Gary Johnson Wants Driverless Secret Service Cars and a US-Led Gene Editing Revolution

[r3volution 3.0]

From the AFL-CIO:

In the United States, some three-quarters of private-sector workers...have the right to collective bargaining.

Q. In which state is it illegal for private sector workers to voluntarily organize and ask the employer to negotiate with them?

A. None

...yet the AFL-CIO seems to think collective bargaining is illegal for 1/4 of private sector workers.

Hmm...

Could it be that "collective bargaining" does not mean the right of workers to voluntarily organize and ask the employer to negotiate?

Could it instead refer to the whole series of coercive practices (against both workers and employers) laid out in federal labor law?

This right came to U.S. workers through a series of laws. The Railway Labor Act granted collective bargaining to railroad workers in 1926 and now covers many transportation workers, such as those in airlines. In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) clarified the bargaining rights of most other private-sector workers and established collective bargaining as the “policy of the United States.” The right to collective bargaining also is recognized by international human rights conventions.

Well, the AFL-CIO thinks so, and they might reasonably be assumed to know something about labor law, don't you think?

[GunnyFreedom]

From the AFL-CIO:



Q. In which state is it illegal for private sector workers to voluntarily organize and ask (not demand under penalty of law) the employer to negotiate with them?

A. None

...yet the AFL-CIO seems to think collective bargaining is illegal for 1/4 of private sector workers.

Hmm...

Could it be that "collective bargaining" does not mean the right of wotkers to voluntarily organize and ask the employer to negotiate?

Could t instead refer to the whole series of coercive practices (coercion against both workers and employers) laid out in federal labor law?



Well, the AFL-CIO thinks so, and one would presume that they familiar with labor law and don't have an anti-union bias.

I care about how the AFL-CIO wants to spin their agenda, about like I care how Hillary wants to spin progressive liberalism.

[r3volution 3.0]

I care about how the AFL-CIO wants to spin their agenda, about like I care how Hillary wants to spin progressive liberalism.

Where in the US it is illegal for workers to voluntarily organize and ask (not demand) an employer to negotiate with them?

[r3volution 3.0]

Give me a break. You tried to deter people from supporting Castle by falsely claiming he supported bans on gambling and porn.

No, I correctly claimed that his party's platform calls for banning gambling and porn.

When you were shown he specifically said the government shouldn't be involved in that stuff you still didn't remove those issues from your list.

If you mean I didn't go back and edit what I had already posted somewhere else, no I probably didn't.

Dishonest attacks just irritate people. If I make a mistake I try to fix it. With you it seems to be a waste of time to point out your errors.

There's nothing dishonest in what I'm saying about Castle, it is the only rational interpretation of what he said.

If it's erroneous, and he didn't mean what he appeared to mean, let's see the evidence.

[GunnyFreedom]

How does a president get around in a car now a days, did they force people to create cars? Unless your argument is against the expense of say Air force 1 or the White House etc or anything a president uses in general. But I assume you are talking about the creation of the technology. If its produced through the free market their is no force needed. If it is the latter well that kind of eliminates the position of Presidency all together, but its not apparent that a driverless car for the president could end up being cheaper in the long run than one with secret service driving.

The US President neither forced, funded, or invented that horse and buggy, the motor carriage, or the airplane. George Washington didn't run around talking about he was going to acquire a jet aircraft when he got elected.

Just because Johnson says he would like to ride around in a driverless car does not imply from him a desire to force the creation of said item. If he proposed money grants to get them you would have a point, but as of right now he hasn't

There is no role for government, period. not to encourage it, not to want it, nothing.

Frankly, I am in shock at how so many 'libertarians' nowadays are perfectly fine with expanding government authoritarianism as long as it's shyt they like. SMDH.

As for you going on about somehow we/I am ok with Johnson using force because we support the ideals behind it, that is bogus. Lets take the cake baking issue, I haven't seen anyone off hand on these boards actually say they agree with gary on that issue. The only thing I have seen is people saying its not enough of an issue to change their willingness to vote for him. Its as if anti-johnson crowd is makeing a mountain out of a mole hill, is gary wrong on the issue yes, is it worthy of voiding a candidacy, not in my opinion.

YOU think obliterating the Constitutional balance of power that defines the right government of the United States is trivial. I on the other hand believe that it is the most important issue in my lifetime. You are confusing your own opinion with objective fact. If you can't even identify basic reality, why would I take anything you say at face value?

[Natural Citizen]

Lets take the cake baking issue...Its as if anti-johnson crowd is makeing a mountain out of a mole hill, is gary wrong on the issue yes, is it worthy of voiding a candidacy, not in my opinion.

Mole hill? Are you kidding me? The right to property is the principal support for The Individual's right to Life and Liberty itself. This is the most fundamental supporting principle of Individual Liberty. To reject that fundamental principle is to reject the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

This is hardly a mole hill. It is the most critical fundamental of all.

[r3volution 3.0]

Hey look, the Bernsters too champion collective bargaining rights and lament its absence in parts of the US:

What’s a union? And what does collective bargaining mean?

A union is a legally recognized group of workers that uses collective bargaining — a process of negotiation between an employer and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements to provide basic security for workers. This agreement generally includes guaranteeing safe working conditions, ensuring that all workers’ rights are being protected, guaranteeing the ability to negotiate for better wages, and allowing workers to have a voice in the workplace.


Why do we not see as many unions nowadays?

Over the last few decades the decline of the middle class has mirrored the decline of unionized workers in America. Corporations and their lobbied counterparts in Washington, D.C. have been ferociously attacking the organizing and collective bargaining rights of public and private sector union members. This hostile environment towards labor unions benefits the multibillion dollar corporation’s bottom line, its CEOs, and its shareholders, not the average worker.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sander...orkers-rights/

Surely they mean voluntary unions...

Socialists hate coercion.

[GunnyFreedom]

Where in the US it is illegal for workers to voluntarily organize and ask (not demand) an employer to negotiate with them?

Um. what? WHo has ever claimed that it was illegal to organize? Is this just another one of your myriad random strawmen?

There's nothing dishonest in what I'm saying about Castle, it is the only rational interpretation of what he said.

If it's erroneous, and he didn't mean what he appeared to mean, let's see the evidence.

lol wow. You may legitimately need professional help, brother. Mind you that would explain why you are so lost and confused right now.

[Nighthawkeye]

There is no role for government, period. not to encourage it, not to want it, nothing.

Frankly, I am in shock at how so many 'libertarians' nowadays are perfectly fine with expanding government authoritarianism as long as it's shyt they like. SMDH.



YOU think obliterating the Constitutional balance of power that defines the right government of the United States is trivial. I on the other hand believe that it is the most important issue in my lifetime. You are confusing your own opinion with objective fact. If you can't even identify basic reality, why would I take anything you say at face value?

Frankiy I am in shock that you somehow find johnson's desire of someday riding around in a driverless vehicle is expanding government, you sound like a thought nazi "How dare you even think about it" As for the obliteration of the constitutional balance, it was destroyed decades ago and the genie won't be put back in the bottle over night. I pretty much believe you've done lost basic reality and don't really care how you take what I say. You pretty much have made up bs as to what I have even argued so far, so no point in taking at face value as you will change it in your own mind anyway.

[nikcers]

There is no role for government, period. not to encourage it, not to want it, nothing.

Frankly, I am in shock at how so many 'libertarians' nowadays are perfectly fine with expanding government authoritarianism as long as it's shyt they like. SMDH.

You made a better argument in the other thread, I think it boiled down to something like mental chains are worse then real chains. I think you are wrong, I think that the child poverty rate, the starving children and entitlement bubble is worse then real chains. I think kids going hungry every day because the state has to keep building tanks is worse then real chains. I think kids signing up to fight for their country and then being lied to and sent over seas is worse then real chains. I think Johnson has the best opportunity to tell both parties that I don't want to support any more wars over seas. I honestly don't know how to send that message any other way then voting for a third party who sucks.

[GunnyFreedom]

Frankiy I am in shock that you somehow find johnson's desire of someday riding around in a driverless vehicle is expanding government, you sound like a thought nazi "How dare you even think about it"

Right. Because my raison d'etre is to police what people think. Are there no lies or ignominies that Johnson supporters and Trump supporters will not stoop to in their desperate desire to eradicate liberty from the human race?

As for the obliteration of the constitutional balance, it was destroyed decades ago and the genie won't be put back in the bottle over night. I pretty much believe you've done lost basic reality and don't really care how you take what I say. You pretty much have made up bs as to what I have even argued so far, so no point in taking at face value as you will change it in your own mind anyway.

So because it was destroyed decades ago, the answer is to destroy it even further?

I don't think so. The answer to a broken leg is not to start whacking it with a sledgehammer, it's to splint the broken leg.

No, I will not change my mind. I have seen Johnson for the statist authoritarian anticonstitutional psychopath he is. So far as I can tell, he is no better than Trump or Hillary, and I will die before I lend that charlatan my franchise.

[Danke]

[GunnyFreedom]

You made a better argument in the other thread, I think it boiled down to something like mental chains are worse then real chains. I think you are wrong, I think that the child poverty rate, the starving children and entitlement bubble is worse then real chains. I think kids going hungry every day because the state has to keep building tanks is worse then real chains. I think kids signing up to fight for their country and then being lied to and sent over seas is worse then real chains. I think Johnson has the best opportunity to tell both parties that I don't want to support any more wars over seas. I honestly don't know how to send that message any other way then voting for a third party who sucks.

I don't actually recognize any of that. :-/

All of those are symptoms of the underlying problem of the federal government operating outside of it's parameters. If you feed kids today they will be hungry again tomorrow. If you fix the broken government, a lot of that poverty will not have happened in the first place. The problem you cite is more emotionally compelling, to be sure, but it is not even remotely as fundamental as the Constitutional imbalance of power.

Fix the problems you cite without fixing the government and your problems come back even worse than before. Fix the problem I identified without addressing hungry children, and eventually the hungry children problem resolves on its own.

My argument is not as emotionally appealing, granted, but it is an order or magnitude more fundamental.

[r3volution 3.0]

Um. what? WHo has ever claimed that it was illegal to organize?

Reread the thread if you can't follow along.

[GunnyFreedom]

Reread the thread if you can't follow along.

Yeah, sorry, I'm not the one twisting stuff into whatever weird fantasy world of falsehoods and lies, just to justify some absurd preconceptions.

[Nighthawkeye]

Yeah, sorry, I'm not the one twisting stuff into whatever weird fantasy world of falsehoods and lies, just to justify some absurd preconceptions.

hahahaha points up through the thread hahahaha sure sure what ever you say, good luck with your franchise.

[nikcers]

I don't actually recognize any of that. :-/

All of those are symptoms of the underlying problem of the federal government operating outside of it's parameters. If you feed kids today they will be hungry again tomorrow. If you fix the broken government, a lot of that poverty will not have happened in the first place. The problem you cite is more emotionally compelling, to be sure, but it is not even remotely as fundamental as the Constitutional imbalance of power.

Fix the problems you cite without fixing the government and your problems come back even worse than before. Fix the problem I identified without addressing hungry children, and eventually the hungry children problem resolves on its own.

My argument is not as emotionally appealing, granted, but it is an order or magnitude more fundamental.

I don't want to feed kids, I just don't want to spend any more of their money. This goes farther then that though, I don't want the country voting to eat these kids because we are hungry and they don't have a say in the matter. This is coming someone who hates kids, but somebody has to inherit our debt, and our country. The people who are inheriting the keys to the country have a 1 in 5 shot of starving, and their only way out of poverty is going into the military a lot of times. So these kids not only grow up without food, their brains don't develop right, now they get sent to Iran and come back with PTSD.

[GunnyFreedom]

hahahaha points up through the thread hahahaha sure sure what ever you say, good luck with your franchise.

.... it is... MY franchise, no matter how desperately you and rev3 desire to dictate to me what I can and can not do with it.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't want to feed kids, I just don't want to spend any more of their money.

If you restore the Constitutional balance of power, then the size scope and cost of the federal government diminishes by 60% at minimum, thereby leaving these kids to keep a lot more of their own money, and therefore resolving the hungry children problem. If you do not restore the Constitutional balance of power, any tax refunds or rebates to future generations will only ever be temporary and only last the two years until the next session of Congress.

This goes farther then that though, I don't want the country voting to eat these kids because we are hungry and they don't have a say in the matter. This is coming someone who hates kids, but somebody has to inherit our debt, and our country. The people who are inheriting the keys to the country have a 1 in 5 shot of starving, and their only way out of poverty is going into the military a lot of times. So these kids not only grow up without food, their brains don't develop right, now they get sent to Iran and come back with PTSD.

And if we restored the Constitutional balance of power, we wouldn't be able to send these kids to Iran without a Congressional Declaration, which they seem terribly reluctant to pursue.

As I said, every single one of the problems described here, boil down to the power imbalance. Try to fix the problem without fixing the imbalance, the problem comes back in short order. Instead fix the power balance and the problems vanish. The power balance issue is more fundamental.

[Nighthawkeye]

.... it is... MY franchise, no matter how desperately you and rev3 desire to dictate to me what I can and can not do with it.

Beware we got our pilotless black helicopters hovering over your franchise, if you don't submit now we are going to drag your franchise off to a Johnson rally. Hahahahaha Do as we command or else

[r3volution 3.0]

.... it is... MY franchise, no matter how desperately you and rev3 desire to dictate to me what I can and can not do with it.

[Natural Citizen]

Oh gosh. We're back to memes now, rev? Heh.

[Natural Citizen]

I am glad that you popped off tonight, though, Gunny. These Johnson guys are getting waaaay too comfortable.

[SewrRatt]

Could it be that "collective bargaining" does not mean the right of workers to voluntarily organize and ask the employer to negotiate?

Could it instead refer to the whole series of coercive practices (against both workers and employers) laid out in federal labor law?

I think letting the AFL-CIO or the federal union laws decide what exactly the phrase "collective bargaining" means is just about as good an idea as letting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld decide what "libertarian" means.

[r3volution 3.0]

I think letting the AFL-CIO or the federal union laws decide what exactly the phrase "collective bargaining" means is just about as good an idea as letting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld decide what "libertarian" means.

We aren't debating what the phrase should mean: e.g. how it should be interpreted in a court of law.

We're debating what it means in common usage.

...in order to determine which is the most reasonable interpretation of Castle's statement, since he didn't explain what he meant.

The cited examples show that collective bargaining commonly refers to the practices of coercive labor unions.

...not voluntary labor unions as Castle enthusiasts would have you believe.

[SewrRatt]

We aren't debating what the phrase should mean: e.g. how it should be interpreted in a court of law.

We're debating what it means in common usage.

...in order to determine which is the most reasonable interpretation of Castle's statement, since he didn't explain what he meant.

The cited examples show that collective bargaining commonly refers to the practices of coercive labor unions.

...not voluntary labor unions as Castle enthusiasts would have you believe.

Ron Paul specifically used the phrase "collective bargaining" too. It's reasonable to assume that a person using that phrase means what the words themselves are defined as, not that they're referring to a bunch of legislative $#@! the government has tacked onto the phrase. Unless they specifically say they mean all that legislative $#@!.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ron Paul specifically used the phrase "collective bargaining" too. It's reasonable to assume that a person using that phrase means what the words themselves are defined as, not that they're referring to a bunch of legislative $#@! the government has tacked onto the phrase. Unless they specifically say they mean all that legislative $#@!.

Uh yea, as I just said, that's exactly what we're debating: what the common definition of the term is.

[SewrRatt]

Uh yea, as I just said, that's exactly what we're debating: what the common definition of the term is.

collective
[kuh-lek-tiv]
adjective
1.
formed by collection.
2.
forming a whole; combined:
the collective assets of a corporation and its subsidiaries.
3.
of or characteristic of a group of individuals taken together:
the collective wishes of the membership.
4.
organized according to the principles of collectivism:
a collective farm.

bargain
[bahr-guh n]
verb (used without object)
6.
to discuss the terms of a bargain; haggle; negotiate.
7.
to come to an agreement; make a bargain:
We bargained on a three-year term.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, yes. That's pretty much "liberty" in a nutshell is it not?

[GunnyFreedom]

Beware we got our pilotless black helicopters hovering over your franchise, if you don't submit now we are going to drag your franchise off to a Johnson rally. Hahahahaha Do as we command or else

I think you must have let your tinfoil hat slip off and are maybe receiving the MKUltra signal again? You are talking gibberish.