TM7 if you want me to address individual points of your theory, please make individual points. If you want to assign to me what you think my theory is, then obfuscate, I'm going to move on with my day.
.
No obfuscating at all....I'm discussing your postulates you gave, and they don't seem to hold up. I gave you some discussion on my theory, history of unions, social contract, and a concept of natural order to ponder. Frankly, there is no concept of 'natural order' in these guys points of view, because there beliefs would not hold up very well during National Lawless Week. I kindly asked you to explain your theory more given that I don't think it is based in the reality of modern society, but instead being more a theoretical discussion. The reality is that human beings need food, shelter, security, redress for grievances, and some healthcare. I posit that there are those among this group that could not give two dimes for their fellow man as they are extremist in a dog eat dog world....that is their lot in life. Just look at the responses from some of these guys here...not compassion conservatives...just so-called conservatives; and they simply can not get that some human being may actually care about other human's quality of life...an unfathomable foreign concept for them, but prefer a corporate adulation instead.
Because I genuinely asked you to expound on your theory, but instead you deferred not to expound or took the 5th, we will just have to consider you a hostile witness along with the rest... 
This is yet another reason Unions came about,,,to get justice out of the unwilling.
Believe me...they would bring back slavery if they could. National Lawless Week may be coming...
..TM7
.
*Sigh*
There is nothing I've posted here or elsewhere that I am not willing and able to expand on. I try very hard in my life to make sure I have a deep understanding of a question or issue before forming an opinion.
The problem is that you didn't offer anything of substance to respond to. You assigned me a theory, injected "natural order" where it did not previously exist, and rambled. I will note, to your credit, that you refrained from the use of fictional words most commonly found on websites for the tinfoil hat crowd. I guess I should thank you for that.
I guess I'll try to tease some sense of meaning from you have posted. For the record, my thesis is a simple one and it has been posted here many times:
People should be paid what they are worth to their employer.History of Unions - I don't care. Just like I can't understand why people get hung up on the history of anything else. I once wrote at some length in a PM relating that I don't understand why some people choose to tie their own self esteem into the history of the Confederate States. Frankly, I still don't understand. But the history has nothing to do with my thesis, see above.
Social Contract - I didn't sign one. If you have a specific contract you think I have signed, or should sign, please produce it. We'll get to helping our fellow man below, but it doesn't related to my thesis, see above.
Natural Order - I've no idea what natural order you would like. I've made fun of the, "Shut up or I'll punch you" crowd all my life. I nearly got banned from this place a few years back over a disagreement with one particular guy who liked this kind of logic. It is what I see as the, "natural order" though. The biggest, strongest, fastest, etc... The difference in human evolution is that intelligence has at least equaled, if not passed physical traits, and we exist as a society of laws where things like punching are generally frowned upon.
Which leads us to "Lawless Week" - I've also spent a great deal of time here explaining that one particular requirement of "good ideas" is that they should be possible. When the, "Conservatives" suggest that we just shoot nuke the Middle East it is not an idea based in reality. If your idea is not possible, it is not a good idea. Lawless week is a fictional construct, and I haven't the slightest clue what it has to do with anything. Just 2 posts back I stood up for the rule of law, and I will continue to do so.
Finally I'm teasing out some type of "Common Man Needs Help" idea from you - I'm taking this idea from here:
among this group that could not give two dimes for their fellow man as they are extremist in a dog eat dog world....that is their lot in life. Just look at the responses from some of these guys here...not compassion conservatives...just so-called conservatives; and they simply can not get that some human being may actually care about other human's quality of life...an unfathomable foreign concept for them, but prefer a corporate adulation instead.
I agree. There are those who don't care. There are those that only care if you have the same skin color, religion, and geographic preference. There are those who care more about stray cats than people. Such is the world. No one, or rather, at least I am not, advocating that you cannot or should not help anyone you want. If you make $100 today and you want to give $80 of it to the US government to care for those less fortunate, I think that is fantastic. It's your money, if you want to burn it, eat it, snort it, hoard it, etc... who am I to care? I have a great deal of respect for those of donate their time and money to worthy causes. But there is a distinct difference between caring for others, and being forced to support others.
I wonder if perhaps you are indirectly trying to get at the idea of social Darwinism. If you were, perhaps we agree. I recognise that there are social costs to a fair system. And, as I said above, I think an idea must be possible to be a good one. So while I think (and said previously) that the minimum wage is unfair, I'm not spending a great deal of time advocating it's total repeal. The truth is that social harmony costs some money, and paying those worth $3.00 an hour more than twice that so they don't end up on the streets or in jail is a reasonable investment of society. Plus a repeal is simply not going to happen.
It is further true that attacking the unions will widen the distance between the top 1% of earners and the median. I'm not here to dodge that reality, and I am personally concerned about the long term social unrest that may arise. But, again, there are social costs to a fair system.
I too have read Ayn Rand. I consider myself a free market Libertarian. But the whole time I was reading Atlas Shrugged I was saying to myself, "Where was Ayn when the Cuyahoga River caught fire?" Unrestrained capitalism is not a panacea that she made it out to be. The question is, what is the maximum amount of freedom we can have as a society, and continue to exist as a society?
