07-16-2014 at 07:15 PM.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Massachusetts View Post
    The hypothetical situation where your only option is an employer that demands you not be a smoker is unrealistic at best. It may be the "only option where the combination of hours, pay & benefits makes you happy", but there is no right to have a job nor a right to have a job that provides you a comfortable lifestyle. You merely have the right to pursue happiness and to pursue a comfortable lifestyle.

    Under your completely unrealistic scenario, where the only option period, is an employer that refuses to hire smokers, you merely lost the right to smoke and concurrently hold a job with that specific employer. You have the right to continue to smoke, but you won't have a job with that company.
    Replace "smokers" with "purple helmet givers" and there you go.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Of course you can.

    The ana-cap position is that an employer can demand whatever he wants from you as a condition of employment.

    And that your only option is to leave and seek employment elsewhere.

    So how would that not include daily fellatio, especially if that was the only job open to you?
    This crap about it being the only job available is strictly to appeal to emotional instincts. There are always options to A) take lower pay B) work different hours C) relocate to another city and/or state D) become self-employed
    SUPPORT LIBERTY IN 2016

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Massachusetts View Post
    How can you equate a corporate policy that treats everybody equally (anybody who smokes will not be considered for the position) with what essentially amounts to extortion?

    You can't.
    It doesn't treat everyone equally.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Massachusetts View Post
    This crap about it being the only job available is strictly to appeal to emotional instincts.
    Tell that to an ex-con caught up in the W.O.D.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Massachusetts View Post
    This crap about it being the only job available is strictly to appeal to emotional instincts. There are always options to A) take lower pay B) work different hours C) relocate to another city and/or state D) become self-employed
    Yeah, so?

    What if none of those options are readily open to you?

    Does your employer have the abosolute right to fire you for any reason at all, or not?

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Tell that to an ex-con caught up in the W.O.D.
    An ex-con can be self-employed. Who is stopping them?
    SUPPORT LIBERTY IN 2016

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Yeah, so?

    What if none of those options are readily open to you?

    Does your employer have the abosolute right to fire you for any reason at all, or not?
    Yes. They are not your babysitter or the guardian of your job security. That is your job.
    SUPPORT LIBERTY IN 2016

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Massachusetts View Post
    An ex-con can be self-employed. Who is stopping them?
    What does that entail? What are the barriers? Are the barriers government created?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Smoking kills more people than Obama - Anti Smoking Ad
    By Dianne in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-18-2016, 01:43 PM
  2. Anti-Smoking Fascists won't hire smokers
    By VoluntaryAmerican in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-15-2014, 11:17 PM
  3. Hospitals will not hire smokers
    By Cinderella in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 10:34 AM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 10:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •