EuroTrash

#127
#127
hog88 said:
If SCOTUS ruled that a corporation has the right to free speech how can you say they are not entitled to our other basic rights?
Click to expand...
Because scotus didnt put them on that level. All squares may be rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Scotus said they were squares, not rectangles.

Foreign citizens have the same criminal justice rights as citizens do, how can you say they dont have the rest of our rights?

Laws, and even the Consitution, is set on the basic fact that there are certain overlaps in certain areas, but that doesnt mean everything is all the same.
 
#130
#130
LouderVol said:
Because scotus didnt put them on that level. All squares may be rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Scotus said they were squares, not rectangles.

Foreign citizens have the same criminal justice rights as citizens do, how can you say they dont have the rest of our rights?

Laws, and even the Consitution, is set on the basic fact that there are certain overlaps in certain areas, but that doesnt mean everything is all the same.
Click to expand...

If you ever start signing the front of paychecks instead of the back your views might change.
 
#131
#131
Vol8188 said:
Why should a group of people when less rights than people in general
Click to expand...
Taxes, civil liability, certain legal matters are different from a group/corporation vs individuals.

It's their personal choice to form a corporation. That isnt taken away, hog can still do what he wants in his own personal life. Once it start touching others, it's a matter of where one person rights stop vs another beginning.

Basically hog wants the legal and tax protections of a corporation but the freedoms of a person. He is picking and choosing his stances based on preference with no constitutional backing for his corporate stances.
 
#132
#132
LouderVol said:
Taxes, civil liability, certain legal matters are different from a group/corporation vs individuals.

It's their personal choice to form a corporation. That isnt taken away, hog can still do what he wants in his own personal life. Once it start touching others, it's a matter of where one person rights stop vs another beginning.

Basically hog wants the legal and tax protections of a corporation but the freedoms of a person. He is picking and choosing his stances based on preference with no constitutional backing for his corporate stances.
Click to expand...

In what ways should they be less free? Idk if I’m fully understanding
 
#133
#133
LouderVol said:
Taxes, civil liability, certain legal matters are different from a group/corporation vs individuals.

It's their personal choice to form a corporation. That isnt taken away, hog can still do what he wants in his own personal life. Once it start touching others, it's a matter of where one person rights stop vs another beginning.

Basically hog wants the legal and tax protections of a corporation but the freedoms of a person. He is picking and choosing his stances based on preference with no constitutional backing for his corporate stances.
Click to expand...

But how do you reconcile the fact that nobody has a right to employment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#135
#135
hog88 said:
But how do you reconcile the fact that nobody has a right to employment?
Click to expand...
True, no one has a right to employment (although some blue states try to make a claim to the contrary) and therefore no real lever for legal action for “unfair” termination. But from a basic moral and “righteousness” view, employment is a two way gentleman’s agree between employer and employee that you will perform x work for y compensation. The unspoken agreement is that as long as you do your work well under those original terms, you will continue to be employed. Now real work conditions can clearly cause this to be broken. Sales can go down or prices of raw materials go up and layoffs become necessary. But unilaterally changing the terms of employment mid stream without buy in from the other contracting party (the employee) will always cause anger and friction
Not arguing in the least that the employer doesn’t have every legal right to do so (in the absence of a signed contract to the contrary). It’s the employer’s company to run however he or she sees fit. I am just saying you will get better work and loyalty from employees if they see you as loyal to them (see this years VOLS team for an example)
 
Last edited:
#136
#136
hog88 said:
If you ever start signing the front of paychecks instead of the back your views might change.
Click to expand...
And? Just because I start benefitting from a different set of standards doesn't inherently change their legality/moralty/couldashouldwoulda

As a wise man once said, sometime life sucks. You just dont want it to be you, and you are using personal viewpoint to justify the extent of someone elses rights to protect your comfort levels.
 
#137
#137
Vol8188 said:
In what ways should they be less free? Idk if I’m fully understanding
Click to expand...
Where did I say they should be less free. I am pointing to the protections of our Consitution. So far hog has highlighted one of 36 BoR/Amendments, with no backings for the rest of his belief.
 
#138
#138
Now can we get back to the Original topic? I love discussing Europe’s culture (or lack thereof depending on one’s point of view) 😂
 
#139
#139
hog88 said:
But how do you reconcile the fact that nobody has a right to employment?
Click to expand...
I would say banning slavery says we have right to employment as a institution. We dont have specific rights to specific employment.

If you want to argue a corporation is a person, then the employs should have a similar standing. Breach of employment contract would be similar to breaking any other contract. And any changes to that contract would either require specifc wording in the contract, or renegotiation. If it cant be solved between the two, involve the courts. Until that time the original contract holds. Again, unless there is very specific wording in the contract one side doesnt get to just back out of it or change it.

If you dont like the terms of employment dont hire them. It's a two way street. It's not just on the employee to gtfo.
 
#142
#142
LouderVol said:
And? Just because I start benefitting from a different set of standards doesn't inherently change their legality/moralty/couldashouldwoulda

As a wise man once said, sometime life sucks. You just dont want it to be you, and you are using personal viewpoint to justify the extent of someone elses rights to protect your comfort levels.
Click to expand...

This post is Lutheresque, good job.
 
#143
#143
Is anybody actually listening, or have they actually listened to the podcast?

Harsanyi's critiques of Europe are very measured and reasonable in the interview, and at a couple of instances he basically says that the United States isn't necessarily better than Europe in many of these areas, just different, and he prefers the American system.

He might have done himself a disservice in titling the book "Eurotrash" because I'm sure it instantly turns off people who are unsympathetic to the argument.
 
#144
#144
LouderVol said:
I would say banning slavery says we have right to employment as a institution. We dont have specific rights to specific employment.

If you want to argue a corporation is a person, then the employs should have a similar standing. Breach of employment contract would be similar to breaking any other contract. And any changes to that contract would either require specifc wording in the contract, or renegotiation. If it cant be solved between the two, involve the courts. Until that time the original contract holds. Again, unless there is very specific wording in the contract one side doesnt get to just back out of it or change it.

If you dont like the terms of employment dont hire them. It's a two way street. It's not just on the employee to gtfo.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree, employment contracts must be honored by both parties just like any other contract. How many people work under contract?
 
#146
#146
hog88 said:
I 100% agree, employment contracts must be honored by both parties just like any other contract. How many people work under contract?
Click to expand...
How many person to person contracts are there? Remember corps arent corps, they are just people. Or are you again flip flopping that corps arent people so they get different rules?

Verbal agreements can be, and have been, upheld in court.
 
#147
#147
LouderVol said:
And your dodging is LG level. Half expected a "but Trump" thrown in.
Click to expand...

You're immaturity and lack of experience is on full display. I have 3 clients that I call the big 3, they account for almost 40% of our revenue. Say 1 or more of them decide all vendors visiting their facilities must be vaccinated, should I mandate the vaccine for my field techs and fire the ones refusing to keep the business or should I refuse and lose the business? Refusing to comply would cost the jobs of 10 or more employees because we would no longer have the revenue to keep them.

Yeah, I'm just looking out for what's good for me and my personal comfort and not the 10 or more employees and their families that depend on their income. Grow the **** up!
 
#148
#148
LouderVol said:
How many person to person contracts are there? Remember corps arent corps, they are just people. Or are you again flip flopping that corps arent people so they get different rules?

Verbal agreements can be, and have been, upheld in court.
Click to expand...

WTF are you babbling about? An employment contract is a contract no matter what entity the employer may be.
 
#149
#149
Gandalf said:
Yeah you know the world is a crazy place when I am agreeing with a fair bit of Andrew Sullivan's articles. The left has truly gone to hell in a handbasket. Greenwald reminds me a lot of my wifes former room mate. A gay Republican when my wife was a progressive atheist. He was an accountant with a methodical approach to things and very detailed. Weiss and Berenson too have some real insights.
Click to expand...
Berenson was banned from Twitter for reporting countries who had a high number of cases along with a high vaccination rate. They never claimed what he was reporting was false. Only that it was "misinformation".

I mean all one has to do is Google the number of new cases for a country where you can also find the percent of people in that country who are vaccinated.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top