Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Such may very well be the cost of feeding your family in some cases. It's just too bad that the evil employer gave you a 'feeding your family' option that was far from perfect, it would've been much better if you had no 'feeding your family' option at all and your family died hungry and cancer-free - because there's no other employment option in this fantasy scenario of yours, right?
|
It is not automatically OK for an employer to endanger the health of his employees just because there may be other options. And in all likelihood there really aren't other options -at least none that have the earnings potential of being a (good) waiter who gets good tips. Remember that economic thread in here with the picture of THOUSANDS of people lining up for 200 jobs at a candy store? That shows you that jobs aren't easy to come by these days.
Quote:
|
No, it isn't. For the government to protect its citizens from such choices - if they even exist, I'm skeptical in this day and age - is for the government to violate property rights. The government shouldn't do this unless there's a preexisting rights violation to justify it.
|
If it's not the government's job to protect us then I suppose you support getting rid of all government health, safety, and food inspectors?
Quote:
|
What I am saying is that I don't understand the idea that people have a right to jobs.
|
I don't know where you got that. I never said they have a right to a job. They don't. But when they do have a job they have a right to perform the duties expected of them without being exposed to harmful conditions. That's why OSHA goes apeshit when someone has to use caustic chemicals and isn't given proper protective equipment. Because that person has the right to expect his employer to make sure he won't get hurt on the job.
Quote:
|
Absurd. Of course it's private property. It's also used by the public, but only because the owner allows the public to use it.
|
Private property that the owner invites the public to access operates under very different rules than regular private property. If it's accessible to the public it has to have certain safety features in place- - -good fire escapes, fire suppression if it's a certain size, etc. The government can, will, and should regulate the conditions in that building so that the general public, when they enter that building, is not exposed to needless danger.
Quote:
|
Let me be clear here: I'm absolutely fine with a 'public place' - per your definition - serving rotting meat, making ratburgers, and jizzing up the pasta. It's none of the government's business if they conduct such business.
|
Well. . .That's crazy. Sorry, but it is.
Quote:
|
What is the government's business is that the 'public place' isn't deceptive or significantly incomplete in portraying these things. The government's actual job should be enforcing honesty.
|
Why? They're not allowed to protect the citizens according to your argument, why should they be allowed to enforce honesty. And that doesn't even address the fact that the government enforcing honesty would be somewhat like George Carlin enforcing FCC swearing regulations
Quote:
|
(Unless it's fast food, of course - we should probably ban that stuff as well.)
|
See, this is where you guys either don't understand our position, or are purposely misinterpreting it. We should not ban fast food. Some have called for a ban on fast food and junk food and they're idiots. If you eat a big mac, it's not going to hurt me in any way even if you do it right next to me in a tiny room. If you smoke a cigarette, it will hurt me.
Tell me why you feel you have the right, and are justified, in hurting everyone around you.