Spartan Swill
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

+5
DWags
Hut1hut2
xsanguine
AvgMSUJoe
Turtleneck
9 posters

Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Turtleneck 2014-06-30, 14:41

Discuss...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html?_r=0&referrer=
Turtleneck
Turtleneck
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 42442
Join date : 2014-04-22

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by AvgMSUJoe 2014-06-30, 14:47

So does this mean I can not cover all the fat people in my company because "bodies are temples" and they fat? or smokers?

or right wing crazy?
AvgMSUJoe
AvgMSUJoe
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 10795
Join date : 2014-04-22
Location : As stupid and vicious as men are, this is a lovely day.

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Turtleneck 2014-06-30, 15:12

AvgMSUJoe wrote:So does this mean I can not cover all the fat people in my company because "bodies are temples" and they fat? or smokers?

or right wing crazy?

Does it mean that an employer of a religion that takes issue with the consumption of pork can refuse to pay for insulin that originates within the pancreas of pigs?
Turtleneck
Turtleneck
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 42442
Join date : 2014-04-22

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by xsanguine 2014-06-30, 18:31

heh
xsanguine
xsanguine
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 9838
Join date : 2014-04-23
Location : Hijackin' Threads

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Hut1hut2 2014-07-01, 13:08

So, Obama is not a king ?
Hut1hut2
Hut1hut2
Spartiate

Posts : 335
Join date : 2014-05-22

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by DWags 2014-07-01, 20:37

This case has opened the door for so many bosses who are of a religious persuasion. It's going to get very interesting.
DWags
DWags
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 49785
Join date : 2014-04-21
Age : 62
Location : Right here

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by xsanguine 2014-07-04, 04:35

I mean... it makes sense. I can't fault a company for not wanting to fund something they're against in principle.

Instead of whining like bitches and trying to get big daddy government to brandish their guns and force (through threat of theft or violence) Hobby Lobby to fund something they disagree with... those who disagree with Hobby Lobby stop shopping there? Stop working there? The general public has a lot more (non-violent) power than I think they realize... bringing in bullies to force someone to pay for you is immoral. I would never shop at Hobby Lobby, and I would never seek employment there... specifically because of stuff like this. But I'm also not an advocate of violence...

No one is forcing any of the employees to work there with a gun to their head... why demand the government do so to Hobby Lobby?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing the points on this one, though.
xsanguine
xsanguine
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 9838
Join date : 2014-04-23
Location : Hijackin' Threads

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Turtleneck 2014-07-04, 08:26

xsanguine wrote:I mean... it makes sense. I can't fault a company for not wanting to fund something they're against in principle.

Instead of whining like bitches and trying to get big daddy government to brandish their guns and force (through threat of theft or violence) Hobby Lobby to fund something they disagree with... those who disagree with Hobby Lobby stop shopping there? Stop working there? The general public has a lot more (non-violent) power than I think they realize... bringing in bullies to force someone to pay for you is immoral. I would never shop at Hobby Lobby, and I would never seek employment there... specifically because of stuff like this. But I'm also not an advocate of violence...

No one is forcing any of the employees to work there with a gun to their head... why demand the government do so to Hobby Lobby?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing the points on this one, though.


In no way do I believe this was motivated by principle. If that was the case, the shelves of Hobby Lobby would not be lined with goods make in China (where forced abortions happen). Therefore, from my point of view, all Hobby Lobby has done is transfer the costs of contraceptives to the government. Why do I have now have to pick up the tab for Hobby Lobby? This was motivated by greed. Corporations - private or public - have no problem pushing their costs on government or taking government subsidies that amount to welfare. Additionally, this whole "find a job elsewhere" line is a bit reckless. How does that work in states like Michigan, Illinois, or Georgia, where the unemployment rate is still over 7% and jobs are scarce? We often invoke that line - that people can go out an get another job - but that assumes much more than people are willing to discuss. Among other things, it assumes jobs are plentiful rather than scarce. The only thing I am more tired of than the state lording over me is the private sector doing the same. I have little control over either, but I am governed by both.
Turtleneck
Turtleneck
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 42442
Join date : 2014-04-22

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by xsanguine 2014-07-04, 11:09

Turtleneck wrote:


In no way do I believe this was motivated by principle. If that was the case, the shelves of Hobby Lobby would not be lined with goods make in China (where forced abortions happen). Therefore, from my point of view, all Hobby Lobby has done is transfer the costs of contraceptives to the government. Why do I have now have to pick up the tab for Hobby Lobby? This was motivated by greed. Corporations - private or public - have no problem pushing their costs on government or taking government subsidies that amount to welfare. Additionally, this whole "find a job elsewhere" line is a bit reckless. How does that work in states like Michigan, Illinois, or Georgia, where the unemployment rate is still over 7% and jobs are scarce? We often invoke that line - that people can go out an get another job - but that assumes much more than people are willing to discuss. Among other things, it assumes jobs are plentiful rather than scarce. The only thing I am more tired of than the state lording over me is the private sector doing the same. I have little control over either, but I am governed by both.

What do you believe it is motivated by? I disagree entirely with the principle with which they're evoking... but it's still a principle, regardless. I don't think the executives at Hobby Lobby consider China's abortion rates nor do I think you can make much of a connection, either way; It's one thing for a company to directly pay an employee to have a procedure and an entirely different thing to sell products made in a country that has abortion. I get why the connection is being attempted... I just think it's a stretch. I'm a pro-choice, anti-corporate, drug using minarchist atheist... and even I can see that trying to tie those two things together is as much a strategy devoid of principle as the principles we're discussing regarding Hobby Lobby.

What tab are you picking up for Hobby Lobby? Their employees abortions? That's not Hobby Lobby's responsibility... but regardless, I don't think you should pick up the tab, either... that should be the responsibility of the individual getting the abortion... not you, not me, not Hobby Lobby. If we had a system that allowed a non-emergency service to be denied if you couldn't pay up front... maybe people would think twice.

I completely agree with you regarding corporate welfare. I don't think the legal fiction that is a "corporation" should exist in the first place. But that's the fault of government. Government is what gives corporation its definition and allows its members to operate with immunity from the entity's actions.

Getting a job is tough... but for individuals without any marketable skills of value that can't find a job... maybe they should think twice and be a bit more careful before partaking in an activity that can result in a pregnancy. Just because they don't have any marketable skills and businesses don't need individuals with a lack of value, in their case... that means they need to pay for the mistakes that take place in the private lives of those individuals? I don't see why their choices are now the financial responsibility of an individual just because they own a business and hired that individual. No one is forcing that individual to work for that particular business owner. If you don't like their policies, don't apply for a job there. If you don't have any skills of value and your options are limited because you aren't marketable... it takes a lot of gull then to expect that individual who has hired you and your limited skills/value to pay for the mistakes you make in your personal life.

How does that work in states like Michigan, Georgia, etc? Well... in North Dakota McDonald's is paying some $17+ an hour. That's how it's always worked... when the options in your immediate area become limited, you move to where options exist. Our country was founded on individuals leaving their homeland with limited options to come here because there was opportunity. I left Michigan because my opportunities were limited and found a city where I could make enough money to live comfortably on. I'm now in a position to improve my skills and hopefully move back at some point. And if I can do it, so can anyone else.

No one else is responsible for your well-being but you. It's not someone else's obligation to make sure you're taken care of simply because they run a business.
xsanguine
xsanguine
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 9838
Join date : 2014-04-23
Location : Hijackin' Threads

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by xsanguine 2014-07-04, 11:32

And I don't mean you as in you, TN. I just mean in general... someone that would feel like they're entitled to having their employer finance it.
xsanguine
xsanguine
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 9838
Join date : 2014-04-23
Location : Hijackin' Threads

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Turtleneck 2014-07-07, 11:32

xsanguine wrote:

What do you believe it is motivated by? I disagree entirely with the principle with which they're evoking... but it's still a principle, regardless. I don't think the executives at Hobby Lobby consider China's abortion rates nor do I think you can make much of a connection, either way; It's one thing for a company to directly pay an employee to have a procedure and an entirely different thing to sell products made in a country that has abortion. I get why the connection is being attempted... I just think it's a stretch. I'm a pro-choice, anti-corporate, drug using minarchist atheist... and even I can see that trying to tie those two things together is as much a strategy devoid of principle as the principles we're discussing regarding Hobby Lobby.

It was motivated by profit. Plain and simple. It is not a stretch to connect the politics of China to this debate.  Hobby Lobby claimed that it did not want to pay for contraception because doing so violated its religious principles. Fair enough. However, Hobby Lobby profits from taking advantage of low cost labor in a country notorious for human rights abuses. Abuses that include forced abortions as a means of population control. From my perspective, there is a disconnect. Hobby Lobby claims moral principles regarding contraception but its $3.3 billion in revenue shows a disregard for those principles. If Hobby Lobby was committed to those moral principles that allegedly motivated its legal challenge, it would not profit from Chinese imports. The market is not motivated by any moral sentiments. The market is always motivated by a bottom line. Hobby Lobby is no different.

xsanguine wrote: What tab are you picking up for Hobby Lobby? Their employees abortions? That's not Hobby Lobby's responsibility... but regardless, I don't think you should pick up the tab, either... that should be the responsibility of the individual getting the abortion... not you, not me, not Hobby Lobby. If we had a system that allowed a non-emergency service to be denied if you couldn't pay up front... maybe people would think twice.

Why is it anymore my responsibility than the responsibility of the employee's health care provider? What Hobby Lobby has done is simply transferred the cost of contraception elsewhere. I suspect in many cases that cost will be transferred to the government, which means it will cost the taxpayers.

xsanguine wrote: I completely agree with you regarding corporate welfare. I don't think the legal fiction that is a "corporation" should exist in the first place. But that's the fault of government. Government is what gives corporation its definition and allows its members to operate with immunity from the entity's actions.

I sympathize with your points about personal responsibility, and neither Hobby Lobby or the taxpayer being on the hook for contraception. Let me say that much of my discontent is probably driven by my dislike for what the market economy has encouraged in this country, and that is mass consumerism and sense of dependence that rivals the type of dependence conservatives lash out against when it comes to government programs. Much like the government conservatives rail against, the private sector is another place of concentrated power that governs our behavior. It is funny how neither side can see that both are terribly unhealthy. In any event, I see this - in some way or another - as another victory for corporate America over the individual. While I do sympathize with your points about personal responsibility, I would rather see the employer cough up the costs of contraception for their individual employees, who work hard to help record $3.3 billion in revenue, than be able to ignore such provisions.


xsanguine wrote:Getting a job is tough... but for individuals without any marketable skills of value that can't find a job... maybe they should think twice and be a bit more careful before partaking in an activity that can result in a pregnancy. Just because they don't have any marketable skills and businesses don't need individuals with a lack of value, in their case... that means they need to pay for the mistakes that take place in the private lives of those individuals? I don't see why their choices are now the financial responsibility of an individual just because they own a business and hired that individual. No one is forcing that individual to work for that particular business owner. If you don't like their policies, don't apply for a job there. If you don't have any skills of value and your options are limited because you aren't marketable... it takes a lot of gull then to expect that individual who has hired you and your limited skills/value to pay for the mistakes you make in your personal life.

How does that work in states like Michigan, Georgia, etc? Well... in North Dakota McDonald's is paying some $17+ an hour. That's how it's always worked... when the options in your immediate area become limited, you move to where options exist. Our country was founded on individuals leaving their homeland with limited options to come here because there was opportunity. I left Michigan because my opportunities were limited and found a city where I could make enough money to live comfortably on. I'm now in a position to improve my skills and hopefully move back at some point. And if I can do it, so can anyone else. No one else is responsible for your well-being but you. It's not someone else's obligation to make sure you're taken care of simply because they run a business.

...and yet corporate America has no problem asking us, the taxpayers, to pay for their mistakes.  While I agree that people should be responsible, I am not going to get into a debate about who should and should not be having sex. Far too often people who have made plenty of mistakes use such lines in these types of debates. Only those that have never engaged in risky behavior should expect others to do the same. This is not directed at you, but a statement in general.  There are a lot of assumptions going on with this part of your post. Moving is much harder than you think, especially for those with limited skills. Also, do not expect everyone to be skilled, as opportunity is not universal. That is great about the McDonald's in ND, but why does a person have to live in North Dakota to find comfort in life? Furthermore, $17 brings me to my last point. As for your point about obligation, when a corporation records over $28 billion in revenue that is aided by the labor of their hourly employees, those employees are owed something.  As those employees tax their bodies for others as well as themselves, the others - in this case the employer  - should provide them with the means necessary to maintain their well-being. It's a very fair arrangement. Those employees work to generate revenue for others, and based on the size of those revenues in cases like Hobby Lobby or McDonald's, the value of their labor probably exceeds what they are paid for their labor.
Turtleneck
Turtleneck
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 42442
Join date : 2014-04-22

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Robert J Sakimano 2014-07-09, 08:59

I want government out of my life but god in my healthcare..

sincerely,

right wing nuts

Robert J Sakimano
Robert J Sakimano
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 49257
Join date : 2014-04-15

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by xsanguine 2014-07-10, 01:49

Turtleneck wrote:

It was motivated by profit. Plain and simple. It is not a stretch to connect the politics of China to this debate.  Hobby Lobby claimed that it did not want to pay for contraception because doing so violated its religious principles. Fair enough. However, Hobby Lobby profits from taking advantage of low cost labor in a country notorious for human rights abuses. Abuses that include forced abortions as a means of population control. From my perspective, there is a disconnect. Hobby Lobby claims moral principles regarding contraception but its $3.3 billion in revenue shows a disregard for those principles. If Hobby Lobby was committed to those moral principles that allegedly motivated its legal challenge, it would not profit from Chinese imports. The market is not motivated by any moral sentiments. The market is always motivated by a bottom line. Hobby Lobby is no different.



Why is it anymore my responsibility than the responsibility of the employee's health care provider? What Hobby Lobby has done is simply transferred the cost of contraception elsewhere. I suspect in many cases that cost will be transferred to the government, which means it will cost the taxpayers.



I sympathize with your points about personal responsibility, and neither Hobby Lobby or the taxpayer being on the hook for contraception. Let me say that much of my discontent is probably driven by my dislike for what the market economy has encouraged in this country, and that is mass consumerism and sense of dependence that rivals the type of dependence conservatives lash out against when it comes to government programs. Much like the government conservatives rail against, the private sector is another place of concentrated power that governs our behavior. It is funny how neither side can see that both are terribly unhealthy. In any event, I see this - in some way or another - as another victory for corporate America over the individual. While I do sympathize with your points about personal responsibility, I would rather see the employer cough up the costs of contraception for their individual employees, who work hard to help record $3.3 billion in revenue, than be able to ignore such provisions.




...and yet corporate America has no problem asking us, the taxpayers, to pay for their mistakes.  While I agree that people should be responsible, I am not going to get into a debate about who should and should not be having sex. Far too often people who have made plenty of mistakes use such lines in these types of debates. Only those that have never engaged in risky behavior should expect others to do the same. This is not directed at you, but a statement in general.  There are a lot of assumptions going on with this part of your post. Moving is much harder than you think, especially for those with limited skills. Also, do not expect everyone to be skilled, as opportunity is not universal. That is great about the McDonald's in ND, but why does a person have to live in North Dakota to find comfort in life? Furthermore, $17 brings me to my last point. As for your point about obligation, when a corporation records over $28 billion in revenue that is aided by the labor of their hourly employees, those employees are owed something.  As those employees tax their bodies for others as well as themselves, the others - in this case the employer  - should provide them with the means necessary to maintain their well-being. It's a very fair arrangement. Those employees work to generate revenue for others, and based on the size of those revenues in cases like Hobby Lobby or McDonald's, the value of their labor probably exceeds what they are paid for their labor.

I think there might be a slight misunderstanding of my position.

If, say for example... the framework we currently have for society/governing/etc is all that we're going to be able to maintain... if that is as good as we're going to be able to muster... then I agree with you 110%. Every bit of everything you've said and advocated, TN.

The reason why I'm advocating for the things that I am is because I anticipate our society to continue working more and more towards freedom of the individual... just as it has for the past several centuries. The one thing I KNOW for a fact is that our society will continue to change in some fashion, regardless. And since I know that it will change, I'd prefer the trend of that change that would occur to move in the direction of non-violence and non-force. So I simply just disagree with anything that would perpetuate the "old" system of maintaining a government through force, theft, and threat of violence of its' allegedly "free" citizens.

Not that i expect you to necessarily agree with me, but does that make sense? Instead of perpetuating because it seems like the right thing to do... little by little, gradually, I'd like to get society progressing over time into one that actually rejects violence and rejets=s

Again, if this is the best we can hope for... where everyone has to forfeit 1/3 of their income, against their will or else face enslavement... where you can also be enslaved for ingesting certain plant alkaloids or even be in possession of those plants or their alkaloids... if I were to be able to see into the future and know that is all we have to look forward to... then yes, I want corporations to pay for everything from health care to environmental projects to a much higher minimum wage. If I really had it my way, though... this whole corporation concept and it's personhood falsity would be the first to go. Then... if the CEO, the actual man (or woman) and all the rest of the men/women that make decisions at that level... can be held criminally and personally financially responsible for things like oil spills or chemical burns or run-off or the abhorrent treatment of livestock... anything... perhaps a lot more thought would go into how those entities make money. However, we have a government that assumes a monopoly of violence over the people that live within these imaginary borders; and since we have that system in place the corporations I despise will continue to have the puppets in place to control and pull the strings.

Sorry, TN... I'm a rambling man.
xsanguine
xsanguine
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 9838
Join date : 2014-04-23
Location : Hijackin' Threads

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by xsanguine 2014-07-10, 01:49

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I want government out of my life but god in my healthcare..

sincerely,

right wing nuts


Fvck god, Bob.
xsanguine
xsanguine
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 9838
Join date : 2014-04-23
Location : Hijackin' Threads

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Turtleneck 2014-07-11, 09:39

xsanguine wrote:

I think there might be a slight misunderstanding of my position.

If, say for example... the framework we currently have for society/governing/etc is all that we're going to be able to maintain... if that is as good as we're going to be able to muster... then I agree with you 110%. Every bit of everything you've said and advocated, TN.

The reason why I'm advocating for the things that I am is because I anticipate our society to continue working more and more towards freedom of the individual... just as it has for the past several centuries. The one thing I KNOW for a fact is that our society will continue to change in some fashion, regardless. And since I know that it will change, I'd prefer the trend of that change that would occur to move in the direction of non-violence and non-force. So I simply just disagree with anything that would perpetuate the "old" system of maintaining a government through force, theft, and threat of violence of its' allegedly "free" citizens.

Not that i expect you to necessarily agree with me, but does that make sense? Instead of perpetuating because it seems like the right thing to do... little by little, gradually, I'd like to get society progressing over time into one that actually rejects violence and rejets=s

Again, if this is the best we can hope for... where everyone has to forfeit 1/3 of their income, against their will or else face enslavement... where you can also be enslaved for ingesting certain plant alkaloids or even be in possession of those plants or their alkaloids... if I were to be able to see into the future and know that is all we have to look forward to... then yes, I want corporations to pay for everything from health care to environmental projects to a much higher minimum wage. If I really had it my way, though... this whole corporation concept and it's personhood falsity would be the first to go. Then... if the CEO, the actual man (or woman) and all the rest of the men/women that make decisions at that level... can be held criminally and personally financially responsible for things like oil spills or chemical burns or run-off or the abhorrent treatment of livestock... anything... perhaps a lot more thought would go into how those entities make money. However, we have a government that assumes a monopoly of violence over the people that live within these imaginary borders; and since we have that system in place the corporations I despise will continue to have the puppets in place to control and pull the strings.

Sorry, TN... I'm a rambling man.

Let me start by saying that I do not believe we are working toward freedom of the individual. I see it as quite the opposite. The power of the state has grown relative to the individual. Even if we discount the power of the state, any demise in its authority has been replaced by unaccountable market forces that encourage consumption and dependence over quality of life and community well-being. I agree that society will change, but I am skeptical about the direction of that change in respect to freedom of the individual. Because of my skepticism, I cannot get behind this decision. In fact, in some ways, I feel like this decision is representative of a change that has shifted power away from the individual and towards corporate America. With that said, maybe I should welcome the power of government over the power of the private sector. As I said in my previous post, employers do owe their employees something given the discrepancy in wages and revenues. If the change we agree on is actually away from the individual, who else can hold corporations accountable?

Turtleneck
Turtleneck
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 42442
Join date : 2014-04-22

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Hut1hut2 2014-07-11, 10:58

Turtleneck wrote:

Let me start by saying that I do not believe we are working toward freedom of the individual. I see it as quite the opposite. The power of the state has grown relative to the individual. Even if we discount the power of the state, any demise in its authority has been replaced by unaccountable market forces that encourage consumption and dependence over quality of life and community well-being. I agree that society will change, but I am skeptical about the direction of that change in respect to freedom of the individual. Because of my skepticism, I cannot get behind this decision. In fact, in some ways, I feel like this decision is representative of a change that has shifted power away from the individual and towards corporate America. With that said, maybe I should welcome the power of government over the power of the private sector. As I said in my previous post, employers do owe their employees something given the discrepancy in wages and revenues. If the change we agree on is actually away from the individual, who else can hold corporations accountable?

Employers owe their employees safe working conditions and a salary. Nothing more.

Nuke the current health care system , it's wasteful and inefficient. Pay for service, out of pocket, and let providers compete for your business. Only way to drive down price and open access. But the liberal hippies are too stupid to understand basic market fundamentals
Hut1hut2
Hut1hut2
Spartiate

Posts : 335
Join date : 2014-05-22

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by xsanguine 2014-07-12, 12:24

Turtleneck wrote:

Let me start by saying that I do not believe we are working toward freedom of the individual. I see it as quite the opposite. The power of the state has grown relative to the individual. Even if we discount the power of the state, any demise in its authority has been replaced by unaccountable market forces that encourage consumption and dependence over quality of life and community well-being. I agree that society will change, but I am skeptical about the direction of that change in respect to freedom of the individual. Because of my skepticism, I cannot get behind this decision. In fact, in some ways, I feel like this decision is representative of a change that has shifted power away from the individual and towards corporate America. With that said, maybe I should welcome the power of government over the power of the private sector. As I said in my previous post, employers do owe their employees something given the discrepancy in wages and revenues. If the change we agree on is actually away from the individual, who else can hold corporations accountable?


You don't believe, in a macro-historical sense... that we're gaining sovereignty? There's certainly been an ebb and flow but when you compare where we're at now to 500 years ago, to 1000 years ago, and then 2000+ years ago... we've gone from virtually a guaranteed life of slavery to now where we at least get to feel like we're deciding, collectively, who makes the decisions at the top. I do see that trend continuing if people make the effort to take a stand in their sovereignty as a human being. It confounds me that people willingly ask to be controlled and dominated and even participate in their own domination... they take pride in who they're being dominated by (I'm a proud Democrat/Republican!!!)... step outta that monkey mindset and evolve, for christ sake. You're an individual, not someone else's property to be told how to live. Again, I'm speaking in generalities...

I wouldn't value the power of government over the power of the private sector, at least up until now the private sector doesn't indicate they have the right to outright kill us when they feel we've screwed up. Maybe that'll change but for now governments are responsible by far and away for the most heinous crimes ever recorded in history.

Who can hold corporations accountable? Consumers can with their purchasing power. Corporations are interested in money... that is what they are concerned with first and foremost. Corporations don't just steal your money from you and threaten to enslave you if you don't give it up like governments do. Corporations certainly try and trick you into giving up your money (banks, especially) but ultimately it's up to you how and when you're going to spend that money. Governments aren't interested in trying to swaying you because they don't have to... they just take it from you by force backed by a threat of violence/enslavement.

If government could be scaled back to where they're only getting involved in cases of theft, force, and physical harm between citizens (including those who run businesses)... first, the corporation wouldn't exist, by definition; but beyond that, your dollar is the ultimate vote. It's difficult to imagine that scenario now because big business and government have worked in tandem since their creation... but it's true, big business wouldn't hold any forceful power if government were not involved.
xsanguine
xsanguine
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 9838
Join date : 2014-04-23
Location : Hijackin' Threads

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Turtleneck 2014-07-14, 17:58

I suppose you can make your argument about sovereignty in a macro-historical sense. However, if you look at history from the formation of the modern state system and onset of market economies through the present, I disagree. In democracies, political institutions invite citizen participation. These democratic institutions give the appearance that citizens are making decisions, but this a place were perception often trumps reality. In many cases, decisions fail to reflect the common good and are more reflective of a narrow range of interests. More importantly, the world is not defined by democratic politics. There are authoritarian states that do no respect sovereignty, and plenty of hybrid states that successfully mix authoritarian politics with the democratic process.  This is not a path to freedom of the individual, but a but of a retreat from that path.

I agree with your assessment of the state, but this is where we part ways. While corporate interests do not benefit from standing armies, they are not kittens in a world of wolves. Corporate interests have certainly played a destructive role in the last two centuries of world history. This is especially true in what has become known as the developing world, and should include the negative impact that environmental degradation has had on quality of life in those places.  If you go one step further, and intertwine corporate interests with the power of the state (as a Marxist might insist we do in this conversation), the state has often used its capacity to wield violence on behalf of the private sector. Overall, when you put those two powers together, the lines over who can threaten you become blurred.
Turtleneck
Turtleneck
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 42442
Join date : 2014-04-22

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by The_Dude 2014-07-17, 12:57

xsanguine wrote: But I'm also not an advocate of violence.

That's good to know.
The_Dude
The_Dude
Pet Troll
Pet Troll

Posts : 7163
Join date : 2014-04-23

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by xsanguine 2014-07-18, 00:26

The_Dude wrote:

That's good to know.

It's a rare quality.
xsanguine
xsanguine
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 9838
Join date : 2014-04-23
Location : Hijackin' Threads

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Robert J Sakimano 2014-07-18, 09:19

I've never been to Hobby Lobby but I suspect that it's employees aren't the kind that people want to have sex with anyway..

 SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby 2599972566
Robert J Sakimano
Robert J Sakimano
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 49257
Join date : 2014-04-15

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Turtleneck 2014-07-18, 11:07

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I've never been to Hobby Lobby but I suspect that it's employees aren't the kind that people want to have sex with anyway..

 SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby 2599972566

They employee mostly bikini models that are very helpful when deciding on the best kind of glitter or glue for your scrapbook project.
Turtleneck
Turtleneck
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 42442
Join date : 2014-04-22

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Rodeo Burger 2014-07-24, 23:51

Do people realize that Hobby Lobby pays for 16 of the 20 available methods of what the ACA calls birth control, and does so against their beliefs?

Do people realize that Hobby Lobby only opted out of paying for abortive methods of birth control (like Plan B pills, etc.)?

Do people realize that the employees of Hobby Lobby can opt to pay for their own abortive methods of birth control if they choose to?

Does anyone care, or is this just another hate train to jump on?
Rodeo Burger
Rodeo Burger
Spartiate

Posts : 1104
Join date : 2014-05-01

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Cym Jim 2014-07-25, 02:39

Rodeo Burger wrote:Do people realize that the employees of Hobby Lobby can opt to pay for their own abortive methods of birth control if they choose to?

What do they have in mind? Something involving prayer and coat hangers?
Cym Jim
Cym Jim
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 1551
Join date : 2014-04-17

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by xsanguine 2014-07-25, 05:06

Cym Jim wrote:

What do they have in mind? Something involving prayer and coat hangers?

I was thinking something more like personal responsibility of the individuals looking for birth control and involving the bank accounts of those interested in birth control or abortion...

But given the contemporary culture, I can totally see why the assumption that someone else should foot the bill is a prominent line of thinking.
xsanguine
xsanguine
Geronte
Geronte

Posts : 9838
Join date : 2014-04-23
Location : Hijackin' Threads

Back to top Go down

SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby Empty Re: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum