Discussion in 'World Events' started by Username, Jul 17, 2013.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes the laborer can so do that. It's called a strike. I have no problem with Unionization and striking, EXCEPT for public servant Unions. That's an abomination. Companies can go bust and so an agreement will be reached fair for both. Governments do not go bankrupt, and worse still, they force a labor tax onto the Citizenry, sell Bonds on the Citizens kids, and inflation the currency of the Citizens savings to meet Public Union demands. This continues until the City, State or Nation goes bankrupt.
The coffee grower can withhold coffee simply by refusing to sell for a lower price. Or move onto another crop.
The coffee buyer can withhold his/her purchase until the price is acceptable. Or move onto a different drink.
The coffee shop owner can attempt to pay as little as possible, but will have to pay what is acceptable to someone.
The coffee shop employee can quit if not paid enough, go work for someone else or even go start their own shop.
The best way to maximize the opportunities is to FREE the market AND use sound money as money is 1/2 of each transaction. If money is bad, then the entire market is distorted and all of society is perverted from acting as they normally would.
Right now we have an educational system designed to produce barely literate workers. This means there's WAY TOO MUCH LABOR. Thus, like anything there's too much of, the price of labor is low. Worse, the market is so highly regulated it's nearly impossible to start a business - the redtape alone would put most people off. The money is so corrupted only people with massive capital can access it - like Walmart. We need LESS labor, more business and sound money - preferably based on the community's captial.
I'm really not sure of your point here. Trayvon Martin was doing martial arts, perhaps he would have been a Kick Boxer? Perhaps he'd of become a Bouncer? A security guard? If he hadn't attacked and attempted to murder George Zimmerman, he'd of found out.
I would be curious, was Martin's parents married? Not having a father at home in a family unit is one of the leading indicators of violence in young men. Was he spanked? Spanking lowers IQ and leads to aggression. It basically teaches children that violence is a justifiable means to solve a problem. I'm not sure, but I seem to recall Trayvon's mother had a couple other children by a different father and still wasn't married? I'm not sure if that's correct and as I said I'd be curious to know, but if even half of that is true, added up - that's not a stable home life or childhood for ANY child.
If you want to really understand why what happened, happened. Take a good look at Trayvon's childhood and stop ignoring the childhood trauma.
so than why were you one of the people blaming GM problems on the union? your anti labor and pro corporate power.
thats outside this thread´s topic!
A laborer cannot, individually, strike. A union of laborers cannot strike without either initiating violence themselves or enjoying the protection of a State to initiate violence for them. And even given that, the laborer cannot withhold their labor for long - they will starve. So they are not in the position of the coffee grower - the coffee trees will not starve, nor will their children suffer. The coffee will not need training, or make a commitment to mastering a role.
Detroit was trashed by the large, capitalistic, automobile manufacturing companies.
You aren't really aware of the importance of finding employment of some kind, for young black men?
Irrelevant. Martin did not follow, chase, confront, and kill Zimmerman. If we are going to consider the roots of Zimmerman's violent propensities in his childhood, we need a new thread. In the event, Zimmerman's racial bigotries, violent nature, irresponsible arming of himself, and heedless behavior, led to his killing a teenage kid who was committing no crime and behaving normally on the public street. And that in itself would have been no big deal, probably, as it is common in the US - but the police did not even arrest him and investigate his account until a national publicity and petitioning forced their hand, his eventual account turned out to be unlikely and contradict the physical evidence, the prosecution was oddly and suspiciously inept, the jury made little sense and created much suspicion in their explanation of their verdict, and every ugly racial bigot in the national woodwork slid out and started yakking about liberal PC racebaiting media bias against the abused and innocent Zimmerman. So there's going to be racial tension round this, and it's going to be a touchstone event for a long time to come.
Cowans, de Cervantes, and Some Made-Up Dude Named Paarfi
I adore that precarious sentence because it is at once reasonably accurate and subjectively demonstrative in allegory. That is, I say it's precarious because even trimmed as it is according to an obscure rule of ellipsis, its one hundred and four words in danger of toppling under their own weight, though explaining the connection between Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra and Paarfi of Roundwood as it applies here would be something of a digression.
But at the same time that internal, wobbling notion also accurately characterizes the nature of the broader public discourse and, to some degree, the emotional instability the case has brought many individuals.
Some, though, seem to think that what people are upset about is, well, it's kind of hard to figure unless we focus on specific examples like the presumption that we who are disappointed and aghast at this outcome ... well, that's the thing. Well, it doesn't matter how many times you tell them. As we've seen even in our recent discussions of the case here at Sciforums, Zimmerman's supporters are building tremendous straw men to dig a moat around them. There is a reason I invoke Lester Cowans.
The only thing I would add to it is the recent discussion raised by Juror B29, who has now publicly stated that George Zimmerman got away with murder, and suggests that between the law and the jury instructions there really was no way to convict. But since the sentence survives its appearance of being wobbly for having so many parts stacked atop one another, it would be a shame to knock it over trying to cram one more piece somewhere into the middle.
I suppose, though, it might help to be specific; we might note a neighbor who would argue repeatedly that Zimmerman is a scapegoat. And recognize the actual meaning of scapegoat here: The scapegoat is an innocent sacrifice offered to bear the burden of society's sins. George Zimmerman may be "not guilty", but apparently even the jury knows he's not "innocent". This fixation that it is somehow about how the jury should have broken the law to convict an innocent man is unhealthy, both to the individuals and the discourse at large.
You have pretty much encapsulated the general problem, and if Zimmerman's advocates get a little confused trying to work their way through that sentence, well, that's kind of the point. This is how complicated the situation has gotten; this is how sublimated the problems have become.
What happened in Sanford, Florida, happened. We cannot change it. We might, however, strive that it doesn't happen again. But it will. And for some of our neighbors, that's just fine and dandy. Indeed, such outcomes are what some of our neighbors want.
and him praddling on about the free market isn't?
not to mention the Sanford police department has a history of failing to properly investigate potential homicides where the victim is black.
I might note a neighbour who has fallen into this trap.
Your scapegoat, rather. Whether he is society's scapegoat is somewhat different; a difference you should be able to appreciate.
Separate names with a comma.