>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]

Reply via email to