That's horse crap! In the "natural order", that wild state we lived in for the past 200,000 years of our evolution, there was no "property" at all. People worked together as a tribe for the good of the tribe.Property rights is crafted out of the natural order. Don't let that stop you though as it sure didn't stop marx from making an ass out of himself.
Let's see how much dust it "creates" with no one to operate it.I don't really care what the IRS thinks. It is their property and that is that.
That's horse crap! In the "natural order", that wild state we lived in for the past 200,000 years of our evolution, there was no "property" at all. People worked together as a tribe for the good of the tribe.
Didn't Hitler also say that Aryan domination was the natural order? His use of the term was just as artificial as yours.
Let's see how much dust it "creates" with no one to operate it.
In actuality it won't create dust, either, it will only accumulate dust. Much like many rich people accumulate wealth but seldom create it.
I misspoke, I should have said the conservatives should be all over it.I don't want a flat tax.
I misspoke, I should have said the conservatives should be all over it.
I know, you want a volunteer government and military. Good luck making that work in the modern world.
Yes, I know, you have been indoctrinated well. That doesn't change the facts.People influencing the government have no power over me. The government has power over me, which is why they are trying to influence the government.
The "ownership" (as you call it) of product depends on the laws of society. There is nothing innate or natural about property rights.In order to produce goods to be sold, a business purchases factors of production, namely land labor and capital. The fact that one purchases inputs in order to produce products does not mean that one's inventory of finished goods belongs to anyone else.
Yes. Yes. All property in America is subject to law.Inventory is the exclusive property of the business. Do you dispute this? Then, when the business sells its inventory, the proceeds are the exclusive property of the business. Do you dispute this?
I don't believe I ever said anyone took land from the Indians. YOU made that assumption and said it, not me.Oh so we didn't take land from the Indians. I like how you use arguments when they work for you. :roll:
You're a self-professed minarchists. That's all I need to know.You know so much about me. :roll:
I don't believe I ever said anyone took land from the Indians. YOU made that assumption and said it, not me.
That particular argument was left at how far back in time you wanted to go to find this "original owner" of yours. It was also in that little discussion that I mentioned the same thing as I did here, explaining that ancient tribes "owned" the land only in so far as they stopped other tribes from using it. I'm sure you won't remember any of that, though. Your selective memory has been noted many times.
true but those of us who attended private schools and/or send our kids to private schools tend to be those with large property tax bills meaning we are paying for the education of others as well as tuition for our own kids--and guess what, I don't have a real problem with that since I have the option of sending my son to the excellent but very large public school in our prosperous town. I don't. But I don't really have a problem with some tax dollars (I don't know if they do) helping the school junior attends.
Private schools also have something public schools often do not-parents who really care. that is worth a ton when it comes to achievement test scores etc.
and thankfully, my son's school can hire those who have actually expertise in a given subject rather than wasting their time on getting the BS M Ed degrees the teachers unions demand in our public schools. Every teacher I had at that school save maybe 1-3 had masters, 2 had doctorates. My AP biology teacher had a masters in that subject from Williams. My English teacher-a Masters from Columbia, History-PhD Harvard, Math-U of Penn and so on
If the fire department was private yes.
Quality matters to everything. Don't try to separate certain fields like fire and education.
What does this have to do with what you said above?
Tell me, why is a doctor paid so much? Do you really think it is the degree? Or it perhaps the skill and the rarity and value of such a skill? However none of what I just said matters when talking about public school teachers.
Does it? then why do we sell so many things of low quality in the market?
It's fairly obvious. If we go the route of the market place, crap will be sold, and a profit will be made off of that crap. But it would not improve education.
Yeah, I think his degree matters. The degree shows he has shown mastery of his field. Yes, it matters. But please, feel free to go to someone without one. I'm sure your hairdresser will do just fine.
The market has been known to have crappy products, so what?
You're pretending I'm hiding the fact that the market sells crap and its a bit pathetic. You're also pretending that the government doesn't sell crap. Tell me, which is better? The crap you can get away from or the crap you can't? You tell me. Competition DOES improve education and the existence of crap is exactly why. I have nothing to hide from or not admit, sorry.
It doesn't show he has a mastery of his field. What kind of nonsense is that? Tell me the last time someone came out of college and had a mastery of their field? Oh right, it never happens. Regardless, you are still not answering the important question that is needed to be answered. How does have a degree in whatever field mean a certain wage is deserved and anything else is unacceptable?
And you don't really want to go to doctors for being masters of their craft since many rely on the Internet these days.
don't you people who are the reactionary far left get tired of the same silly comments over and over such as the stupid hammer crap and calling anyone who doesn't believe in hating the rich "far right"
What part of Our aims are not the same, is difficult for you to understand? Do you have some kind of mental problem I should know about? His aim is to check if RTW states are better. My aim is to check who earns more. They are not the same, hence I do not need to adjust for the same amount of factors.
I do not know how many factors he adjusted for. If he actually adjusted for all of these factors, then how exactly do you adjust household income with the age of the state. To be honest I hardly think he adjust for any other factors than cost of living and demographics. If he really adjusted for age of the state and unemployment rate, then his study is just pure BS.
I have also pointed out holes in his research, I have stated them 3 times now. You have pretended like I didn't write it 3 times. So you are pretty much trying to be an ass, because you are unable to argue for your points.
Contracts negotiated in bad faith by both actors should not be held as binding by current state and local governments when doing so would effectively destroy those governments' solvency.
What do you think happened when the philosophy of Marxism was proven a failure? I will give you hint, you believe in the latest version.
Given that when offered the option, it seems that half to a majority of public union members prefer to opt out, and given that the movement to limit Public Unions is coming from both parties, how do you justify your vote that Public Unions will end up stronger? What social, political, or economic force do you see driving that result?
Yes, I know, you have been indoctrinated well. That doesn't change the facts.
The "ownership" (as you call it) of product depends on the laws of society. There is nothing innate or natural about property rights.
Yes. Yes. All property in America is subject to law.
You quoted him previously saying thisHis study clearly states that AFTER ADJUSTING FOR COST OF LIVING right to work states have workers earning $1,500.00 less and decreased benefits.
You have said there are things wrong with his research. You have not shown what is wrong with his research other than rather general and vague pontifications. I will give this more time later today.
Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socio-economic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?