I think the Cato ins ute would take issue with that being a "privilege" rather than a right.
You have betrayed a conservative talking point.
I'm cool with (limited) public financing and a series of mandatory debates for the Primarys and general election.
this ridiculous spending and carpet bombing of TV ads. A candidate shouldn't have to raise a BILLION DOLLARS to be elected President. He just owes too damn many people favors after raising that kind of money.
There are clear and explicit qualifications to be met before one can start a corporation. I'm not sure it could be defined as an automatic right.
The only real qualification to start a corporation is the ability to pay the secretary of state a filing fee. Could easily be wrong about that, as my knowledge of the process is fairly limited, to be honest. Something easily fixed though.
I could easily see the ability to form a corporation to be lumped under the ability to "freely associate" or something.
I think quibbling over the word "right" is simply a rather blatant attempt by Yonivore to change the debate in ways he thinks might benefit his point of view, with little regard to the merits of the argument made.
But that is *my* opinion, albeit based on far more exposure to bizarro bouton's MO than I would like.
Probably because I'm not a conservative. But, I'd like to see where the Cato calls incorporation a right.
But, back to the original question. When did collective bargaining become a right?
Why?
Yeah, I'm not going to quibble over it either. I've started several over the years. Some I've sold, some I've let die, and some that are still active. There are definitely rules and reporting requirements etc. and if you don't abide by the rules they will definitely kill the corp. But you are basically correct that any numbnut that will meet the basic disclosure requirements, write and file the charter, etc. and pay the filing fee can start one.
I'll quibble. Rights do not require remuneration or qualification.
You're an idiot. If they gave out awards for idiocy they would definitely name one after you.
For what right have you paid or had to qualify?
Andrew Klavan schools you on Public Sector Unions...
Who?
this stupid question does not make the previous question any less stupid.
So, you just want to say it's a stupid question. Cool.
two stupid questions, yes.
Yet, you're unable to explain why they're stupid.
able, but unwilling.
Well, stay strong, then.
stay stupid
Yeah, because I'm the one who thinks collective bargaining is a right.stay stupid
When it is legally granted, it is a right you idiot.Yeah, because I'm the one who thinks collective bargaining is a right.
obviously you don't and are unwilling to do simple research on the subject.Yeah, because I'm the one who thinks collective bargaining is a right.
normally I have no problem providing the material requested, but in your case, neh.
stay stupid.
The subject of rights or the subject of collective bargaining?
On the subject of rights; a right is the absolute authority to act without the permission of another.
Do you need me to explain collective bargaining? And, if it's a right, why isn't 100% of the workforce in a union with collective bargaining "rights?"
I haven't really paid much attention to this thread, but collective bargaining is often equivalent to the mafia saying what they will take, for an employer to be allowed to stay in business.
What about the employers rights to higher and fire who he/she wants?
Collective bargaining often destroys the individuals freedoms to accel in a job for better pay as well. When employees are treated the same, with same pay by time, no flexible scale for performance, than it is not the America I know.
Exactly! why would anyone not want to be part of a union when they have the right?
stay ing stupid
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
