It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Government Violently Assaults Hollywood Actor For Failing To Fund Illegal Wars

page: 15
70
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You're obviously missing my point.

Are you suggesting that there should be absolutely no regulations for anything, anywhere, for any reason? YES or NO?


YES.

Only property laws, which are laws against theft, fraud, or violence are required. Industrial regulation to prevent theft, fraud, or violence is unnecessary.



There really isn't because that would be either slavery or indentured servitude. Are you in favor of slavery?


Please explain how a corporation could get anyone to work for them if they refused to pay their employees.




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by jfj123
You're obviously missing my point.

Are you suggesting that there should be absolutely no regulations for anything, anywhere, for any reason? YES or NO?



YES.

Only property laws, which are laws against theft, fraud, or violence are required. Industrial regulation to prevent theft, fraud, or violence is unnecessary.

So you have no need for laws to ensure quality, safety, etc..?



There really isn't because that would be either slavery or indentured servitude. Are you in favor of slavery?



Please explain how a corporation could get anyone to work for them if they refused to pay their employees.

Without regulations, all corporations could, as example, get together and say they are only going to pay workers $1.00 per day and pay them using their own forms of currency which by the way you could turn in for food only at THEIR general store. Oh and by the way, to feed their families, they would go into debt with said corporation which would force them to continue working for them, basically as an indentured servant. The standard of living would be that of a third world country over night. That's your utopia?
edit on 12-12-2010 by jfj123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So you have no need for laws to ensure quality, safety, etc..?


No, people are smart enough to buy things of the appropriate quality level they desire. If they want cheap junk, they should be able to buy cheap junk.



Without regulations, all corporations could, as example, get together and say they are only going to pay workers $1.00 per day and pay them using their own forms of currency which by the way you could turn in for food only at THEIR general store. Oh and by the way, to feed their families, they would go into debt with said corporation which would force them to continue working for them, basically as an indentured servant. The standard of living would be that of a third world country over night. That's your utopia?


LOL



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by jfj123
So you have no need for laws to ensure quality, safety, etc..?



No, people are smart enough to buy things of the appropriate quality level they desire. If they want cheap junk, they should be able to buy cheap junk.

Interesting. So if you had a company come in and remodel your kitchen and bathroom, and you find out later, they did a lousy job, you'd have no recourse. Let's say that same job injured one of your family...again, no recourse. You of course had no idea that they'd do a lousy job because nobody has any licenses
I guess it's your problem huh?



Without regulations, all corporations could, as example, get together and say they are only going to pay workers $1.00 per day and pay them using their own forms of currency which by the way you could turn in for food only at THEIR general store. Oh and by the way, to feed their families, they would go into debt with said corporation which would force them to continue working for them, basically as an indentured servant. The standard of living would be that of a third world country over night. That's your utopia?



LOL

Why is that funny?



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Without regulations, all corporations could, as example, get together and say they are only going to pay workers $1.00 per day and pay them using their own forms of currency which by the way you could turn in for food only at THEIR general store.


The LAWS of supply and demand prevent such a thing from happening. I know a factory in which all 57 employees decided they were not going to work Sundays. You know what happened? They didn't go to work on Sunday not only that day but on any Sunday in the future. If that put the company at a significant competitive disadvantage, another factory would have popped up that only hired workers willing to work Sundays. So what if the opposite happened where where 57 factories get together and decide to lower wages? People could stop shopping to buy those products and start buying "fair wage" products. Or, they could protest outside the factory and damage the companies image causing even further declines in sales. Not only is it nearly impossible to get around the laws of supply and demand but even when you do and end up with people in slavery conditions, there are lots of ways to solve that problem without violence. I believe the idea of 57 employees getting together to bargain with an employer is vastly more likely than a large number of factories getting together to lower wages.

As for laws pertaining to safety and quality, all such laws are totally redundant and promote fascism. With lawsuits, people resolve safety and quality issues without any specific laws. If they were sold a truly shabby product they can consider that a form of financial damage and then sue them. Its a highly efficient system. If its nearly not as high quality as it should be they in a free market economy you can simply select a different brand next time, or create a new brand if no better one exists. But, when you have a specialized code of laws for industry as like now, you get corporations spending money to have the laws in their favor. Rather than safety and quality law benefiting people, they only benefit corporations, leading to higher product prices in the form of reduced competition due to a complex legal jungle to navigate just to start business combined with high spending on lobbyists that is ultimately paid for by consumers in the form of higher product prices at the store.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Originally posted by jfj123
Without regulations, all corporations could, as example, get together and say they are only going to pay workers $1.00 per day and pay them using their own forms of currency which by the way you could turn in for food only at THEIR general store.



The LAWS of supply and demand prevent such a thing from happening.

Not at all.


Company scrip was a credit against the accrued wages of employees. In the United States, where everything in a mining or logging camp was run, created and owned by a company, scrip provided the worker with credit when their wages had been depleted. These remote locations were cash poor. Workers had very little choice but to purchase meals and goods at a company store. In this way, the company could place enormous markups on goods in a company store, making workers completely dependent on the company, thus enforcing their "loyalty" to the company.

en.wikipedia.org...


As for laws pertaining to safety and quality, all such laws are totally redundant and promote fascism. With lawsuits, people resolve safety and quality issues without any specific laws.

So you're in favor of laws that regulate quality but not regulations that regulate quality? So if we changed the name of a regulation to a law, you'd be fine with it...hmmm. ok....


If they were sold a truly shabby product they can consider that a form of financial damage and then sue them.

My conversation was within the context of the following

Only property laws, which are laws against theft, fraud, or violence are required.

Within that context, he'd have no recourse. I don't mind that you inserted yourself into the conversation but please understand the context of the discussion.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Ok so let's talk about governing ourselves with absolutely no governmental system. How do you propose that will work? How would you enforce anything ? Please be detailed. Thanks.


So you agree that a government run on donations would be far more for the people than today's government?

What do you need to enforce? Why can't you just live and let live? Why are you compelled to violently enforce a certain way of life on others? If there's a demand, private sector will fill it. If there's no police but people want to feel secure they would spend the money they would have otherwise spent on police on privatized security (which would be far more efficient at preventing crimes).

It would 'work' (freedom, happiness, power to the people) far better than the current system 'works'.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I love how you argue as if you are making logical points.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Excellent and astute reply, as if you are making a logical argument with new information / form of DEBATE, rather then constantly repeating your same tired and numerously defeated view. I'm guessing your under 21? I was too at one time.




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Excellent and astute reply, as if you are making a logical argument with new information / form of DEBATE, rather then constantly repeating your same tired and numerously defeated view. I'm guessing your under 21? I was too at one time.



Repeating ones self is often necessary when arguing with people who see violence as a means to prosperity.

By default, their thought processes are the same as a person who has been indoctrinated by a cult.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Isn't Wesley Snipes basicaly in "debtors prison" I thought that was not allowed in the USA .



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Isn't "debtor's prison" a major reason for founding this country in the first place? I am pretty sure this country was built on the premise that we would never let that happen here? I am pretty sure we also built this country on the idea that we would have sovereign property rights!

I am honestly speechless..... don't know what to say......I feel terrible for not doing more, I know I would fight to the death if this happened to my family, and yet I stand idly by and watch it happen to people around me, because I am too comfortable in my own life and I have some little ones to take care of. What to do, what to do?


They don't convict you of failure to pay they convict you of failure to file, contempt, etc. that is how the get around it. But it amounts to the same thing debtors prison. Snipes got scared and caved and hired a lawyer and signed thier paper work agreeing to allow them to decide his fate so he essentially consented. Not saying I blame him most people would cave they can be pretty intimidating. But his partner go off by holding strong.

They made an example of him cause why put him in prison if he was willing to file he could have paid the back taxes and penalties even if it took him a few years with his earning potential. So why put him in jail instead of allowing him to pay it off?
edit on 12-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Originally posted by jfj123
Without regulations, all corporations could, as example, get together and say they are only going to pay workers $1.00 per day and pay them using their own forms of currency which by the way you could turn in for food only at THEIR general store.



The LAWS of supply and demand prevent such a thing from happening.

Not at all.


Why do you suppose doctors are paid more than janitors? Supply & demand. Its economics 101.


Company scrip was a credit against the accrued wages of employees. In the United States, where everything in a mining or logging camp was run, created and owned by a company, scrip provided the worker with credit when their wages had been depleted. These remote locations were cash poor. Workers had very little choice but to purchase meals and goods at a company store. In this way, the company could place enormous markups on goods in a company store, making workers completely dependent on the company, thus enforcing their "loyalty" to the company.

en.wikipedia.org...

It sounds like people have a lot of ways to avoid the above situation that don't involve violence. First of all, they must have been WORSE off before they accepted the job. Why would you accept a job that lowers your quality of life? You wouldn't. So the company did them a favor already by hiring them (just as the worker does them a favor by working for them). Second of all, these companies could purchase things at the company store and then sell those things for money in order to increase their savings. And if that isn't good enough they can get together and create a logging company. Or, they can get together and go on strike without involving the government. Or, they could try to find another job. Yet your preferred solution seems to be to force your way into company headquarters at gun point if necessary in violation of their property rights and force them against their will to hand over what YOU think is fair to the workers as if your opinion on fairness is the end-all that be all that should be forced upon others.


As for laws pertaining to safety and quality, all such laws are totally redundant and promote fascism. With lawsuits, people resolve safety and quality issues without any specific laws.


So you're in favor of laws that regulate quality but not regulations that regulate quality? So if we changed the name of a regulation to a law, you'd be fine with it...hmmm. ok....


I do understand the context. You are talking about either A) Forming laws that lawsuits can already handle, like a law or regulation stating: "All apples must be razor-blade free" or B) laws that are themselves something people don't want such as "All pillows must be coated with fireproofing". If some one were to die because of a particularly hazardous pillow, they could already file a lawsuit against the company and win without a single law, regulation, or piece of paper with words on it mentioning the word "pillows". However if it was a trivial case such as the pillow came with a label saying "highly flammable" and they bought it any way and ended up dying of their pillow catching on fire, that consumer preferred the money-savings and risk that come with the cheaper pillow. And yet you would seem to support a law that would force them to buy a pillow with features they never wanted or could particularly afford. I'm talking about lawsuits as a solution, not laws or regulations (call them either one). You don't need a body of laws that mention safety or quality of any product. In fact such a body of laws will encourage fascism as corporations push for laws that benefit them. Without marketplace regulations on top of the legal framework of lawsuits, fascism in America would fade away.
edit on 12-12-2010 by civilchallenger because: Fixed quotations.

edit on 12-12-2010 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ok so let's talk about governing ourselves with absolutely no governmental system. How do you propose that will work? How would you enforce anything ? Please be detailed. Thanks.



So you agree that a government run on donations would be far more for the people than today's government?

No. The vast majority of people who could pay would not.
Our system is not perfect but it ensures a certain level of service at the federal, state and local levels.


What do you need to enforce? Why can't you just live and let live?

Without regulations, there would be no quality control and very little consumer protection. That's why.


Why are you compelled to violently enforce a certain way of life on others?

Anything that is enforced whether it be a regulation, law, ordinance, etc.. may need to be enforced with violence ONLY if there is non-compliance.


If there's a demand, private sector will fill it.

Maybe. Maybe not.


If there's no police but people want to feel secure they would spend the money they would have otherwise spent on police on privatized security (which would be far more efficient at preventing crimes).

And what about the poor, sick or infirm who simply could not afford to pay their protection fee? Do they simply not deserve to be safe?


It would 'work' (freedom, happiness, power to the people) far better than the current system 'works'.

No it wouldn't. It would be utter anarchy where only the powerful would have the necessities and everyone else would be at best, indentured servants.
Sounds like you'd like to live in a completely lawless world where you keep what you can hold on to. Keep in mind that someone else is always better armed, stronger, faster, more violent and WILL take what you have. You must just love watching mad max movies

edit on 13-12-2010 by jfj123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by jfj123
 


I love how you argue as if you are making logical points.

Do you need help understanding the concepts or the words?
I can walk you through it if you like?



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connector
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Excellent and astute reply, as if you are making a logical argument with new information / form of DEBATE, rather then constantly repeating your same tired and numerously defeated view. I'm guessing your under 21? I was too at one time.


The reality is that he's just a headstrong kid who hasn't yet experience the real world. He's claiming to be an anarchist while sitting in his parents living room, playing his xbox on their 52 inch HDTV which his parents worked hard for. Later on, he'll borrow his dad's bmw to drive to gamestop to get another game and stop at mcdonalds on the way back. Then he'll come back to their home and sit under their roof, watch their tv, eat their food, and wax poetic about stupid they are for paying taxes on all the above mentioned items. By the way, how was that taxes big mac?
In any case, you gotta feel a little bad for him and hope he grows out of it.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
First of all, they must have been WORSE off before they accepted the job. Why would you accept a job that lowers your quality of life? You wouldn't.

But those jobs did indeed lower their quality of life or at the very least, prevent them from improving their quality of life. Again, a young person who hasn't experienced the world.


So the company did them a favor already by hiring them (just as the worker does them a favor by working for them). Second of all, these companies could purchase things at the company store and then sell those things for money in order to increase their savings. And if that isn't good enough they can get together and create a logging company. Or, they can get together and go on strike without involving the government.

Um a few things you're not getting here.
Companies don't buy and resell from their own company stores. They stocked them and hiked up prices in the isolated area's to keep the workers in debt. In effect, they tricked the workers into being indentured servants.
And they would not be able to go on strike as the companies would just hire strike busters to beat them and make an example of them.
You're too young to know but everything I've just posted, has really happened in the US but regulations and laws help to prevent it from happening now.


Or, they could try to find another job.

Wow REALLY???? Because it's so easy to find another job. I'm sure we all know people who have been out of work for months right now. It was worse during the depression.


Yet your preferred solution seems to be to force your way into company headquarters at gun point if necessary in violation of their property rights and force them against their will to hand over what YOU think is fair to the workers as if your opinion on fairness is the end-all that be all that should be forced upon others.

WOW ! You just don't get it. First, many big corporations don't even pay taxes.
Second, you're making it sound like I am the one who decides who pays what. Obviously that's just an insane and pointless statement.
And remember, those same corporations get money and many other things from the government so it's not just a give take relationship.


As for laws pertaining to safety and quality, all such laws are totally redundant and promote fascism. With lawsuits, people resolve safety and quality issues without any specific laws.


So you're in favor of laws that regulate quality but not regulations that regulate quality? So if we changed the name of a regulation to a law, you'd be fine with it...hmmm. ok....



I do understand the context. You are talking about either A) Forming laws that lawsuits can already handle, like a law or regulation stating: "All apples must be razor-blade free" or B) laws that are themselves something people don't want such as "All pillows must be coated with fireproofing". If some one were to die because of a particularly hazardous pillow, they could already file a lawsuit against the company and win without a single law,

Please explain how they could sue without using a single law? Please be detailed and within the context as described above.

I'm talking about lawsuits as a solution, not laws or regulations (call them either one).

Lawsuits require laws.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I know from experience,PA is one of the worst places to owe someone money. The majority of the government around here is a bunch of fat cats that want you to mess up and not pay someone money you owe them,because without us individuals just trying to keep our own money they would have noone to opress and they would be forced to get a real job and work for their money.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Im a big fan of Mr. Snipes and I found it funny when all of these "allegations" began that Mr. Snipes was under investigation by the US government for "financing" terrorism through his production company; the company had an egyptian name and was responsible for Mr. Snipes Blade series.

I also found it funny that these charges began shortly afte a very coscious movie he released entitled " Liberty Stands Still". Wesley Snipes has always been an enigma in Hollywood. He was very close to Michael Jackson, of Illuminati fame, and also appeared in his "Smooth Criminal" video/

Wesley Snipes has appeared in many Anti-Establishment movies like New Jack City, Demolition Man and Blade to name a few. Mr. Snipes I believe is being "taken out" before he creatively cause any more damage to the American psyche ie. the program.

There should be massive support for this man, he is ATS in a nutshell personality wise. This shouldve been the last straw. Now I fear the only thing that will make ppl wake up is another 911, that is botched from the beginning.

reply to post by mnemeth1
 



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 




Why do you suppose doctors are paid more than janitors? Supply & demand. Its economics 101.


And economics 101 supply and demand is also the reason why you need basic welfare income for unemployed (payed by tax loot). Because if cost of some peoples work falls due to supply/demand (automatization etc.) below the cost of basic necessities, there is simply no way how they could get them (if charity helps only SOME of them), and no way how they could improve qualification (you need basic necesstities for studying). They are caught in self-perpetuating loop.

In the past, the situation was that there was lots of work and raw resources available, and manual work without qualification was especially needed. Thats the reason why US and other nations were able to prosper without basic welfare (and even then some people were victims to the above loop). Now, the situation is reversed - there is less and less manual work and raw resources, and we need qualified people requiring years of study. Market needs quality over quantity.

What is the most rational thing you will do if your property requires constant money investment above certain level, but wont pay it back to you in the value of its work? You try to sell it, and when noone buys it (because all see the same thing will happen), you dump it somewhere to avoid further loss. Every rational capitalist would do that.
And what if that "property" is a working human being? Market laws suddenly change for no reason?

Why exactly would it NOT happen, if there was no minimal wage and no welfare?



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join