RH said:
Your position is much clearer now.
Do you mind explaining how it was unclear in the first place? You didn't honestly think that what I said only applied to "white" people, did you? I don't know how anything I said could have been implied to mean, "white people (or anything other than "everyone") should be free to do as they wish with or on their property (I'm not going to keep typing up the stipulations or what that actually means).
The rest of what you say is some bizarre game you're playing by denial of history and fact. When you say "If the workers thought the coal mines were so bad, why didn't they strike, Robert," you want people to believe that they did not.
In fact the mine workers did strike a great many times throughout the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, not only in the United States but also in the U.K., Canada, and other countries. Mineworker strikes were frequent and are well known. So were the inevitable results. The mine owners hired private agencies of armed men who were supplemented by local law enforcement and the National Guard to ensure their rights as property owners and business owners. Striking miners were beaten or shot.
How is this at all relevant? In a free society, property owners would NOT have the right to infringe on the freedoms of other people. Beating and shooting people in such an instance would be just as illegal in a free society as the one you seem to desire. Property owners do not have the right, in a free society, to
force anyone to do anything, short of leaving their property if that is their wish. Likewise, you, or anyone else, would not have the right to force me to stop eating "unhealthy" foods, drink alcohol in my place of residence, or anything else that doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others.
Your suggestion of a level playing field between employers and employees is absurd. Coal miners who earned a dollar were paid in scrip--paper issued by the company--that was useful only to pay their rent for shacks owned by the company or to buy things sold for inflated prices at the company store. A coal miner who insisted upon being paid in U.S. currency received it at a discounted rate so that his dollar in scrip bought 80 cents in money. These are the people you portray as having some real ability to either leave for other work or to strike for higher wages from the mines that employed them.
Nonsense. Neither Hobson's Choice nor Sophie's Choice are real choices. They are fictions created by those who attempt to delude the ignorant and those too weak to resist.
If the people really felt it was wrong, then they would have done something about it (if they cared enough. And if they didn't, then there's no point to be made). In other words, they could boycott the company, give it bad press and damage its reputation, and otherwise damage the economic productivity of the company (through such actions and strikes). The real issue is that most people were willing to accept the treatment they got, or people didn't otherwise care about the treatment they got.
Except for the Pinkerton stuff, of course. Beating and shooting miners that go on strike should have been (and still be) illegal. In a free society, even moreso. If anything, it's a fine example of why the people need to have the right to keep and bear arms, not just to protect themselves against criminals, but the government as well.
Coal miners lived a bare subsistence existence. They worked long and hard, died early from accidents or negligence, and existed with disease and poverty. Even in the very first decade of the supposedly enlighted Twenty-First Century a news article on six coal miners trapped in a Utah mine collapse noted that "Government mine inspectors have issued 325 citations against the mine since January 2004, according to a quick analysis of federal Mine Safety and Health Administration online records. Of those, 116 were what the government considered "significant and substantial," meaning they are likely to cause injury." People with real choices don't often choose such employment.
They don't choose such employment? What, are they brain-washed into doing the work? They choose to work, Robert, because the alternative is worse. And though conditions can be better, I don't think they should be given such conditions, at the expense of everyone else, for free. If they want more money, or better conditions, they should work it out through the union. If they don't want to, and instead wish to suck it up and take what they have, then that's their business.
The line of reasoning you propose is exactly the one the Founding Fathers warned us of. "Hi, I'm from the government. I'm here to help." And yet, despite the money spent on the MSHA, I can see that the government citations and intervention did little to help the situation. The fundamental difference between you and I, Robert, is that you believe people are entitled to better lives, and if that means letting the government step in to force people to do so, you're fine with that. I, on the other hand, believe that people are only entitled the
opportunity to live a better life. And that if they want something, they should earn it- not be given it at the expense of everyone else.
And, if you so believe in their cause and wish for more mine safety, you can donate money to the union or participate in political activities that support mine workers. You shouldn't, however, have the right to force everyone else to do the same.
Your question is twisted: "Do you honestly think every company would purposely put themselves out of business instead of compromise if the stakes are high enough?" These companies did not "put themselves out of business" and were never at any such risk. They exercised their rights to put the coal miners down and keep them there. The record is history, well known and readily available.
Irrelevant. No libertarian, or anyone who believes in freedom and liberty, can possibly say with a straight face that the businesses had the right to "put the coal miners down" through the use of force or coercion. Arguing against points or principles that have nothing to do with my position (or downright contradict it) is irrelevant to the discussion.
"Last month," continued that news story I cited about the 2006 Utah coal mine collapse on six coal miner, "inspectors cited the mine for violating a rule requiring that at least two separate passageways be designated for escape in an emergency."
"Mine safety experts also are questioning approval by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration of retreat mining at the Crandall Canyon Mine. And last week, CNN.com reported that miners there were concerned about safety
but feared reprisals if they spoke out."
Again, this is a matter of principle and beliefs. I believe they should work, be that through the media, unions, or strikes (whatever it may be), for what they want. If they are willing to take the conditions they work in, they accept the risks of such conditions (which they were well aware of). You believe that the rest of us (the taxpayers) should allow the government to force the company to implement safety measures. It, unsurprisingly, didn't do a good job.
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. If we're going to argue about this, however, we may as well argue about the reasoning behind the principles you believe in. That's really the core of the argument- the difference in principle and beliefs. May as well get to the root of the problem.
precision said:
I think with recent passage of Castle Doctrine laws in many states IMO the legal winds are starting to blow in this direction. That is the automobile is an extension of ones home and thus would be off limits to search or regulation even if the automobile is parked on private property.
And no this does not extend to your person allowing you to CCW anywhere you please.
My only issue is that the line is rather arbitrary (Green Lantern apparently has the same issue). Why shouldn't it extend to your person, if it extends to your property (even if that property is on someone else's property)? The currently being drawn is rather arbitrary.
Robert said:
It's not that I want to stop you or anyone else here from doing whatever it is that makes them happy, though, so please feel free to say whatever you want. I don't even really mind if you want people to believe that employees and employers always occupy a level playing field, that it's okay for white people to discriminate against black people and equally okay for blacks to discriminate whites, or that coal miners are happy little campers who never strike against coal mine owners. Distort and twist whatever you want. This is the Internet.
That is again, an incorrect representation of my position. It should be okay for a white person to stop a black person from entering, or otherwise staying, on his PRIVATE PROPERTY. In public affairs, or public property, this is a whole different story. The issue is private property.
If you disagree with this, then tell me- should I be allowed to enter your home whenever I please? If not, why? Because you don't want me to? Because I'm not carrying? None of the reasons are any different than a white person saying, "I don't want you to come into my home." If that reason is because he is black, or because he has a bad haircut, it is the same, arbitrary, thing. If so, where do you live?
That said I thought I had explained carefully that people do not have any rights equivalent to those of business and property owners. It's pretty good to own a business and/or property because then you get to do whatever you want to anyone you want if that person is on your property.
Incorrect. The most you can do, unless they are threatening your life or something like that, is kick them out. You do not have the right to tie them up and hold them. You do not have a right to take their gun (if that is the issue and the gun does not belong to you). You do not have a right to deprive them of any freedom while they are on your property, unless they allow that to happen (ie. you agree to not take the gun into their home). But then, they don't have to let you on their property either.
If I don't want people smoking in my private place of business, I should have the right to say, "no smoking allowed." If you smoke, you get kicked out. So on. By entering my private property, you agree to my rules. If you don't, go ahead and leave.
