Toil is subjective. If my father spends his life building a business, even if it a 500 billion dollar one, then chances are he put more into it than anyone else did. If he wants me to have it when he dies, then I fail to see why anyone would have any right to say otherwise. The owners take all the risk, the workers get paid for what they do, and if something happens at the business, the owner is ultimately responsible. The owner takes the major risks and the employees share in the world to receive a portion of the reward. The employees have the right to seek other employment or open their own business. There is no justification for taking from one to give to another. If the owner voluntarily goes with it then OK.
Layoffs coming...
- Thread starter althor
- Start date
Toil is subjective. If my father spends his life building a business, even if it a 500 billion dollar one, then chances are he put more into it than anyone else did. If he wants me to have it when he dies, then I fail to see why anyone would have any right to say otherwise. The owners take all the risk, the workers get paid for what they do, and if something happens at the business, the owner is ultimately responsible. The owner takes the major risks and the employees share in the world to receive a portion of the reward. The employees have the right to seek other employment or open their own business. There is no justification for taking from one to give to another. If the owner voluntarily goes with it then OK.
The right of contract. A father/mother wills the property to his son/daughter. This is no different than selling a business. It is disposal of private property and if you take that away then everything is basically public property.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
This is a prime example of a hate speech.......This POS is trying to get my employee's to sue me and hate me......What a chicken shit way to get elected.....IMO.....nitro...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting it should be abolished to the point where you can't own a farm and keep it in the family. However, if you own tens of thousands of acres of farm land subsidized by the government, employing thousands of people and feeding millions of people, keeping ownership in your family makes you basically a nobleman among peasants. I'm also not pushing an exact set of parameters as to what I think the changes are that need to be made, I am simply suggesting that changes need to be made and am suggesting a direction.
Income inequality exists and socioeconomic upward mobility is rapidly vanishing. I thought socioeconomic upward mobility was the American dream. Wealth redistribution is happening, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
You are continuall repeating property rights, and I have nothing against property rights of well earned folks who have a little more than other people, I am talking about people who have consolidated so much to keep in their bloodlines that they have the power (and in many ways use it) to exercise control over local governments, buy elections, out source jobs, push for legislation that protects their profits at the cost of the way of life of the people who need jobs...I could go on.
There seems to be an idea that it's an employer's world, that suppliers should have the power over the demanders. It seems to me a bad thing that it is acceptable to say, many other people want your job, so I'll pay you less, because they are willing to take less, because I wish to profit. This attitude is reliant upon rabid consumerism in the form of buyers carelessly buying because they don't realize how much power they have over industry. Sure, cakes made by a factory where non-union workers will be cheaper, but the people buying those cakes are telling the world they want factory workers to be paid less. If you think workers should be treated better, given benefits and even have a retirement package that includes tradeable stock, buy cakes from the company that has these policies for it's workers. On the other hand, if continually there is always an ever growing pool of people desperate for employment and a consumer base choosing products based solely on price, things will head in the direction of the last decade, of wealth redistribution into the accounts of the wealthiest from the poorest.
Now if it is simply impossible that a well informed populace could ever be a majority such that reality could begin to resemble utopian visions, than big government and Keynesian economics is the only answer for protecting the people's equality. By equality, I mean equal access to socioeconomic upward mobility.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
everybody with a brain stopped reading here.
Farms are part of the "Means of Production" you already promised to "Collectivize" for the good of the "Collective". (which is like, totally different from socialization, nationalization or seizure... 'cause it's... ummm... for your own good?)
This Means You Are Lying.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Yeah - they take ALL the risk, that risk being what again? In a business such as that they are indemnified against all sorts of loss. The employee who is working for that company, gets zip if the company goes BK - ask the bakers union about that money they put in their pensions that they will never get back - who took the risk again? the principles all made out quite well. No risk there. This "the owners take all the risk" is many times just more bullshit jargon akin to them calling themselves "job creators" and claiming that they are "giving people jobs" out of the goodness of their hearts.
So far as this other rote little unthought about mantra the right tells itself it is this - the dead have no rights. If your dad wants to will you that business then it will be retaxed because your dad no longer owns it and your dad no longer has the rights to anything at all, unless you can show me somewhere in the constitution where corpses have protection under the bill of rights. What you are posting is the same sort of eliteist bunk that the rich tell each other while justifying their actions that come under different rules than the middle class or the poor while patting themselves on their collective backs as to how hard they worked. There are hundreds of situations where someone has inhereted (such as Romney) and claim that their gains were all the result of their own hard work and that they themselves "built that". These are the folks who think they hit a triple because they were born on third base.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
And here we get a clear glimpse at the lunacy that resides in the addled head of the progressive drone. Thinking that only union employees have humane working conditions and fair compensation. Strange, when I was in the workforce, I always had lunch breaks, ample vacation time and personal days, paid holidays and extremely fair compensation and benefits. How could that be possible for me and the MILLIONS of middle class non-union employees just like me? You seem to describe a non-union environment as a guarantee of treatment one would expect in a gulag.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Gee, you are right! unions had nothing to do with a 40 hour work week, weekends, over time, lunch breaks and other incidentals - some of that was government mandate and regulation. Some of it was fear of unions and some was competition. A company that didn't offer the same conditions of employment as the union shop down the street might have a problem getting good help. A company that didn't offer such things might be subject to unioniztion itself unless it kept level of parity. And you claim that we liberals simply don't understand because it must really be that corporations gave away those things just because they had very very nice management folks in charge right?
that was all so long ago. what have they done lately?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Retained the status quo? We see already that if given the chance, unions will be broken and the workers will be again given the short end of the stick. Why do you all think that just because a company can no longer screw it's employees it will not do it's damnest to continue to try.
this is like saying "well, that dam we put up to keep the town from flooding seems to be working, but we put the dam up a long time ago, I don't think we really need it any more". Or do you actually think that management has somehow fundamentaly changed it's outlook on life business and ethics?
Hostess tends to signify differently.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Are you fucking kidding me?
What does a business owner stand to risk losing?
You are such a fucking retarded welfare idiot you just wouldn't know.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
all of which you can thank unions for, smarty.
you should get back in the prediction biz.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
One has to breach the "hippy-trippy, bunnies and kites" mind of the libtard to make your point.your constant insults make your points so much more valid.
I'd troll you about your "federal misfortune" due to your smart reply, but I'm not actually a dick in real life so I'll leave it out.