Kalifornia Re-Institutes Slavery

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck



I transferred out of Kalifornia. I had one of the best positions you could dream of. But look at it through my eyes. They let murders and pedophiles go free, they enact laws to promote hedonism, decriminalization of marijuana, have prison workers go under bridges and along field and streams, wiping out homeless camps...only to arrest the homeless and throw them int prison, have the taxpayers pay for services(water, electricity) of other outside communities that are also paying for those services, make restrictions to the amendments of our constitutional rights. Made us pay for illegal aliens health care and education.....the list is almost endless.

reply to post by Genfinity


I have to concur.

This country is toast.

I give it two years tops before the currency detonates.

Once the dollar goes, so goes the country.

74 trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities

10.4 trillion in unfunded Socialist Security liabilities

1.5 quadrillion dollar derivatives market backed entirely by worthless assets

Exponential increase of the US money supply in just a few months.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1825d9196a7.gif[/atsimg]


Its over.

Kind of exciting in a way, since this totalitarian fascist government will come to an end along with the currency. Hopefully the government we put in its place will be one that supports personal freedoms, limited government, and free markets, unlike our current fascist oligarchy.

reply to post by Violater1


I'd like to say that those drug laws you hate so much are part of the reason why CA is going bankrupt.

The cost to imprison and prosecute victimless crime is staggering.

At least 20% of the prison population of CA consists of people that committed crimes without victims.

In a free society, people should be able to do any drugs they want, screw anyone they want, or do anything else they want, as long as whatever it is they are doing is not infringing on the civil rights of others.

Legalizing drugs would wipe out the criminal gangs, the drug cartels, and reduce prison costs exponentially. Not to mention the tax revenue that would be made on the sales.

Most, if not all people working in government jobs in California make way too much...Government jobs used to be low pay but great benefits...now it's great pay and great benefits and too many holidays off to remember, all at the expense of the California taxpayer.

My thoughts on government jobs and pay is that nobody should make more than 10% or 20% above the median income of the people they represent or the county they live/work in.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Violater1

 

I'd like to say that those drug laws you hate so much are part of the reason why CA is going bankrupt.
Legalizing drugs would wipe out the criminal gangs, the drug cartels, and reduce prison costs exponentially. Not to mention the tax revenue that would be made on the sales.

Funny how we can be light years apart on some issues, and side by each on others...

Gotta have an ATS convention somewhere...sometime.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Violater1

 

I'd like to say that those drug laws you hate so much are part of the reason why CA is going bankrupt.
Legalizing drugs would wipe out the criminal gangs, the drug cartels, and reduce prison costs exponentially. Not to mention the tax revenue that would be made on the sales.

Funny how we can be light years apart on some issues, and side by each on others...

Gotta have an ATS convention somewhere...sometime.

I am always for freedom.

The closer you are to my opinions, the closer you are to supporting a free society.

Everything government does, it does through force of arms.

Free societies are voluntary.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

Why is it that most everyone on this thread is spelling California 'Kalifornia' thats not the name of the state, do the people really think thats how it should be spelled?

Originally posted by Aziroth
Why is it that most everyone on this thread is spelling California 'Kalifornia' thats not the name of the state, do the people really think thats how it should be spelled?

en.wikipedia.org...

In Soviet Russia, K pwns U

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You are all about free markets and against socialism, right? Shouldn't the DMV be able to go out in the labor market and hire workers at market rate?

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is not a private sector employer which would justify them hiring at "market rate", whatever that is: there are many specialized positions within the DMV workforce which, likely as not, have no private sector equivalent.


The California DMV is an agency of the State of California. And as such, it is bound by the requirements of the labor Contract the State government signed with the union representing the State's employees.

I highlight the term Contract above, for a good reason.


As anyone familiar with the law knows, the terms of a contract, once said contract is ratified under authorized signature, are binding upon Both (all) parties to the contract until the terms of the contract are met and the contract terminates.

Anyone who abrogates the term(s) of the contract, once it is in force, is held in breach of the contract, and made liable.


These employees, as indeed the vast majority of the State's employees are covered under an employment contract negoitated for them by their Union and ratified by the Union and the State, as employer.

Additionally, under the terms of the Dills Act, made law by the State's Legislature, any labor contract entered into by the State Remains in effect and enforceable until a new, superceding, contract is signed.



The furloughs imposed by the Governor of the State of California directly impact the salaries (reducing them by almost 15% across the board), established by contract, paid to the State's employees.



This is in Direct Violation of the terms of the contract the State signed, and is bound by, with the employee's Union.


Wage reductions are among the items that must, per the contract, be negotiated with the employee's representative Union.


By unilaterally imposing these wage reducing furloughs, in any form, the Governor of the State of California has, in fact, breached the Contract in place.



Now, hotpinkurinalmint, I blieve you have some passng familiariy with the law, perhaps even with contract law?

If so, I'm sure you can comprehend the severity of this transgression.


By allowing the State to unilaterally breach its contract obligations to its contracted employees, we would be establishing, as legal precedent, the right of Any party to ANY contract to breach said contract with virtual impunity!



A very large step down a very slippery slope towards the invalidation of the basis of contract law as it applies universally.

reply to post by Bhadhidar


No kidding Sherlock.

I'm saying that it SHOULD be a private sector business.

For starters, forcing people to get licensed by the state to travel is tyrannical, but that aside, if they are going to force people to get licensed, it should be done through private market agencies.

Each agency charges fees to pay for licensing, testing, and administration costs that covers its operating expenses and reports back to the state.

Smog testing centers are a good example of this.

A person can get a smog check just about anywhere in CA and testing centers compete on price to get people to buy a smog check from them.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Have you read the Communist Manifesto?

If you did, you would know that Marx didn't actually advocate state ownership of goods. His fatal flaw was assuming that the workers would take over the government, then have the government take over industry until the post-revolution society had all of it's kinks ironed out, at which point the dictatorship would whither away. I highly doubt that as Marx and Engels sat around writing the Manifesto they were praying for the day that Stalin came to power.

What would you have to say about 'socialist utopias' if it had been Bakunin's ideas that had gained prominence instead of Marx's?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well, there is one thing we agree on completely!

reply to post by Someone336


www.marxists.org...

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.




Sounds like he was advocating State ownership to me.

You can go down that list and put a check mark next to each one in terms of US policy.

The US is Marx dream State.



[edit on 10-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


But you ignore the very next paragraph.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

I do think his idea of the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat was extremely flawed, as did many of his contemporaries. It caused a rift in the First International.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by Someone336


When Marx talks about the proletariat "organizing itself" into its own political class, he's referring to them taking State control over property and production.

How do you think Marx envisioned the proletariat ruling itself?

Through oppressive government, that's how.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I see no mention of 'oppressive government' anywhere in the Manifesto. While it is true that his idea led to totalitarianism, it is unfounded assumption that Marx actually wanted such things. Why else would Stalin be considered, but Communists worldwide, as one of the major enemies of the Revolution?

It was the stateless world that he was advocating - he just had an extremely flawed path to get there.

It does seem a bit of stretch to attempt to compare the events of the USSR to the current situation of California, in my opinion.

To be frank, the US is the worst of both worlds.

A purely communist state would be superior to the conditions we have now where fascist corporations dictate US policy and control the election cycle.

Of course, we only arrived at this state because of our total lack of respect for the constitution and private property rights.

Private property does not exist in this country today.

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I see no mention of 'oppressive government' anywhere in the Manifesto. While it is true that his idea led to totalitarianism, it is unfounded assumption that Marx actually wanted such things. Why else would Stalin be considered, but Communists worldwide, as one of the major enemies of the Revolution?

It was the stateless world that he was advocating - he just had an extremely flawed path to get there.

It does seem a bit of stretch to attempt to compare the events of the USSR to the current situation of California, in my opinion.

I don't think so.

The post-Soviet states are doing the exact same things we are doing for the exact same reasons.

There is no difference between the Ukraine withholding payment on services to its employees because its broke and what Kalifornia is doing.

They promise payment at some point in the future, just like Kalifornia.

Only Kalifornia is in far worse financial shape than the Ukraine.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

As a state worker, it is just another example of that nice austrian man running amok at the expense of his drones. Why is it that none of the legislatures get a pay cut? And at least when we had our furlough days it was an excuse for not working. Now we have to WORK and not get PAID. I think that is slavery if you ask me.

reply to post by mnemeth1

The post-Soviet states are doing the exact same things we are doing for the exact same reasons.

The post Soviet states? You mean the ones with privately owned businesses?

There is no difference between the Ukraine withholding payment on services to its employees because its broke and what Kalifornia is doing.

Except for the fact that it is completely different historical circumstances.

Only Kalifornia is in far worse financial shape than the Ukraine.

Yeah, only that 'Kalifornia' is a state, not a country like Ukraine.

To be frank, the US is the worst of both worlds.

Isn't this statement just a little bit insulting to the numerous millions who have died under both left and right dictatorships throughout history?