How are so called “conservatives” ok with people giving up their rights simply to put a roof over their families heads and keep food on the table?
How can you expect people who have been conditioned to sign away their rights simply to live to care when the government tramples on our rights?
Nevermind.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Zeppelin, I assume that you believe what this lady is saying, so I’ll ask you this question: Are businessmen currently shorting themselves on potential profit? That seems to be what was said in the video(that prices can stand to be increased). So are businessmen currently cutting consumers a deal each time they sell their products?
[/quote]
That doesn’t follow. The main reason many businesses cannot raise prices is because of competition from other businesses. With a minimum wage increase all businesses would be facing the same cost increase and could only undercut their competition by being more efficient (which is hopefully what we all want anyway).
[quote]phaethon wrote:
could only undercut their competition by being more efficient (which is hopefully what we all want anyway).[/quote]
Just wish the government would take this advice. They just pay more and give more benefits, and efficiency just goes out the window. USA!! USA!! USA!!
[quote]phaethon wrote:
That doesn’t follow. The main reason many businesses cannot raise prices is because of competition from other businesses. With a minimum wage increase all businesses would be facing the same cost increase and could only undercut their competition by being more efficient (which is hopefully what we all want anyway).[/quote]
Good point. We could actually have the government standardize prices at the lowest point that would allow any company to make a profit. That would force businesses to adapt and become more efficient in order to make a profit. Once everyone gets to the point where they are making a profit, the government could drop prices again. Just think of the efficiency that would result from this policy.
Capital idea, my dear Watson.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]
It mentions nothing of by whom we covered the definition of force COMPEL COERCE OBLIGE .
So with out a reason drug testing ia unconstitutional
Another point
shall not be violated, (AND) no Warrants shall issue, the right shall not be violated (AND) the warrant is a different issue [/quote]
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that citizens can’t choose not to exercise their rights. When you submit to a drug test, you have made a choice not to exercise your right to refuse it.[/quote]
with this logic if some one holds a gun to your head and you choose to comply with their wishes than you have exercised you right of choice because you have the right refuse . I get it
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Why doesn’t the level of earning stay reasonably parallel to the cost of living ?[/quote]
Cause it’s a mechanism used by democrats to convince people that they are getting paid more so they can buy votes. Retards who earn minimum wage don’t see that. Cost of living increases because of it, then people think they need more money to live. It’s a perpetual cycle, political genius, societal sabotage.
Fucking democrats…always doing what will get themselves into office again, never actually helping anybody.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that citizens can’t choose not to exercise their rights. When you submit to a drug test, you have made a choice not to exercise your right to refuse it.[/quote]
with this logic if some one holds a gun to your head and you choose to comply with their wishes than you have exercised you right of choice because you have the right refuse . I get it
[/quote]
Do you really equate paying someone to work for you with holding a gun to his or her head?
If the person with the gun being held to his or her head entered into a contract with the gun holder, saying that he or she would allow the gun holder to hold a gun to his or her head while either complying with the holder’s wishes or being killed, then I guess your statement would somewhat make sense.
Do you think that citizens should not have the right to consent? Do you want the state to completely own you? Do you not trust yourself with any decision?
Wow.
Do you think it would be a violation of the fourth amendment if a houseguest takes a shit in my bathroom, runs out of toilet paper, asks me where I keep my toilet paper, then gets some out of my cabinet without obtaining a search warrant? Due to my desire not to have shit stains throughout my house, I think I would be pretty compelled to consent to his/her search.
If you have children, I will assume you have never entered their rooms without obtaining a search warrant, correct?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Do you really equate paying someone to work for you with holding a gun to his or her head?
[/quote]
Yes, they are both coercion
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Do you really equate paying someone to work for you with holding a gun to his or her head?
[/quote]
Yes, they are both coercion
[/quote]
So you advocate a system in which nobody has any interactions with anyone else, correct?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Do you really equate paying someone to work for you with holding a gun to his or her head?
[/quote]
Yes, they are both coercion
[/quote]
So you advocate a system in which nobody has any interactions with anyone else, correct?[/quote]
I advocate a system where coercion to give up rights , is unacceptable
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I advocate a system where coercion to give up rights , is unacceptable
[/quote]
You have a right not to interact with others.
Using your imagined definition of coerce(which seems to be anything done for any reason), I can deduce that you do not approve of human interaction.
-“He was compelled to speak to his neighbor by his need for human interaction.” (compel is a synonym of coerce)
Are these rights violations limited only to humans/physical beings?
-“My thirst compelled me to drink water.”
Has thirst violated my right not to drink water?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I advocate a system where coercion to give up rights , is unacceptable
[/quote]
You have a right not to interact with others.
Using your imagined definition of coerce(which seems to be anything done for any reason), I can deduce that you do not approve of human interaction.
-“He was compelled to speak to his neighbor by his need for human interaction.” (compel is a synonym of coerce)
They both force some one with something the person does not want one being the lack of a job the other with life .
Are these rights violations limited only to humans/physical beings?
-“My thirst compelled me to drink water.”
Has thirst violated my right not to drink water?[/quote]
Your argument is stupid your , both force some one to do something the person does not want to do, one would take your job the other with your life
Thirst is a necessary thing like food and sleep most people actually enjoy the necessities of life
You are arguing that people don’t have the right to control their property. A business is its owner’s property. When you choose to work there, you choose to either abide by the rules or be fired.
In exchange for whatever benefits are agreed upon by a business owner and employee, an employee agrees to abide by whatever rules the business owner has.
I’m sorry that your employer doesn’t approve of the use of marijuana. Have you thought about telling your local elected officials about the human rights violations going on at your place of employment?
I would love an explanation of how your ideal society would function.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
You are arguing that people don’t have the right to control their property. A business is its owner’s property. When you choose to work there, you choose to either abide by the rules or be fired.
In exchange for whatever benefits are agreed upon by a business owner and employee, an employee agrees to abide by whatever rules the business owner has.
I’m sorry that your employer doesn’t approve of the use of marijuana. Have you thought about telling your local elected officials about the human rights violations going on at your place of employment?
I would love an explanation of how your ideal society would function. [/quote]
My employer has the right to say I do not smoke on his property or to be high on his property , that is where his rights end.
Personally I think your grasp on the definition of words like coerce and force . and confusing enjoyable necessities with coercion precludes a discussion of such a broad subject
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My employer has the right to say I do not smoke on his property or to be high on his property , that is where his rights end.
Personally I think your grasp on the definition of words like coerce and force . and confusing enjoyable necessities with coercion precludes a discussion of such a broad subject
[/quote]
You have the right to work for someone else. You also have the right to work for yourself, or not work at all. His rights end where you let them. If you consent to something, you give him the right to do that thing(to clarify, since you’ve already compared drug testing to holding a gun to employees’ heads…if you consent to something legal).
Tell me you’re not serious.
Again, I’m sorry your employer doesn’t allow you to use marijuana, but you may want to find a better champion for your cause than the government…the same governments(state and federal) that have criminalized marijuana in 48 states and at the federal level.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My employer has the right to say I do not smoke on his property or to be high on his property , that is where his rights end.
Personally I think your grasp on the definition of words like coerce and force . and confusing enjoyable necessities with coercion precludes a discussion of such a broad subject
[/quote]
You have the right to work for someone else. You also have the right to work for yourself, or not work at all. His rights end where you let them. If you consent to something, you give him the right to do that thing(to clarify, since you’ve already compared drug testing to holding a gun to employees’ heads…if you consent to something legal).
Tell me you’re not serious.
Again, I’m sorry your employer doesn’t allow you to use marijuana, but you may want to find a better champion for your cause than the government…the same governments(state and federal) that have criminalized marijuana in 48 states and at the federal level.[/quote]
I am serious and you are dense
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My employer has the right to say I do not smoke on his property or to be high on his property , that is where his rights end.
Personally I think your grasp on the definition of words like coerce and force . and confusing enjoyable necessities with coercion precludes a discussion of such a broad subject
[/quote]
You have the right to work for someone else. You also have the right to work for yourself, or not work at all. His rights end where you let them. If you consent to something, you give him the right to do that thing(to clarify, since you’ve already compared drug testing to holding a gun to employees’ heads…if you consent to something legal).
Tell me you’re not serious.
Again, I’m sorry your employer doesn’t allow you to use marijuana, but you may want to find a better champion for your cause than the government…the same governments(state and federal) that have criminalized marijuana in 48 states and at the federal level.[/quote]
you remind me of a child that sticks his fingers in his ears and keeps repeating his point of view never addressing any point made by his debater .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
you remind me of a child that sticks his fingers in his ears and keeps repeating his point of view never addressing any point made by his debater .
[/quote]
What point have I not addressed?
I would like to know what system of government you would prefer. I believe I asked that earlier.
^^^
my point was that employers forcing me to take drug tests are a violation of my constitution . Also my definition of force is synonymous with coerce .
Your point was that my definition included that some one’s thirst equaled coercion .
How do you have a serious discussion with a person that has that kind of grasp on English ?