Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ThomasJefferson
I understand the concept of free association and contract. BUT there is the "force" of hunger. Taken to it's logical conclusion ... (and which is one of the reasons that I am not a Libertarian). Thud industries does not hire women ... the jobs they have could easily be performed by women but they feel that a womans place is in the home. The prevailing political / socialogical atmosphere in this mythical world is that all men (very Taliban like huh) feel that women should not work and NO industry or company will hire them. You see in the Libertarians view that's perfectly ok due to free association. I DON'T BUY IT. You would say ... oh the women could open there own business ... sorry no company does business with a company that employs women ... so now what. A person has to eat/work/have a roof over their head. I know that it's NOT in the constitution but I'm a fraid that there are several modern day circumstances that are NOT covered by the constitution. I'm not saying that the constitution is a living document ... BUT some common sense has got to apply with a 230 year old document that could NOT possibly be expected to cover nor anticipate all the circumstances of todays modern world.

A simple solution to my anti-drug testing position is to apply the 4th amendment to business (as it should be in my book) That is ... unless it is a critical circumstance ... no unreasonable search and seizure by ANY entity.

189 posted on 11/08/2002 12:28:54 PM PST by 1redshirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: 1redshirt
I understand the concept of free association and contract. BUT

LOL, a commabutt.

there is the "force" of hunger.

Hungry people do not have legitimate rights which contented people don't have.

Taken to it's logical conclusion ... (and which is one of the reasons that I am not a Libertarian).

Logic is a obstacle when trying to work through problems if you are trying to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

Thud industries does not hire women ...

And? Therefore someone with a gun is needed to make sure party A hires all the people desired by party B?

the jobs they have could easily be performed by women but they feel that a womans place is in the home.

Why is this relevant? Surely you don't believe in thought police.

The prevailing political / socialogical atmosphere in this mythical world is that all men (very Taliban like huh) feel that women should not work and NO industry or company will hire them.

You are correct, it is a mythical world you are talking about. In a world devoid of Taliban with weapons and the will to use them, no employer would be forced to hire or not hire anyone. The government is the problem in this example, Taliban or US government. (see Jim Crow LAWS)

You see in the Libertarians view that's perfectly ok due to free association. I DON'T BUY IT. You would say ... oh the women could open there own business ... sorry no company does business with a company that employs women ... so now what.

Absent government coersion, business will do what it takes to make money. If they gain an advantage over their competition by hiring women, they wiil, absent force. History is the judge of this, it's not a mythical concept.

A person has to eat/work/have a roof over their head. I know that it's NOT in the constitution but I'm a fraid that there are several modern day circumstances that are NOT covered by the constitution.

So you think that the constitution should provide for EAT/WORK/ROOF?

I'm not saying that the constitution is a living document ... BUT some common sense has got to apply with a 230 year old document that could NOT possibly be expected to cover nor anticipate all the circumstances of todays modern world.

The constitution was not meant to cover all circumstances, then or now. The constitution is a document that lays out the way the Federal government is to be organised. It is a limiting document. It limits government power. It is not meant for any other purpose.

A simple solution to my anti-drug testing position is to apply the 4th amendment to business (as it should be in my book) That is ... unless it is a critical circumstance ... no unreasonable search and seizure by ANY entity.

Private business cannot and does not do any searches without employee approval. They cannot therefore be unreasonable by their very nature. They are voluntary.

196 posted on 11/08/2002 12:56:39 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]

To: 1redshirt
A simple solution to my anti-drug testing position is to apply the 4th amendment to business (as it should be in my book) That is ... unless it is a critical circumstance ... no unreasonable search and seizure by ANY entity.

I agreewith that. My main problem with the WOD is the 4th amendment thing.

I just do beer, cigarettes, coffee and aspirin.

I really don't care what others ingest.I don't drive drunk. If I do I would expect to be in a lot of trouble.

211 posted on 11/08/2002 1:51:08 PM PST by carenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson