>but I think that every citizen who pays taxes has a right to expect the
government to protect them from any corporation that might attempt to muscle
them.
No, I don't agree. The U.S. tax payer doesn't have the right to this
protection within the constitutional republic originally envisioned. they
do expect protection against crimes, which some of this abuse could be, but
not direct protection from industry, or even from each other. Even the
supreme court has found that the police have no obligation to PROTECT you,
only to investigate a crime after it has occurred to aid in prosecution.
--
Timothy Heald
Web Portfolio Manager
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2319
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail is
unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:31 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
I'm not a U.S. History or politics buff, but I'm sure it is in there
somewhere. What I said is that the government has a responsibility to do
this. While I may not know every piece (or any piece) of legislation, I do
know morality. The government does have a moral obligation to prevent
companies from abusing it's employees. Work conditions, salaries,
monopolies... there are laws to regulate all of these things in order to
prevent greed and economics from getting in the way of ethics. Not that it
doesn't still happen, but I think that every citizen who pays taxes has a
right to expect the government to protect them from any corporation that
might attempt to muscle them. Don't you?
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
Member of Team Macromedia
Macromedia Certified Instructor
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
Certified Flash MX Developer
CFDJList - List Administrator
http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 January 2004 15:49
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>but the government has a responsibility to step-in and draw the line
somewhere
Does it? Where in the constitution is this laid out? I must have missed
that part.
--
Timothy Heald
Web Portfolio Manager
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2319
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail
is
unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:45 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
because there's nothing preventing companies from abusing workers' rights
to
a decent standard of living. Some money is better than none, and there
will
always be somebody out there who will do the work for less. I'm not
saying
companies should pay premium prices for everything, but the government has
a
responsibility to step-in and draw the line somewhere. That line is based
on inflation, current cost of living, etc.
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
Member of Team Macromedia
Macromedia Certified Instructor
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
Certified Flash MX Developer
CFDJList - List Administrator
http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/> <http://www.how2cf.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 January 2004 15:37
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
Im for a business saying to a prospective worker, will you do this job
for
x
dollars per year? and i am for the worker saying no, I will do it for y
dollars a year. And then the company decides to either, hire the worker
or
look for another worker. I am not for removing the protections that we
in
the US enjoy as workers, I am saying that in a market economy a minimum
wage
is not needed, that the minimum acceptable wage for a job will be
determined
by the person willing to work for that price. what is so wrong with
that?
-----Original Message-----
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:30 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
So you are for Monopolies, Racism and discrimination?
-Gel
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Fair market value should be decided between the parties involved in
the
trade
I couldnt agree more.
-----Original Message-----
From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who decides what's fair? Why should it be the government? Most
elected
officials, hell most GS employees I know, have never had a real job.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/25/2003
_____
_____
_____
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
- RE: More Breaking News John Stanley
- RE: More Breaking News Schuster, Steven
- RE: More Breaking News John Stanley
- RE: More Breaking News Haggerty, Mike
- RE: More Breaking News Haggerty, Mike
- RE: More Breaking News Simon Horwith
- RE: More Breaking News Andre Turrettini
- RE: More Breaking News Bill Wheatley
- RE: More Breaking News Schuster, Steven
- RE: More Breaking News Larry C. Lyons
- RE: More Breaking News Heald, Tim
- RE: More Breaking News Simon Horwith
- RE: More Breaking News Heald, Tim
- RE: More Breaking News Larry C. Lyons
- RE: More Breaking News Bill Wheatley
- Re: More Breaking News Kevin Graeme
- Re:More Breaking News dana tierney
- RE: More Breaking News Bill Wheatley
- Re:More Breaking News dana tierney
- RE: More Breaking News Haggerty, Mike
- Re: More Breaking News Kevin Graeme