Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3022867 - 08/19/04 10:41 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)


Come on mush, quit chuckling and give us the answer to how you introduce workers rights in free market capitalism.


i have. you ban the initiation of force in the course of business practices. some businesses may flee elsewhere, but at least those that remain will be ethical establishments. the alternative would be.......?

Really? So all the talk we here about free markets is just hot air?

it is indeed. i've never suggested that the third world is an example of free-market capitalism. it's not.

If your free market can't even begin to address that right now then it belongs in the toilet.

it addresses it as well as any domestic policy can: it prohibits it. you either allow it or you prohibit it. what is your solution? would you allow or prohibit child labor?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3024805 - 08/19/04 05:58 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Since you, Alex, haven't replied to my post yet, I'll just keep analyzing yours. I'm assuming that you are strapped for time, rather than simply debating who you choose, rather than all those that might disagree with you
Quote:


Try to stick to something that vaguely resembles reality. A government introduces the right to form unions, the corporations shift production to a country that has banned unions. How do you stop this?




How would YOU stop it without the "initation of force"? All that we can do, without using interventionistic tactics on foreign nations which I'm sure you'd disagree with, would be to ensure that the companies within our borders were following the moral way to do things.
Quote:


Calling for it is very nice. You can call for eternal peace and love too if you like. Try and give me an example in reality where a government can enforces the right to a union without the corporation simply moving production to another country.




Hm. Steel workers union, UAW, and the thousands of other unions that are in America. Examples given.
Quote:


Then you and every far right libertarian are utterly and totally against any sweatshop labour where unions are intimidated? Good. You agree with any campaign to get rid of sweatshop labour throughout the third world where unions are banned?




Why do you keep going back to this as-yet undefined sweatshop labor? Didn't PinkSharkMark specifically state that he was against this sort of sweatshop labor that you keep alluding to, while never defining? If they want to ban unions, thats the business of the company, not of mine. If they want to use force to prevent the people from being in a union, then it's not good. Refer to my comment about how things that involve at their root the use of force would be against libertarian values. Why is it that al ibertarian that adheres to true libertariansim is a "right wing" libertarian, while your brand, which involves forcing people to do things, is, in your eyes, "true libertarianism". You can't take a philosphy that, seemingly, a large number of people on this board adhere to, change the basic premise and foundaations of it, and make it your own. Doesn't work that way.
Quote:


Well, it's your version of a free market. I'm sure the heads of corporations using sweatshop labour would say they are operating in a free market fashion too.



If these people in the as-yet undefined "sweatshops" aren't being forced to work there, whats the big deal?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3026657 - 08/20/04 12:06 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

How would YOU stop it without the "initation of force"?

Deny them a market? Prevent import of goods produced by child labour to the US? Use tariffs to make it uncompetitive to use non-unionised child labour?

Hm. Steel workers union, UAW, and the thousands of other unions that are in America. Examples given.

Not really. Not every corporation on earth can move abroad. Those that can't have to deal with the reality that american workers have fought for 100 years to gain rights.

Why do you keep going back to this as-yet undefined sweatshop labor?

We defined it about 3 pages ago. You must've missed it.

Didn't PinkSharkMark specifically state that he was against this sort of sweatshop labor that you keep alluding to, while never defining?

I have never heard pinkie "specifically" state anything yet. In the other thread he remarks Stephen Chapman has some valid points in defending the use of child labour. If you can work out his position let us know.

If these people in the as-yet undefined "sweatshops" aren't being forced to work there, whats the big deal?

So you don't mind child labour as long as the children arn't forced to work there. Fair enough. Why didn't you just say this 5 pages ago?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3028243 - 08/20/04 11:12 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

did you miss my last post?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3028734 - 08/20/04 02:01 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I'd take Badnarik seriously if he didn't throw hissy fits over zip codes or didn't have insane ideas about prisoners, etc.. (as you'll see below)

Even by Libertarian standards Badnarik is out waay there. I agree with some libertarian philosophy, some. But the more i read about this guy, the less i like.

There's a great article in the libertarian mag Liberty about it:
Quote:

Dark Horse on the Third Ballot
The Libertarian Party nominates a candidate without knowing his views or knowing about his brushes with the law.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/bradford-dark_horse.html

....Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."

He has written a book on the Constitution for students in his one-day, $50 seminar on the Constitution, but it is available elsewhere, including on Amazon.com. It features an introduction by Congressman Ron Paul and Badnarik's theory about taxes. His campaign website included a potpourri of right-wing constitutional positions, as well as some very unorthodox views on various issues. He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for prison guards and to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building's occupants a chance to evacuate. In one especially picturesque proposal, he wrote:
Quote:


I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535members would be required to sit through a special version of myConstitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congressunderstood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I wouldinsist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped.






One assumes, although one cannot prove, that none of this is an exercise in irony. At any rate, these opinions were removed from the website shortly after he won the nomination, and they didn't come up when he visited state party conventions. Nor did his refusal to file tax returns, thereby risking federal indictment and felony arrest. While many of his closest supporters were aware of these issues, they were unknown to most LP members.



The man refuses to use ZIP codes. Read the whole thing and weep. Well, laugh, more likely.


Edited by DigitalDuality (08/20/04 02:08 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3028817 - 08/20/04 02:22 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

have. you ban the initiation of force in the course of business practices

Give me concrete measures. Not half-baked theories. You tell the corporations to follow measure that cut their profits, they tell you to fuck off. What do you do next?

it is indeed

hmm..I'm sure there's an awful lot of economists who disagree about whether or not free market measure have been introduced. Particularly the world banks "work" in Argentina and Indonesia.

i've never suggested that the third world is an example of free-market capitalism

But you do agree certain free market measures have been introduced throughout the third world?

what is your solution?

Reject free market capitalism? Deny them "free markets"? Tell Nike -"Use child labour and the only people you're going to be able to sell those shoes to is the kids you pay 10 bucks a month".

would you allow or prohibit child labor?

Why allow it? Is there such a terrible shortage of adults who could do the work? They couldn't pay three, four, five times as much to an adult and still make astronomical profits? Hell, the adult could even pay for his kids to get an education then.

Why do you think these corporations hire young girls? Why don't they hire 25 year old men? They do so because little girls are easier to intimidate, pay less, punish, and terrify if one suggests union rights. Does that sound like a good thing to you?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3029578 - 08/20/04 05:38 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

You tell the corporations to follow measure that cut their profits, they tell you to fuck off. What do you do next?

umm... start arresting people?

what would you have the government do when businesses defy regulations?

hmm..I'm sure there's an awful lot of economists who disagree about whether or not free market measure have been introduced.

oh i'm sure some free market measures exist. there are some free market measures in cuba. some free market measures exist everywhere you go. that doesn't make it a free market.

But you do agree certain free market measures have been introduced throughout the third world?

obviously. see response to previous statement.

Deny them "free markets"? Tell Nike -"Use child labour and the only people you're going to be able to sell those shoes to is the kids you pay 10 bucks a month".

wait a minute here... why does it work when you tell businesses not to exploit children, but it doesn't work when i do?

Why allow it?

i don't know alex. you're the one that's been going on about businesses packing up and moving away, or measures being impossible to enforce... i've been saying all along that child labor should generally be prohibited, and you've been attacking my statements at every turn...


Edited by mushmaster (08/20/04 05:44 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3029678 - 08/20/04 06:14 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
wait a minute here... why does it work when you tell businesses not to exploit children, but it doesn't work when i do?



Cuz you're a dirty neocon repoop. :smirk:


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
    #3029701 - 08/20/04 06:20 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Quote:

mushmaster said:
wait a minute here... why does it work when you tell businesses not to exploit children, but it doesn't work when i do?



Cuz you're a dirty neocon repoop. :smirk:


:cheers:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3029963 - 08/20/04 07:19 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

....Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years.



While he has cleared up the issue with the IRS, and therefore there is no legal problem here, Michael is doing nothing more than practicing what he preaches. There was a huge controversey over the 16th Amendment(which SUPPOSEDLY conveys the power to tax income...) in which the ratification votes of states were counted wrongly. A state, apparently, could vote either YES(to ratify), NO(to deny ratification), or PASS(to give neither approval nor disapproval, but to not add to the amendment's votes). From what I have heard, there were not enough YES votes to ratify so under some ridiculous interpretation of law, the PASS's were counted as YES's. In addition, a high court ruled after the amendment was 'passed' that the 16th amendment gave the federal government no new power.

Quote:

but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine.



Again, practicing what he preaches. It seems as if he has and is paying the price, so to speak, for his stalwart attachment to libertarian and american values.

Quote:

He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."



Michael has dismissed this claim time and time again, and has dismissed it as recently as this week on a radio show that I can link to you if you wish. The confusion here is because Michael once mused(not sure where) that a stealth bill passed in the mid 20th century may have been worded as such that all areas under zip codes are regarded as federal territory. As the constitution grants unlimited(dictatorial) powers to congress with regard to federal territories, Michael being skeptic libertarian that he is, was merely expounding on the potential issue. He has and does use zip codes, was just something blown out of proportion.

Quote:

He has written a book on the Constitution for students in his one-day, $50 seminar on the Constitution, but it is available elsewhere, including on Amazon.com.



Would just like to add here that before Michael was nominated as LP candidate for the presidency he was dirt fucking poor. For the year before the nominating convention he did drive around 'campaigning' across the country, trying to spread the libertarian message via personal visits and his constitution class, living off what meager income he made from that class and from supporter donations. Despite how poor Michael was, he again never broke from principle as he missed out on a TON of money he could have gotten from his constitution class. For the class Michael categorically refused to accept 'worthless' federal reserve notes, and as a first act of constitutionality, he required that those who desired the class pay in commodity-based currency, most commonly Liberty Dollars(which for the record, had to be gotten from someone other than Michael).

Quote:

He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for prison guards



This is also a mix of something that was not wholly serious in origin being blown out of proportion. Michael does not believe and has never said that prisoners should be tied down to a bed until their muscles atrophy. He merely feels that prisoners should be deprived of much of the weight-lifting and other excercise they are offered today and should instead be required to do things that are less conducive to violent physical behavior(reading, television, etc). Do you really think it's a good idea for violent convicts to be spending 8 hours a day lifting weights?

Quote:

to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building's occupants a chance to evacuate.



Really a shame that I'm having to pick apart this article right now since the vast majority of the libertarian community already did it when the article came out. This statement was made COMPLETELY IN HUMOR. Michael is, like almost all libertarians, extremely opposed to United States involvment in the United Nations and would push for our exit from it if elected President. He has no intention of having the building imploded(or on top of that, imploding it himself)...he has stated himself, in a serious tone, that the money gained from the sale of the building would be used to pay off the debt.

Quote:


I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535members would be required to sit through a special version of myConstitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congressunderstood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I wouldinsist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped.




I don't see any problem with that. The only part of this I don't like is I think it would be, for the most part, an excersise in futility. Most members of congress are beyond hope and the thought that they are supposed to work for the american people, rather than the other way around, is extremely foreign to them.

To sum up this post, that article takes things out of context, makes brilliant use of strong hyperbole, and criticizes a principled libertarian an awful lot for a libertarian publication. Perhaps the author lost a bet on the nominating convention?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3030140 - 08/20/04 08:18 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
How would YOU stop it without the "initation of force"?

Deny them a market? Prevent import of goods produced by child labour to the US? Use tariffs to make it uncompetitive to use non-unionised child labour?




"deny" "prevent" ? I said "WITHOUT" using force...
Quote:


Not really. Not every corporation on earth can move abroad. Those that can't have to deal with the reality that american workers have fought for 100 years to gain rights.




Did I or did I not answer your post correctly? I gave examples of unions in capitalist societies.
Quote:


We defined it about 3 pages ago. You must've missed it.




If you'll look, I was the first one that posted a reply with the definition in in (possibly the second, after pink shark mark). I'll note that you NEVER gave a definition, either a dictionary one or one of your own.
Quote:


I have never heard pinkie "specifically" state anything yet. In the other thread he remarks Stephen Chapman has some valid points in defending the use of child labour. If you can work out his position let us know.




I'd be happy to. In the post numbered #3009542, pinksharkmark says;
Clearly, from the emphatic nature of this latest post of yours, your position is that a factory cannot be defined as a "sweatshop" unless it employs pre-adolescent children. I will therefore categorically state that as a Laissez-faire Capitalist, I oppose any such "Alex123sweatshopsTM" (sorry -- can't find the key which generates the nifty little "trademark" character).

There, now we have a quote where he says that he is against the still-as-yet undefined sweatshop labor that you refer to. He even gives them an easier handle to use. Happy?
Quote:


So you don't mind child labour as long as the children arn't forced to work there. Fair enough. Why didn't you just say this 5 pages ago?



I like taking the long way around things, sorry if I didn't state my position clearly. When I was 12, I was helping mow the yard (10+ acres, push mower) cleaning my room, helping friends on their farms, and helping my uncle's staff on a golf course in the blistering North Carolina heat for the summer. I wasn't "forced" to do it, I was paid appropriate wages for my work, and I'd think that most kids at 12 would be happy to have some spending cash in their pockets for baseball cards, or whatever it is that kids spend their money on nowadays. I'd like to state that I'm opposed, as pinkie stated, to the Alex123SweatShops? that you describe. Noone should be FORCE to do anything, within limits.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3031221 - 08/21/04 01:29 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

"deny" "prevent" ? I said "WITHOUT" using force...

mush has said you fine them. Is that "force" too? How would you stop them using child labour?

I gave examples of unions in capitalist societies.

Yes, unions do exist in capitalist societies. What is your point?

I'll note that you NEVER gave a definition, either a dictionary one or one of your own.

I told you to go to a dictionary and use the definition you see there.

There, now we have a quote where he says that he is against the still-as-yet undefined sweatshop labor that you refer to.

No, he makes a basic error in defining a sweatshop as a place where only pre-adolescent children are employed. Then he makes a predictably vague and meaningless reference about pre-adolescent children. As moronic and irrelevant to the discussion as his "point" about 8 year olds driving forklift trucks.

He even gives them an easier handle to use. Happy?

No, I'd like to know his position on child labour. Can you tell me what it is? Silver failed miserably, maybe you'll have a better time.

Noone should be FORCE to do anything, within limits.

So as long as the children are not "forced" it is ok to employ them in sweatshops. That's your position? Fine.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSpaceCadet
Stranger
Registered: 03/09/04
Posts: 15
Loc: Washington
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3031255 - 08/21/04 01:41 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Badnarik would be the best thing for this country. I'd be delighted to have the federal government pretty much gotten rid of. It would make it easier for the workers to seize the means of production without an over-funded bourgeois military in the way.

Badnarik, and many others, seem to have the idea that capitalism and the market economy would flourish without the feds subsidizing it with tax dollars. Economics is such an outrageously flawed social science based on ridiculous logical fallacies(ever hear of a market self-correcting itself?).

If anything, I think the libertarians' worship of 'free market' and privatizing everything in existence would be fantastic and only add momentum to the anticapitalist activist movement. But that's only my own speculation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: SpaceCadet]
    #3031287 - 08/21/04 01:48 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Good point. Certainly the attempt by the world bank to impose free market measures in Argentina and Indonesia has caused complete economic disaster.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3031809 - 08/21/04 07:36 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

have you anything to say in response to my previous post?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3032155 - 08/21/04 10:47 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
mush has said you fine them. Is that "force" too? How would you stop them using child labour?




I wouldn't stop them from using child labor, I'd stop them from FORCING children to work in AlexSweatShops?. Fines are OK. I'm not against the use of force in any situation, I'm against the initation of force against people.
Quote:


Yes, unions do exist in capitalist societies. What is your point?




My point? Well, that your statement-phrased question of "Try and give me an example in reality where a government can enforces the right to a union without the corporation simply moving production to another country." has been answered. Here is where you should say "Oh, thats right. Their are numerous labor unions in countries that give the right for unionization and the Pittsburgh Steel Mills, the Detroit Auto Works, and nunmerous other Union-run organizations still exist in that nation". I proved you wrong, be a man and admit it.
Quote:


I told you to go to a dictionary and use the definition you see there.




One that doesn't mesh with the definition that you've been using. I'll list the definitions in my words of "sweat shop" and "Alex123SweatShop?" (BTW Pink Shark Mark, that is Alt+0153 on my ASCII keyboard).

A "sweat shop" is a workplace where conditions are harsh, hours are long, and the pay isn't exactly what you'd need to retire rich.

An Alex123SweatShop? is a sweatshop in which children are forced to work horrible conditions and where union organizers are introduced into the company-sponsored Doctor Martin Dental Plan.
Quote:


No, he makes a basic error in defining a sweatshop as a place where only pre-adolescent children are employed. Then he makes a predictably vague and meaningless reference about pre-adolescent children. As moronic and irrelevant to the discussion as his "point" about 8 year olds driving forklift trucks.




That was my point, I believe. When you give people the right to make up the definitions that you (still) refuse to provide, you are giving him alot of leeway. You yourself stated that we are to use the dictionary definition of sweat shop, and that doesn't imply or specifically state anything about the age of the employers. I'm sorry if the definition that you asked us to provide isn't the one that you are using. That is why pink shark mark used the contextual information of the posts of yours to make the new phrase "Alex123SweatShop?". If you want us to use the dictionary definition, as you've mentioned four or five times, then you want us to know exactly how you modified that definition for the purpose of discussion, I'm going to have to ask you again to give me YOUR definition, in YOUR own words, of a sweat shop. I've been courteous enough to answer all of your questions, I think, why won't you do the same for pink shark mark and myself? He does state that he is against sweatshops that force children to work, isn't that what a libertarian would say? Do you agree that your statement of "he hasn't specifically said anything yet" is wrong, as he clearly did state he was against hte sort of sweatshop labor that you seem to allude to, without defining still?
Quote:


No, I'd like to know his position on child labour.




flip flop the beat don't stop! Back to my original statement about you juxtaposing statements about "child labor' and "sweat shop" work. Since, by the definition that you told us to get, the dictionary one, a sweat shop isn't necessarily using child labor, it's two different things. From the context of his posts, and I don't mean to give his position and I also admit that I could be wrong about my interpretation fo what he is saying, he isn't, per se, against CHILDREN at WORK. He is against the sweatshop definition that you allude to, but have yet to provide. ALso, don't reply to this with a "well look it up", because he and I both have, and the definition that they gave isn't meshing with your mental image of a sweat shop.
Quote:


Can you tell me what it is? Silver failed miserably, maybe you'll have a better time.




I'm sorry, tell you what what is? PInkSharkMarks position on child labor? I think he specifically mentioned that kids working in their parents shops isn't "sweat shop" labor. Why don't you choose one topic and stick with it? we begin discussing sweat shop labor, then you toss in a bit of child labor, and assume that our opinions are the same about both. They aren't the same thing, not even close to the same thing.

I searched google.com for "what is child labor", and I got the definition of
Quote:


Work performed by children, often under hazardous or exploitative conditions. This does not include all work done by kids: children everywhere, for example, do chores to help their families. The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child calls for protection "against economic exploitation and against carrying out any job that might endanger well-being or educational opportunities, or that might be harmful to health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development" (Article 32).




If a job involves a child, say, using an iron brazer, I'd probably be against my child doing it. However, I've seen 10 year old Mennonite children around here using bulldozers and such with a skill level that would earn them 40$ an hour on the open market. Again, no force, no foul.
Quote:


So as long as the children are not "forced" it is ok to employ them in sweatshops. That's your position? Fine.



Child labor doesn't equate to sweat shop labor. Can you see that single truth? If a child works at a "factory" doing "long hours" for "low wages" at "poor conditions", but in doing so they manage to help keep their family fed, whats the problem? Subjective terms like that probably apply to every factory in the world. I work long hours, I'd say that I'm not making "enough" money, and my conditions, well, I suppose being inside a Gulfstream plane for most of my time isn't "poor conditions".


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3034624 - 08/21/04 10:37 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Good point. Certainly the attempt by the world bank to impose free market measures in Argentina and Indonesia has caused complete economic disaster.



Jesus Christ, how fucking moronic do you have to be to equate the world bank with the functioning of a free market? Sure they might ask some governments to become a little more free market in some regards, much as a doctor tells a heart attack patient to improve his diet. But any person who thinks that the world bank is a free market institution is a total dipshit. It was created by, is controlled and underwritten by GOVERNMENTS (using extorted tax money of course)! It's a marriage of big government socialist economic meddling with banking industry corporatism, using tax money to underwrite all sorts of schemes to bail out governments from failed policies. To equate it with the free markets is like equating prositution with chastity.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3035475 - 08/22/04 05:08 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I'd stop them from FORCING children to work in AlexSweatShops?....

I have no idea what you are talking about.

has been answered

Are you trying to say corporations havn't moved production to other countries and denied workers union rights?

An Alex123SweatShop? is a sweatshop in which children are forced to work horrible conditions and where union organizers are introduced into the company-sponsored Doctor Martin Dental Plan.

It is? Thanks for letting me know.  :rolleyes:

Once again, go to a dictionary and you'll find "my" definition of a sweatshop.

and that doesn't imply or specifically state anything about the age of the employers

I presume you meant "employees" not "employers". Are you trying to deny there are any children on earth working in sweatshops? Seriously?

I'm going to have to ask you again to give me YOUR definition, in YOUR own words, of a sweat shop

I'm perfectly happy with the dictionary definition. I'm going to have to ask you once again, are you trying to deny there isn't a child on earth working in a sweatshop?

a sweat shop isn't necessarily using child labor, it's two different things

No, you're confusing yourself. A sweatshop doesn't have to employ children but many do because greater profits can be achieved using child labour.

ALso, don't reply to this with a "well look it up", because he and I both have, and the definition that they gave isn't meshing with your mental image of a sweat shop

Forget about what you think my mental image is and try and stick to reality. I've told you to look in any dictionary for the definition of a sweatshop. I have informed you that many children work in sweatshops. Are you trying to deny this?

PInkSharkMarks position on child labor?

Yes.

I think he specifically mentioned that kids working in their parents shops isn't "sweat shop" labor.

What has helping out in your dads shop got to do with kids working full time in corporate run sweatshops?

we begin discussing sweat shop labor, then you toss in a bit of child labor

God give me strength. We're talking about corporations employing child labour. Not helping your mom carry her bags into the house from the car. Ok? Are you clear on this now?

Finally, can you tell me pinkies position on using child labour in sweatshops? (And you can assume that the sweatshops are NOT owned by the childs parents)

I await with interest..:sleep:

However, I've seen 10 year old Mennonite children around here using bulldozers and such with a skill level that would earn them 40$ an hour on the open market. Again, no force, no foul.

Fine. You're happy seeing 10 year old kids working bulldozers for a living. Why didn't you just say this in the first place?

Incidentally, how much do you think those 10 year old kids really earn? Can you guess why they are hiring 10 year old kids instead of adults? You've got three guesses...

If a child works at a "factory" doing "long hours" for "low wages" at "poor conditions", but in doing so they manage to help keep their family fed, whats the problem?

Fine. You approve of sweatshop child labour. You have stated your position. I wish you'd done so 5 pages ago and saved us the effort.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3035476 - 08/22/04 05:09 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

have you anything to say in response to my previous post?

Was there anything new in it? I'm a little tired of repeating myself for 6 pages..


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Evolving]
    #3035478 - 08/22/04 05:14 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Sure they might ask some governments to become a little more free market in some regards

That's what I said. And each attempt to follow free market policies has resulted in complete and utter economic disaster.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Michael Badnarik chosen as LP presidential nominee grib 397 1 05/30/04 07:13 PM
by Ancalagon
* Interview with Badnarik
newuser1492
1,632 14 09/20/04 07:31 PM
by Zahid
* Badnarik to appear on the Alex Jones Radio Show today silversoul7 721 2 10/11/04 11:17 PM
by ekomstop
* Badnarik on Michael Moore (constitution on fire) DigitalDuality 763 5 09/01/04 04:42 PM
by silversoul7
* Badnarik/Cobb arrested
newuser1492
1,314 12 10/09/04 11:49 AM
by Learyfan
* Rasmussen Reports - Badnarik In Debates Ancalagon 1,088 17 07/27/04 04:24 PM
by Ancalagon
* Are any of you voting for Badnarik?
( 1 2 3 all )
Libertarian 2,877 40 09/03/04 03:11 AM
by fastfred
* Badnarik article
RandalFlagg
304 0 10/29/04 08:41 AM
by RandalFlagg

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,152 topic views. 4 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.1 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 17 queries.