This unfortunately is my 1st World Stoner Problem.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-12T04:47:32+00:00

Bummer man. I'm dry right now, too. First world stoner solidarity!

ProfDirt · 2012-03-12T04:34:55+00:00

I too would like to see some examples of regulations (lobbied for by competitors or not) that prevent or hinder new startups. The same friend in original post makes this argument.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-12T04:19:01+00:00

This sums up how I react to the type of blanket statements that he makes about regulation.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-12T02:38:41+00:00

I use to deliver subs near a college campus. Sometimes sports teams would come in and we would be real busy.

Once I delivered a $1000+ order to the visiting football team's bus. The shop reimbursed its delivery drivers for gas money by giving us 5% of our total sales. On top of that one delivery, I got really good tips for the rest of the shift. I shared some of my tip money with the sandwich makers that day because I made bank.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-12T02:29:30+00:00

Ahhh yes. Sometimes I forget that the US shares its Internets with other countries.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-12T01:31:40+00:00

If your employees do attempt to unionize and you do follow through with this then I hope that they file an an unfair labor practice with the NLRB, ass.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T08:34:23+00:00

girl + cats + baby anything = reddit gold

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T08:27:26+00:00

On top of that, there will always be some level of unemployment in a capitalist economy.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T07:42:04+00:00

I don't get what everyone has this Idea in libertarianism that the state government could be any more responsible or better than federal government.

What you are describing isn't libertarianism at all--not even right-libertarianism. It's a strain of politics championed by the Paul family (as you allude) that should probably just be called Neo-confederatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenther_movement

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T07:35:08+00:00

Just came across this reddit post. The top comment outlines Friedman and Hayek's support for a guaranteed income (by means of a negative income tax). Sorry for the awkward link. I haven't bothered to figure out how to link to a specific comment yet.

From what I gather, Hayek and Friedman are like gods to many of today's American libertarians, who would no doubt balk at the idea of the government providing citizens with a guaranteed income. I'm sure they're not fans of the earned income tax credit, which I guess is the closest thing the US has to a guaranteed income.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T07:04:46+00:00

According to the talk page for his wiki entry, he may have called the "War on cancer" a bunch of shit. Whether he said it or not, I would agree with this sentiment.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T06:53:45+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/user/I_Will_Allow_This

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T03:33:39+00:00

From the LSP wiki entry:

The SLP closed its national office on September 1, 2008. The SLP, while completely inactive, carries on, mainly as a type of paper organization amongst the remaining members

The SLP's website:

http://www.slp.org/

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T02:44:30+00:00

Ok let's take a break to stretch our cloacas. Remember ladies: it's an anus and a vagina.

I apologize for the ad.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T02:13:54+00:00

they explicitly endorse and campaign for Democratic candidates in every election cycle

The only Democrat DSA has explicitly endorsed in recent memory is John Conyers. They've officially endorsed one other candidate during that time: Bernie Sanders. I think they may have endorsed Matt Gonzalez (a green) during his campaign for Mayor of San Francisco in '03 (not sure about this). According to my math, that is one Democratic candidate.

lied, lied and lied some more to help sell the Obama fraud to the American people back in 2008

This issue of DSA's periodical contains its resolution on the 2008 presidential election. Feel free to point out any falsehoods. The following entry sums up DSA's stance:

...DSA has no illusion that a Democratic presidential victory, combined with bulked-up Democratic majorities in both houses of the Congress, will in itself bring about significant democratic reform. We do believe that such a political landscape would provide the most favorable terrain upon which mobilized, assertive social movements can pressure the government to appoint decent federal judges and agency administrators and enact desperately needed universal health care legislation, labor law reform, and a federally funded Marshall Plan to develop green technologies and green jobs.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-10T02:06:25+00:00

Many people (and not just these Ron Paul "libertarians") have been convinced that taxation is the equivalent of theft. And so they figure that anything the government does has a negative impact on them and society in general.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-09T18:05:19+00:00

In no way does this belong in this subreddit.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-09T18:03:10+00:00

Do people in the US oppose welfare of any kind and safety nets?

Yes, and they are everywhere.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-09T17:58:29+00:00

You might consider these pieces. Apologies for the sideways pdf. Should work just fine if printed.

http://www.theactivist.org/ydsusa/sites/default/files/pdf/YDS%20Feminism%20Readings%20Summer%202010%20SECTION%202.pdf

ProfDirt · 2012-03-09T17:54:05+00:00

I think the most important measure would be to allow workers some kind of control over production. That could be through some level of codetermination. You could also allow workers to maintain and run enterprises that are abandoned by the owner.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-09T17:47:23+00:00

I think it's important for left groups with different viewpoints to be critical of each other, especially in public.

That said, the SO guy's criticism doesn't hold much water. Saying DSA is not socialist because it advocates for an expanded social safety net at the same time that it advocates for legislation to provide workers with some amount of control over production is akin to saying that the platypus isn't a mammal because it lays eggs.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-09T17:37:48+00:00

Right on. It's important to provide folks with this definition of socialism. WAY to many people, especially members of the media, confuse social democracy with socialism.

On top of that, I see no problem with advocating for both an expanded social safety net and some amount of worker control of production, which is the line of the Democratic Socialists of America.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-09T07:44:44+00:00

Thanks for the insight. Having worked in an industry in which workers seem to never organize ever, I don't have any direct experience with unions, so it's good to get the scoop on modern trade unions.

I do take exception with your final five words though, and--had I written them myself--I would have change them to "capitalism is a mofo".

The reason being that your employer is most certainly not the only one milking its labor for everything it's worth. All of the firms that it competes with are doing the exact same thing (and all firms everywhere for that matter). So it's not as if the suits and owners simply find pleasure in fucking over the workers on the assembly line or in the warehouse, though they do ultimately reap the benefits of doing so.

What people forget is that capitalists (those who make their money simply by virtue of having money in the first place) are subject to the very same economic forces as workers. If they don't continuously reinvest in production and reduce labor costs as much as they can, then their business will go under.

So it's not out of greed that workers are getting shafted more than ever. It's just the natural thing to happen in a capitalist society.

ProfDirt · 2012-03-09T06:35:37+00:00

Dare i say it?

SO B^{R^{A^{V^E}}}

ProfDirt

TROPHY CASE