Why women's rights are wrong...

[Protoevangel]

Well, my interest in the direction this thread is going is so minimal; I am barely even paying attention at this point. But, I did see a couple of glaring errors that were so incredibly abusive and devoid of any semblance of logic or rational thought that I just had to say something.

Unions are horrible and unnecessary. How full of one's self one must be to dream that he is able to boss his boss. One may negotiate, individually, for more money or benefits according to his subjective value. But for a group to ban together and expect to bully the owner for higher raises and more benefits, insane. I hope the door it's everyone one of them on the way out. Owners should never deal with strikers. You might ask, "and what if the strikers are refusing to work for a legitimate reason?" Go find a different job.

How sad for so-called libertarians to deny so basic a human liberty as the Freedom of Association! ROFL my head off! I'm cryin' because it's so funny!!!

So, tell me again JAD, who is denying anyone any liberty? Is calling something "horrible and unnecessary" or even "insane" the same thing to you as denying anyone the liberty to do that thing? Just in case you plan on stretching your fallacious logic further, neither is suggesting that owners of businesses have the freedom to not deal with strikers (and should not do so) the same thing as denying the freedom of association to anyone.

Was this an intentional strawman, or do you really not understand the difference between not liking something and not allowing people to do that something?

Do you really believe that the government chooses better employees for someones business then they would?

Checkmate. You lose. The Government is not a market driven employer motivated by profit. It is motivated by cost, i.e., political reluctance to overspend taxpayer dollars. Now resign the game.

What kind of twisted "logical" process you are basing your "checkmate" on? ChiRho never claimed the government was a "market driven employer." More straw men. Maybe you can try to address ChiRho's points, and not just the peripheral minutiae before you claim "checkmate" next time.

 

[Joykins]

I disagree with a statement in this thread (sorry can't remember who wrote it) about stay at home moms with school aged children spending the same amount of time as the full-time moms anyway just because the kids are in school.

That's just an average for mothers of children 6-12. Obviously a lot of people are going to fall over it and under it.

I get my housework done during the time my daughter is at school so that I can be a part of the family after school lets out. I think it's great that technology has afforded me this benefit!

I only do minimal housework in part because I prefer to spend time with my family. Something always has to give. It's a complicated thing--I don't feel like I have an option not to work in our financial situation, but I am basically content with the situation (I don't have a high powered career, just a decent middle class job) and I don't know that I would be a good at-home mother either.

 

[ChiRho]

Well, my interest in the direction this thread is going is so minimal; I am barely even paying attention at this point. But, I did see a couple of glaring errors that were so incredibly abusive and devoid of any semblance of logic or rational thought that I just had to say something.


So, tell me again JAD, who is denying anyone any liberty? Is calling something "horrible and unnecessary" or even "insane" the same thing to you as denying anyone the liberty to do that thing? Just in case you plan on stretching your fallacious logic further, neither is suggesting that owners of businesses have the freedom to not deal with strikers (and should not do so) the same thing as denying the freedom of association to anyone.

Was this an intentional strawman, or do you really not understand the difference between not liking something and not allowing people to do that something?



What kind of twisted "logical" process you are basing your "checkmate" on? ChiRho never claimed the government was a "market driven employer." More straw men. Maybe you can try to address ChiRho's points, and not just the peripheral minutiae before you claim "checkmate" next time.

To Danhead:

Thanks, homie.

To JADVirginia:

Twice, in two straight days I have written a detailed response and upon completion, clicked that 'ole submit button. Twice my answers have been lost in cyber-space. Once Firefox froze and the other time, the forum rebelled against my will. So as soon as I feel the motivation to address your response again, I will. But this time I will simply cut and paste from an already saved piece of work in MS Word.

PS. DanHead, you have brought up two points that I addressed in my last two attempts at posting:

1) I do not deny the freedom of association. I believe modern Unions to be the product of the more insecure and less skilled employees, who by association, use the best employees as leverage to negotiate more money and benefits without actually being worth the increase. I never said they should be illegal. I detest homosexuality. It is nasty and perverted. I believe it is sinful. I would never support legislation that restricts the right for gays to be civily united. Anyone, of legal age and sound mind, that consents, should be allowed to join and be recognized by the state. Yes, that does mean that a lot of "married" couples in Kentucky would be free to exit from the shadow of their lone family tree.

2) As Danhead correctly points out, I never claimed the gubmint is a market driven employer. I will say this, I did laugh out loud when you claimed the gubmint's motivation was "political reluctance to overspend tax dollars."

Now that is funny.

Pax

 

[ChiRho]

Labor does not "equal" value; it has value. That's why employers pay. And even if something is not for sale, it has a value. The value can be measured by averaging similar potential transactions. That's how a Blue Book values used cars, or how real estate agents and appraisers value a house. Stay-at-home labor can be valued by what comparable services would cost from house keepers, gardeners, nannies, etc. This isn't Marxism.

I really think the boundaries are being blurred. When one is speaking of a limited demographic (those within the actual market that receive monetary compensation for services or products) factoring in such things as non-monetary work is impossible. First of all, the asinine extreme could be brought to the table. You claim that a gardener, a maid, a nanny, a hooker, etc. should provide the "value" or cost saved, by a wife accomplishing the same tasks. There are plenty of problems with this. Are men supposed to factor in room and board, meals, pain and suffering, etc., and deduct this from the overall money saved? Since there is no money exchanged, housechores should not factor in this discussion of economics. Imagine, by your logic, the amount I save by feeding myself, dressing myself, driving myself, breathing on my own, etc. How insane! If actual money is not exchanged, then it has no [measurable] value [in this discussion]. Do you look upon a marriage agreement as a business contract?

Oh yeah, estimates (outside of the money paid for the expert opinion of a professional; the advice, or knowledge, is as valuable as one is willing to pay for it) do not contain any kind of actual value [for the object being estimated]. If a real estate agent appraises your house at $150,000, and you receive no offers over $115,000, is your house still worth the estimate? Or is it worth what someone will actually pay for it? Hypothetical estimates contain hypothetical value.

To the contrary, they are linked very simply: Lots of individuals are needed to have a society.

Again, a blur, but I must take some credit for the confusion. I should have been more clear. While there is a connection between the concept of society and the reality of individuals, there is not a direct link between the pay scale of an employer and the money saved by the employee's wife. That is the link that I was denying.

Recall that I stated that when costs decrease among many supplers, the suppliers will lower their bids to remain competitive. Selfish employers will take the lower bids. To put it more simply . . . they pay less. It does not matter if they are private or public employers.

Who is arguing against "supply and demand?" Certainly not me. It seemed that you were describing collusion.

How sad for so-called libertarians to deny so basic a human liberty as the Freedom of Association! ROFL my head off! I'm cryin' because it's so funny!!!

See post above.

No. You put it too black-and-white. I am saying that women have more incentive to move from being home-labors to being wage earners. There remains other, non-economic incentives not to move.

What is the incentive for the move? What does your last sentence mean?

Checkmate. You lose. The Government is not a market driven employer motivated by profit. It is motivated by cost, i.e., political reluctance to overspend taxpayer dollars. Now resign the game.

Delusion, simply delusion. Retired gubmint employee, perhaps?

 

[ChiRho]

Just tryin' to keep this near the top...

 

[saami]

This should be done if father works. Primarily this should be done first by the church, then also at home...by both parents, but led by the father. We are commanded to provide (see above).

Teaching the faith should first be done by the parents - using the Small Catechism that Luther wrote for the fathers to use. Then on to a more rigorous cateshism instruction at church.

 

[ChiRho]

Teaching the faith should first be done by the parents - using the Small Catechism that Luther wrote for the fathers to use. Then on to a more rigorous cateshism instruction at church.

Where do they confess and hear absolution? Where do our children learn the liturgy? I was speaking of catechesis in the broad sense, not in the strict sense. They are catechized by the church beginning in their Baptism.

It is rather interesting that you agree that fathers are to instruct with the Catechism, considering your chosen position.