"Freedom" thread or something

Nah sorry guys, don't wanna distract from the guvment hatin but I had to post the more accurate quiz.
Political compass had me more out there then some of you and that's just not right!


Woooooow. That's f**king crazy. Besides the whole watching all the students tweets....for posting the f word? Not a bomb threat or saying he's gunna stab a teacher? Doesn't even make sense.
That's not a libertarian issue, most sane people will say that's just ridiculous.

I do hate the lack of privacy today and how places think they just own you. There was an article a bit ago about companies that were asking people for their FB password in an interview. Obviously their profiles were on private and they just had to lurk it that bad. Such audacity to even ask.

The interview/resume is not enough? Better make so no bad pictures are up! You can't just work there? If you smoke crack every night but come to work on time, do your job and are fine at it I wouldn't care. Even at my last job we know they lurked our FB and generally kept tabs on us. We can't work for a place they gotta make sure our private life is to their liking! It's like they honestly think they own your life.




Edited by JJLehto - March 28 2012 at 12:25

KoS wrote: But the market demands it! All hail the free market.

Man you are reaching James levels...at least trolling the Fed without answer was relevant to the topic.

All joking aside (if that's ever possible) it's not even a government/libertarian thing.
Like the school tweet thing...what can be done about that?

Or racism in the police force.

Even if such things got moved too 100% private it wouldn't help since it's left to the individual.
Companies are already private (well most) so the FB/twitter lurking can't be dealt with.

So this is it? Leave all our profiles on private and just hope whoever wants to search us won't find a way?


Edited by JJLehto - March 28 2012 at 12:42

The article( f**king Tweets!) mentions legal action and a protest by students.

Yeah, I can understand the kid getting expelled if he had threatened to attack someone or the school, but for dropping a few f-bombs? Give me a break. I'm glad to see the kids are protesting it though.

Actually, a potential employer isn't allowed to ask for your Facebook account info or any personal information (generally those are illegal questions). Although I recently had an interview for a job at a local Fifth Third bank where the interviewer actually asked me that very question. I was a bit surprised, but I didn't show it and said (very politely) that I didn't feel comfortable giving out my Facebook account info to people I didn't know very well. That was an acceptable answer to her I would assume because she moved on to the next question. At the end of the interview, I asked her why she asked me that question and her response was: "Because I wanted to see how you would respond to an illegal question". That was a slightly awkward moment.

Brian, I don't have enough time to answer your free trade question right now, but if no one else has answered it by tonight when I get home from work, I will give you some of my thoughts about it.

KoS wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: KoS wrote: How far up your asses are your heads? http://www.timwise.org/2012/03/trayvon-martin-white-america-and-the-return-of-dred-scott/ It was about race since the beginning.  Not as far into the descending colon as yours apparently since I'm still able to read the words I type. Evidently, you cannot read. Me saying, who cares if racial motives are at play, is in no way equivalent to me saying, no racial motives were at play. It's not exactly a huge revelation that cops can be racist. There's no reason for people to make this a black vs white, black vs hispanic issue. The group mentality makes this boy's death a struggle between two classes of the people. The boy's death should be the death of an individual, unique human being which should be made right. The race clash perverts and diminishes the importance of the individual and will ultimately lead to conflict rather than justice. If the arrest was made when the act was committed then, yes, it would have been another criminal proceding. But he wasn't, due to racial and other motives (mainly, the incompetence of the police department).

So because an arrest did not occur immediately, the boy's death takes a backseat to a race clash? That's absurd. It's creating another issue where one need not be there.

Also, I have a newsflash for people. The man is innocent. I agree he should be arrested, but let's not forget that.

JJLehto wrote: I do hate the lack of privacy today and how places think they just own you. There was an article a bit ago about companies that were asking people for their FB password in an interview. Obviously their profiles were on private and they just had to lurk it that bad. Such audacity to even ask. The interview/resume is not enough? Better make so no bad pictures are up! You can't just work there? If you smoke crack every night but come to work on time, do your job and are fine at it I wouldn't care. Even at my last job we know they lurked our FB and generally kept tabs on us. We can't work for a place they gotta make sure our private life is to their liking! It's like they honestly think they own your life.

Then don't work for them. I don't understand the complaint. When someone tries to hire me under unacceptable conditions, I don't talk about my rights being violated. Someone tried to book me for $30 an hour for in-home tutoring 45 minutes from my house without paying for gas. I politely laughed in their face for the insulting offer. I didn't take the job. It's like complaining that a company tells you in an interview that you'll be expected to be on call on the weekends. If you don't like it, don't take it. It's no different.

Companies have a legitimate interest in what goes on your facebook wall once you are hired. Some people are probably on their facebook updating their employer ten seconds after they accept a job offer. The hundreds or thousands of people privy to the information, depending on various factors, now associate that person with that company. If you're going around making homophobic tirades in your "God hates fags" FB group, then that's a legitmate concern for a company.

As with anything, just as the evil capitalists have the freedom so dictate conditions of employment to you, you have the freedom to dictate the same conditions. If you don't coincide with the employer, then walk away.

^Not a loss of jobs, a transfer to more efficient employers. You're only talking about one particular class of jobs. It's not like all jobs would ship themselves out of the country. Economies develop. We no longer have a need for horse and buggy producers.

You must realize a finite collection of capital exists. Every factor producing shoes in the US represents machines, funds, and land put towards one goal rather than a collection of other goals. The shipping of the company across seas not only brings down the price of the good, but it frees up valuable resources to be put towards an end which the American condition is better suited to achieve. That land may be better suited towards becoming a Walmart .

Overseas production isn''t always cheaper. There's a clear advantage for employing physical labor overseas. Lesser developed countries tend to have this as an advantage. That does not equate to production though. A GlaxoSmithKlein nanotechnologly development lab would not be shipped to Ethiopia. America wins out here because of the availability of highly trained biologists and engineers. Things such as developed transporatation systems, functioning legal systems, protection from mauraders, etc. factor into a country's advantage for production. To focus narrowly on unskilled labor causes a misrepresentation of the situation.

Sure there's justification. Just as we had justification for bailing out the banks. We could justify subsidizing the production of typewriters so that companies producing typwritter ribbon do not go out of business. Just remember what protectionism does, it protects a certain industry from outside forces. It's a transfer of wealth no different than welfare. It does not seek optimization and growth. It brings about wealth for one group and general stagnation.

I think the loss of the cultural aspect of a manufacturing core and self-dependency gets tangled up into the economic situation. I can relate the feelings of cultural alienation as the economy realigns itself causing painful corrections for those of the old guard. I cannot relate to the idea of propping up failing industries at the expense of the general population.

In regards to the FB comment, I fail to understand many things companies do.

You could create millions of manufacturing jobs tomorrow by outlawing robots but prices would skyrocket and those jobs would only last till the company goes out of business.

manofmystery wrote: You could create millions of manufacturing jobs tomorrow by outlawing robots but prices would skyrocket and those jobs would only last till the company goes out of business.

Sometimes simplistic is better eh


Pat certainly you've been insightful and informative. You've focused the vague generalities I had.
I certainly see the logic of it and despite the hardships it may cause why ultimately it's the way that we need to go.
Exactly, FTA's are managed trade and also naturally exclusionary since it's between set countries. FTAs and the WTO seem to bring the negatives of it (as well as loss of sovereignty) but not much of the positive.


Edited by JJLehto - March 28 2012 at 17:26

I have to get to actually doing real work so I'm going to be a bit shorter here before I log-off for the day. I can elaborate tomorrow if nobody else satisfies you fully.

We would not need a Fed on the gold standard, and the elimination of the fed does not mean you need to go on the gold standard. Simply put though, the supposed end goals of the fractional reserve fiat money system sort of make more sense with a body operating as the Fed does in my opinion. However, I just don't agree with the system itself.

Price stability would be a direct consequence. You would see a period of depression as the switch would necessitate a halt of the inflationary policies which are fueling our pseudo-recovery. Aside from stability of prices, the great benefit would be a calming of the boom-bust cycle and the rampant malinvestment which fuels it.

There's plenty of gold to back our money supply because any amount will do. Just take the available stock of gold and divide it into the available supply of money. We then set a conversion at that rate between gold and money. Only a fixed conversion is required, the actual amount of the conversion is immaterial really.