Eh? No.
Plato routinely put his own words into the mouth of his teacher, Socrates. Aristotle came after Plato.
1 Like
A government is not force - it’s pretty much our own option in a world populated by massive corporations who only care about profit.
23 Likes
The point is that while in general it’s perfectly reasonable there are jobs
for which it isn’t. It doesn’t matter how many such workers there are,
only that there are such workers. Ignoring the rare cases is one way we
get bad laws that cause a backlash against undue regulation.
So you are advocating a return to the time of strong unions? I could maybe get behind that. It would depend on the union though.
26 Likes
Oh, yeah, the government kills people all the time for workplace violations.
Or, ya know, they could do the easy thing, and give a pregnant woman a stool and some extra assistance while she needs it. Which wouldn’t be forever, you know… pregnancy only lasts so long.
The employer has a choice… either be a human being, or keep being an unconscionable ass until the only option left is to make things uncomfortable enough that they want to fix their ways.
31 Likes
There you go, advocating violence again. I’ve had enough of this; I’ll be in my gulch.
22 Likes
So what are you going to do about it? You live in a nation, which has the rule of law and a monopoly on force. Are you saying you won’t abide by the laws, and the social compact, of the nation of which you are a citizen? If so, leave. I hear Somalia is rather anarchic.
19 Likes
Because apparently making anyone in a position of power do something they don’t want to, no matter what the method, is “violence”.
But do the same to someone not in a position of power, and it’s their fault, because they could have just chosen to get out of the way!
30 Likes
Oh! they just voted on a new government, though. Clearly, they are on their way to a violent state repressing the job creators! /s
27 Likes
If one party is dissatisfied with the performance of the other, the relationship can be terminated by either party.
So, you’re saying a pregnant woman in her third trimester has the same freedom as a nonpregnant woman to change jobs? The freedom of choice of this hypothetical* woman can be more aptly described as being between a rock and a hard place.
The employer has no responsibility to change working conditions to support pregnant workers.
Because there is no law. Your reasoning is circular.
*spherical seemed a bit much.
22 Likes
So let’s say that you’re a business owner, specifically of a retail establishment. Someone comes in, picks up some of your goods and walks towards the exit. Do you let them? Do you call the police and use for yourself the threat of state violence? Do you try and stop them from leaving yourself by force and hence, in your view, using violence?
21 Likes
Agreed; that adjective implies way more depth than any ‘argument’ presented thus far…
10 Likes
But that’s different… it’s protecting the business holder, which is the REAL function of government - not protecting employees from exploitation. /s
23 Likes
How did this thread go all Anarcho-Capitalist so qui…
Oh. Never mind.
14 Likes
Why necessarily associate “force of law” with “threat of violence”? Or, if you do, realize that that is what the whole point of the Constitution (and federalism) is. Actually, that’s the whole point of law. If you don’t pay your parking ticket, eventually, your car is going to be taken away. If you bodily try to prevent this, you will be taken away. But the whole point of democracy is judicial review and due process. You or your property won’t be affected until you’ve had the chance (many times) to indicate why this would be unlawful.
But there is certainly no imminent “threat of force” with regard to laws concerning pregnancy. This isn’t going “to rend the fabric of the Republic.”
19 Likes
You’re speaking entirely outside his frame of reference.
9 Likes
Ah. Fake anarchism.
19 Likes
Ah, ok, but then the current issue under discussion is completely academic, since we do not exist in an “anarcho-capitalist” government.
So, he wants to live in a corporatist hellscape? Because that’s all that happens in this “anarcho-capitalism”-- corporations rise to the level of states and, yes, use violence (via private security guards) to enforce their own laws.
11 Likes
Well, except it has never happened and no population in history has ever signed up for it.
1 Like
This discussion reminds of this song off the most recent Regina Spektor album:
“What a strange, strange world we live in/ those who don’t have lose, those got get given/ more, more, more more…”
8 Likes
