Posted on 07/31/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by fporretto
I also wrote the following ...
The gist of my argument is that the right of any business to swing it's collective arm ends at the point of societies nose. I happen to find drug testing and private information searches like driving records and credit checks by employers which are not germane to an employees job the tip of that nose. I for one do NOT wish to live under ANYONES tyranny whether it be from the government or big business. Your contention that history shows that big business did NOT resort to the things I described in my previous post is BS. The only reason that business has NOT done whatever they could get away with IS because there ARE restraints in place ... so nice try. You mentioned Enron ... guess what ... they tried to get away with stuff AND GOT CAUGHT and so did many other companies recently ... what else would these and/or other companies have tried if restraints had not been in place ????
I have already discussed the possibilities /or absolute lack there of in starting a new business in a free for all monopolistic environment
Without a job one is not necessarily homeless. Most people could live with relatives or have inherited land/property already. Second, you CAN find a job. Take computer engineer grad from NC State univ, he just got out of school and wants to go work in the computer field but nothing in the immediate area he lives is available, so he remains unemployed. Down the street is a position for an assistant manager at your local sears, walmart, or grocery store that can pay the bills in the meantime. It may not be the best pay or the best hours, but it is still a job nonetheless.
As for piss test, I thoroughly disagree, as a manager I would NOT want anyone who was a druggy (including alcohol abuse and extreme pot head) running ANY machinery or having any sort of customer service relation (I personally wouldn't fire for just testing positive for alcohol or marijuana), although I would keep an eye on them. I personally would not give drug test to employees who do not work with (more importantly) heavy machinery or in the CSR field as all it does it cost the company money for little to no reason.
You are free to choose to not pee in a bottle as a condition of employment. The government won't fine you or imprison you for refusing.
The 4th Amendment puts limits on what the government can do--not what private employers can do as a condition of employment. You would deny an employer the right to hire and fire as he sees fit? That's a labor union gambit.
First and foremost, enron commited fraud and broke I'm sure numerous contractual agreements. What enron did would still be illegal in a completely libertarian free market society so that point is meaningless. Second, big business would not resort to many of the things you gave in a LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY as it costs them money for no reason. What is IBM going to do with your political party info if the government has no way to influence IBM which is the case in a libertarian society. In a MIXED ECONOMY, the business can use the government as a tool to prop it up and/or hurt its opponents which is why you feel we must have those rules, and in a mixed economy, I would agree that is the best solution.
As a side note; I've always said the best way to conduct a drug war would be to have employeers require drug testing and welfare to be eliminated or all welfare candidates be subjected to random drug testing. This pretty much limits drugs to kids and stay at home moms and those who know their way around the drug test (not 100%, and not cheap either)
No Kevin ... I would NOT deny an employer the right to hire and fire people ... to a point. I would not "let" an employer fire a secretary for not being "nice" to him. I would not "let" an employer fire someone because they showed up to work black. AND I would not "let" a employer drug test an employee without good reason. However if the employee is in a "sensitive" job like bus driver taxi etc or that employees work is substandard ... then I have no problem with a drug test.
It is not that government will be influencing IBM ... it will be and IS the other way around that is the problem
That's ok rb cause I'm finding myself agreeing with Roscoe ...
NOT in a libertarian society, as the government is doing nothing but protecting rights and keeping us safe from hostile foreign countries, and maybe public roads through use taxes, which would be the only things IBM (or any business) could influence. There would be no government subsidies or contracts except for the military, so maybe you could make that case for military corporations, but thats about it.
"We seek the elimination of occupational licensure, which prevents human beings from working in whatever trade they wish."
Roscoe ... thanks for the suggestion ... I probably WILL look into it.
Well ya got me there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.