So, you're of the opinion that the company has a right to the person's blood and urine?Originally Posted by tod evans
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
That's quite an indictment. I don't know if I completely agree with it, but you do make a good point about just where the pendulum seems to be swinging in the realm of libertarian philosophy.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
//
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Agreed. And I'll add, Doctors are getting the shaft in this country right now. I've mentioned before that our family doctor is a RP supporter. I've told him in no uncertain terms that when we leave and go off the grid, we're kidnapping him. lol
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Yes, he does. But despite the fact that drug testing is nasty, and invasive. I don't think there is a Constitutional 10th amendment argument that can be made against a private corporation. Its relationship with the city might complicate things though.
Lets assume a 100% FREE market; ADA and CRA1964 overthrown.
Sure... company has right to ask anything they want of you. You have right to tell them to go $#@! themselves and find another employer.
I can understand the fight for entitlement to use prescribed MJ if you have the entitlement to use prescribed codeine.
But what are we really fighting for?
statist doctor's licensing?
statist approved medical substances?
statist mandated employment of the disabled?
or are we fighting for right to free associate, for whatever reason:
free market in medical practice
free market in substances possession and use
free market in employment
...and if free market in employment is a fundamental element of free association... why should we use the existing "entitlement" to use oxycodone at the workplace to fight for an "entitlement" to use MJ?
Last edited by presence; 12-19-2014 at 02:14 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
I'm of the opinion that a person has the right to rent out their own blood and urine to an employer. They are also free to end that contract/employment at any time.
Perhaps. But it shouldn't have to.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Well. There is the reality that more libertarians are politically inactive than those libertarians who are. Which leaves me to probably agree with you. I'm just thinking that it is the active folks who are more dangerous to the old we the people (historic identity, I'm talking about here) gag than inactive folks. That is just the trend that I'm seeing from contemporary dialogue. It is a good thing, in my view, that they are outnumbered by the inactive folks because the active folks seem very open to mercantilism and corporate repatriation of representation and government processes. Seems like libertarianism is slowly being redefined by the politically active faction of the demograph. Which goes back to my reference to that stalking horse that truly does exist. As I said in my initial post in the thread there is a very "in your face" phenomenon happening whereas these entities are using the federal government to just destroy relevance of state law and states rights. It is a fact. There is no denying it. But, then, those same entities and their minions will whine about government if it affects their bottom line. It's fuggin scwewy alright. Hypocrites.
I don't know, Deborah. I suppose that I'm just thinking out loud here. I'll probaby just stay out of this one and let others debate your question there in the op.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-19-2014 at 02:45 PM.
^^^
From a strictly libertarian / free market perspective, deep in my heart of hearts, I have trouble arguing with this.
Help Wanted:
Provide Clean Blood Samples
Operate This Equipment
...actually seems quite legit. Even deep down the slippery slope where "clean" = specific race, genetic conditions, age, substances are barred: This is the underlying spirit of free association... if for ANY reason I don't like you... I don't have to associate with you. No governing body can otherwise force our engagement. You want to work with me? Blood test says zombie? GTFO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_associationThe general freedom to associate with groups according to the choice of the individual, and for the groups to take action to promote their interests, has been a necessary feature of every democratic society. Because freedom of association necessarily recognises pluralistic sources of power and organisation, aside from the government, it has been a primary target for repression by all dictatorial societies.
But then on the flip side...
Provide clean blood samples, else The State's enforcers beat you, steal from you, and put you in a cage:
Not so legit.
...further...
You must provide employment to this (otherwise qualified) individual even though your conscience tells you their off duty activities, associations, or beliefs are abhorrent to your personal morals and potentially damaging to your personal or company image.
Again, not so legit.
Last edited by presence; 12-19-2014 at 02:45 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
I'm not talking about "privatizing everything" - that hasn't got anything to do with anything I've said. I'm an an-cap, but there is nothing in anything I've said in this thread that is incompatible with minarchism or constitutional republicanism or whatever.
I categorically reject the characterization of company policies such as this as "tyrannical" - they are not any such thing. The only "tyranny" involved here is the desire to "tryannize" companies by forcing them to hire or retain employees they don't want to hire or retain. Your rights are NOT being violated because someone doesn't hire you - or fires you - because you use drugs "off the clock."
If it is "tyrannical" for a company to refuse to hire or retain employees who smoke pot "on their own time," then how is not just as "tyrannical" for me to refuse to allow people who smoke pot "on their own time" into my home?
Do I or do I not have the right to "dictate" who is allowed into my home?
If I do, then why does a compnay not have the right to "dictate" who is allowed into its employ?
If I don't, then how are you not being "tryannical" by preventing me from doing so?
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 12-19-2014 at 02:50 PM.
The Bastiat Collection ˇ FREE PDF ˇ FREE EPUB ˇ PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)ˇ tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ˇ
Opponents, your opinion on this?
and this?
I was kind of hoping this topic wouldn't end up relegated to the ancap theory of Utopia, but since it has, I might add that in theory, I completely accept the ancap theory. But in reality, I choose at times, to fight back within the existing framework because unlike many anarchists, I do NOT believe aiding and abetting a societal crash is the right way to handle the problem of our individual freedoms being incrementally taken away from us. And this is the main theme with anarchists. And as I've already stated, to just move on to another job is tantamount to people accepting corruption, and instead of confronting it, they cower to it, or just quit. We really need to have the courage of our convictions, don't we?
As I already stated, to defend this as a company's rights over an individual's rights, compromises the principle of individual freedom, and overlooks the other avenues an employer can take that would NOT impede on a person's personal behavior during their off time.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Deborah, how do you get past the fact that:
I'm a pilot for Delta Airlines
May impede Delta's ability to sell tickets.
???
...seems to be the central tenant upon which "freedom of association" is founded.I don't want my name or my company's name associated with, and potentially tarnished by, that activity.
Last edited by presence; 12-19-2014 at 03:13 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Because the business is NOT dictating anything. They are offering terms for employment and the employee is VOLUNTARILY agreeing to those terms. They are still free to not work for the business.
Sure, but no liberties are being trifled with here. The employee is voluntarily agreeing to the terms of the employment. Choose to not work for them if you don't like the terms. Arrange a work-strike, arrange a boycott, attempt to get them to change the terms. Its still your choice, the difference is nobody is forcing you to do anything.
Freedom is dangerous.
Liberty is tyranny.
Can add those to the list of Orwellian doublespeak.
"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat
Peace.
sigh...never the twain shall meet....
You will never convince me that an employer has the right to dictate what their employee does on his own time. It is a slippery slope to accept that kind of prohibition, and as I've alluded to before; employees can be just as easily controlled and manipulated by an entirely private sector as they can by the government. The principle is the same - as long as it's morally acceptable to control another person's behavior, it compromises individual freedom - whether the person allows it or not, and for whatever reason they allow it.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
We are just have to agree to disagree. The company is not controlling another person's behavior, that person is voluntarily agreeing to control their OWN behavior.
Where is this from? I can't address this until it's put into context.Deborah, how do you get past the fact that:
May impede Delta's ability to sell tickets.
???
...seems to be the central tenant upon which "freedom of association" is founded.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
You posted that in reply to one of my earlier posts - and I already replied to it in post #101.Opponents, your opinion on this?
Your personal liberties are NOT being "trifled with."and this?
NONE of your rights have been violated if an employer does not hire or retain you as an employee if you use drugs "off the clock."
Companies who have such policies are NOT forcing anyone to do (or not do) anything.
No has relegated this issue to "ancap theory" - in fact, in my previous post (#101), I explicitly stated that there is nothing in any of this that has anything in particular to do with ancap theory - or "privatizing everything" - or any such thing. The objections raised to using force in order to coerce companies into hiring or retaining employees they don't want to hire or retain are fully compatible with "minarch theory" - or "constitutional repbublic theory" - or whatever ...
I am not aware that "many anarchists" believe in "aiding and abetting a societal crash." (I certainly do not.)
I am sure that some do advocate such a thing - but I have seen just as many non-anarchists do the same.
"Societal crash" is no more or less the "main theme with anarchists" than it is with non-anarchists ...
There is no "corruption" here. There is only a policy with which you disagree. No one's rights are being violated.
I disagree with socialists, but I don't demand that they be coercively punished for exercising their right to believe as they do.
I disagree with blanket "no drugs" policies by employers, but I don't demand that they be coercively punished for exercising their right to implement such policies.
No one is putting "a company's rights over an individual's rights." Individuals have the right to do what they want so long as they do not coerce or aggress against others - and so do companies. Individuals have the right to smoke pot off the clock, and companies have the right to fire them for doing so. Neither trumps the rights of the other. There is no conflict of rights here.
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 12-19-2014 at 03:52 PM.
In the case of someone whose behavior would otherwise be different, this person is voluntarily agreeing to allow the company to control their behavior in order to stay employed. Kinda like the way we all "allow" the government to steal money out of our paychecks.
Note that in this particular case, the MM law came into affect, long after the person was hired, and the reason for excluding MM users is premised on federal law, and not on "free association", etc.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Occam, I have to run and can't respond to all of your post. But this comment is a non-sequitur:
First, you are equating law with "force" - that is an anarchistic POV. And secondly, I've already stated companies have the right to hire and retain whom they chose. My argument is that they don't have the right to dictate what an employee does on his off time. This argument is becoming circular.The objections raised to using force in order to coerce companies into hiring or retaining employees they don't want to hire or retain are fully compatible with "minarch theory" - or "constitutional repbublic theory" - or whatever ...
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Of course they don't have that right. But they do have the right to fire you for doing it.
There is no context; I just fabricated it.
The point is people do things on their own time... sometimes those things reflect poorly on the people they associate and/or engage with.
If we are to have freedom of association then there should not be a government authority forcing employers to engage with undesirable individuals as employees.
If I don't like the way you smell... I should be able to fire you. If I don't like your politics, I should be able to fire you. If I don't like brown people, I should be able to fire you. If I do like brown people and I think you don't... I should be able to fire you.
If I don't like you, I should be able to fire you for WHATEVER reason.
Last edited by presence; 12-19-2014 at 04:49 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Its certainly not "anarchist" its "classical liberal" aka libertarian.
We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.
The Law
Frédéric Bastiat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_BastiatClaude Frédéric Bastiat (French: [klod fʁedeʁik bastja]; 30 June 1801[1] – 24 December 1850) was a French classical liberal theorist, political economist, and member of the French assembly. He was notable for developing the important economic concept of opportunity cost, and for penning the influential Parable of the Broken Window. His ideas have gone on to provide a foundational basis for libertarian and the Austrian schools of thought.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalismClassical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. Its greatest expression as a political (as well as economic) philosophy in the 19th century was in the works of John Stuart Mill. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G029Law Is Force
Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.
Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice.
We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.
When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
There is no "justice" in requiring an employer to employ people he'd rather not associate with.
Last edited by presence; 12-19-2014 at 05:50 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Sorry for the drive-by, but grand kids are coming over soon. I think this crystallizes my views as far as employee vs. employer rights.
Just on principle alone, it seems inconsistent to proclaim that individual liberty is paramount, except in the case of employment. Most cases, like this one, are not 'cut and dried' cases. Which is why, when it comes to philosophical thinking (which I was hoping would not enter the argument idiot that I am), we should strive to keep our moral compass pointed in the direction of individual liberty, even as employers. When we become willing to compromise that principle, under the guise of, it's a free market, let them work somewhere else, we really don't have any moral ground to stand on, because let's face it, we are compromising It's not okay for the government to do it, but it's acceptable for the private sector to do it. To that I say: Let the tyrants rule in whatever form they may. Because, no matter how you slice it, an employer dictating what an employee does off the clock is tyrannical, and it's a slippery slope.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Deborah, it's just a matter of rhetoric/style. We are not your opponents. Case in point: your "ally," presence, the only one who you feel understands you on this, has the exact same position on this issue as I, Occam's Banana, specsaregood, William Tell, etc., etc. have. (William Tell, by the way, is no anarchist, by his own account.) It's just that presence went to the effort of saying the right words to let you know and feel that he understands where you're coming from, and the rest of us didn't. At least I didn't.
But I think that many, and perhaps all, of us actually do. Understand, that is.
People don't like to be shoved around. Told what to do. Treated like someone else's property. And that's how drug testing feels, no doubt about it. It's as if the employer is saying "I own you. I not only own your time every workday (bad enough!), I own your body, I own your fluids, I own your recreational time, I own what you choose to do and to intake 24 hours a day."
And yeah, that's obnoxious. People don't like being treated like that. Like so much cattle. Like just a cog in somebody's machine. Like a wage-slave.
You might want to check out, by the way, a good book from a good author on the subject, and maybe your friend would, too:
You asked for a practical solution. That's what you really want. I don't know what advice could be more practical than my previous post, which you may have missed:
~~~
I do not think that this person's freedom is being taken away at all, whatsoever, period. So the first, practical, real-world-application step is for this person to realize that. He needs to take full responsibility and accountability for his life and his choices and not play any kind of blame game. That is a trap. An anti-freedom trap. By being wrapped up in wanting this company to respect what he sees as his "rights," he is taking way his own freedom from himself, working himself into a box rather than being empowered and liberated. These are "rights" that we both have agreed do not even exist -- just as you and I both said, "They don't have the 'right' to work there." -- but even if they did exist, pining for them, blaming the company for violating them, being upset at them for being wrong, is unproductive. It's a trap.
So step one is to stop blaming and start self-empowering. Have an attitude of empowerment, not of whining and petitioning.
Step two is for this person to ask himself what *he* can do to achieve his goals in life. Not what This Company I Hate should do, what *he* can do. He can only control the actions of one (1) person in all this great, wide Universe: Himself. He should do so. Control himself. Chances are very good, for instance, that there is some way to conceal his drug use from the company if his goal is to continue working there and at the same time to use marijuana. If he applies his mental energies to that problem, he will find a solution much quicker, much more effectively, and much easier than some misguided attempt to force the hated company to bend to his will.
How's that for practical?
~~~
So, you and your friend can waste -- WASTE! -- years of your life and thousands of your dollars pursuing the legal avenues that presence has mentioned and jmdrake has alluded to, but I personally think that would be profoundly stupid. Just conceal his drug use from the company. That's it! It's not that difficult. If he is not smart enough nor motivated enough to figure out how to do that, then believe me he is nowhere near smart enough nor motivated enough to have a chance at winning a protracted legal battle against this company.
Absolutely not...
But.....................If you hire on under the clause that drug testing is a term of employment then that's the breaks.
I don't believe in drug or drink testing my employees, what kind of work they deliver is what matters to me, but other folks are different..
I won't ever accept work that requires any more than proficiency for the task at hand but I'm pretty good in my trade and am not forced to deal with idiots........
That comment is not a non sequitur - non sequitur means "it does not follow." What "does not follow" in what I said? I said that objecting to forcing companies to hire or retain employees they don't want to hire or retain is entirely compatible with various forms of non-anarchism. And it is. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that there are many non-anarchists who do so object (specsaregood is a perfect example from this very thread). IOW: What I said very much does "follow" ...
Actually, it is not - "equating law with 'force'" is no more "an anarchistic POV" than the proposition "2 plus 2 equals 4" is. That is to say, it is indeed "an anarchistic POV" - but it is just as much "a minarchistic POV" too (if not moreso). IOW: There is nothing particularly "anarchistic" about it ... [EDIT: With respect to this, see the excellent post #104 by presence above (for which I owe him some rep).]
As a "minarchist" who apparently does not wish to "equate law with force," how do you propose to prevent companies from refusing to hire or retain employees who use drugs "off the clock" without using force against them (or credibly threatening to do so)? IOW: If you think that companies should be prohibited from terminating the employment of "off the clock" drug users, how can you enact this prohibition without the use (or threat of the use) of force?
If you wish to legally (i.e., forcibly) prohibit employers from making employment with them contingent upon not smoking pot "off the clock," then you ARE in fact denying that companies have the right to hire and retain whom they choose. You can't have it both ways.
Employers should not have any rightful authority or power to coercively prevent people from doing whatever they want to do on their off time. If you want to smoke pot "off the clock" then you may do so and your employer cannot and should not be permitted to forcibly prevent you from doing so. Likewise, you cannot and should not be permitted to forcibly prevent your employer from firing you. Again, there is NO conflict of rights here. Your right to smoke pot "off the clock" does not trump your employer's right to fire you, and your employer's right to fire you does not trump your right to smoke pot "off the clock" ...
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 12-19-2014 at 06:00 PM.
The Bastiat Collection ˇ FREE PDF ˇ FREE EPUB ˇ PAPER
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)ˇ tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ˇ
...which brings me back here:
Who have I harmed?Help Wanted:
Provide Clean Blood Samples
Operate This Equipment
Who have I plundered?
Where is the injustice?
Why should there be a law?
Why does there need to be a jackbooted government thug telling me I can't offer such a position?
Its only an offer. Anyone and everyone is free to tell me no.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
This is an important point. Note that Tod owns a business, but in the last sentence, I believe, he isn't talking about hiring an employee. Rather he is talking about a costumer hiring his business services. It's no different than if I hire the service of a Cellular phone provider. If the cellular provider does something that i find appalling, like donate to another Romney campaign, should I be forced to continue hiring their services? Customers have the advantage of not buying a good or service and instead shopping elsewhere. The fact is, employees are selling their services and employers are their costumers.
Last edited by Henry Rogue; 12-19-2014 at 07:53 PM.
"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat
Peace.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us