>Who wrote that? Employers should be able to hire the people they wish,
>at a wage which is acceptable to both the employer and the employee.
>People like you don't like that idea because you KNOW what you are
>worth, and couldn't live on that.

>Lon

>>> On 5/6/2012 9:48 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>> No matter how you cut it....... people will start working when the
>>>> Government stops paying people not to work.

>>> bullshit

>>> cj

>> Much more likely they will change the government.  Most government
>> folks are well aware of that possibility.

>Just like in Greece and France - at the first sign that the government
>would slow down the gravy train (not even stop it, just slow it a bit),
>the people voted them out and found politicians who don't give a damn
>about the end result, they will keep stealing from one group of people
>to give it away to another group.  Anything to keep the freebies coming.
>  I just hope the rest of the world lets them all starve to death.

>> On 5/9/2012 6:31 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:46 -0400, RMcBane<rmcb...@aol.com>   wrote:

>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:02 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>> On 5/9/2012 10:57 AM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>>>>> Vito wrote:
>>>>>>> "LonVanOstran"<Lvanost...@gmail.com>   wrote
>>>>>>> | Vito wrote:
>>>>>>> |>   My first job was with AT&T. The person interviewing me had two
>>>>>>> choices:
>>>>>>> |>   offer me a standard job package or not. I had two choices: accept it
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> |>   not. There was no negotiating because the interviewer had no
>>>>>>> authority to
>>>>>>> |>   better or reduce the offer. That's SOP in most corporate jobs.
>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | You were not obliged to accept that limited offer
>>>>>>> | from a man who wasn't really the man with the power to offer it.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> Kindly elaborate. Should I have demanded to see his supervisor's
>>>>>>> supervisor and so on up to the guy who could negotiate who was 1000
>>>>>>> miles
>>>>>>> away?

>>>>>> Negotiating for wages is only slightly different than haggling over the
>>>>>> value of your Model 42 Winchester to a buyer at a gun show,

>>>>>> He wants to get it as cheaply as possible BUT HE WANTS IT. It's part of
>>>>>> the negotiating process to find out just how bad he wants it. What
>>>>>> skills do you have that the employer wants? What does your resume say
>>>>>> and what endorsements do you have from previous employers? Vito said it
>>>>>> was his first job.....he never cut grass or other chores for someone?
>>>>>> LZ

>>>>> Just as importantly, a laborer has to be as accurate in assessing his
>>>>> value to the employer as the seller to the buyer. Sometimes it is
>>>>> appropriate to say, "I am not bringing any experience in this field, I
>>>>> have no job history, I am a high risk to the employer, so I must be
>>>>> realistic and accept this offer, with the understanding that as I gain
>>>>> those skills and history, I will renegotiate." A person who comes in
>>>>> with $5/hour skills should think twice before demanding $10/hour.

>>>> It is also unreasonable for a person who has $10/hr skills to demand
>>>> $10/hr for a job that is only worth $5/hr to the employer.

>>> So you prefer communism?

>> How does paying someone for the value that they add to a company equate
>> to communism?

> The quickest way to communism or socialism is to impoverish a large
> part of the working population.  That is essentially what you are
> advocating when you say employers should be able to cut wages to suit
> themselves.

>> On 5/9/2012 3:03 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:54 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>> On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark<notherm...@not.here>   wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear
>>>>>>>>>>> and help
>>>>>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.

>>>>>>>> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>>>>> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>>>>> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.

>>>>>>> Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????

>>>>>>> Does anyone have a clue?

>>>>>>> What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>>>>> mind?

>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>> Yeah - what he said is that if you help a person once, they are
>>>>>> eternally entitled to everything you can give them from that point on to
>>>>>> infinity.

>>>>> Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein: Once of his characters was asked by
>>>>> someone to do something for him and he replied "No." The person asked,
>>>>> "Why not, you did it for me the last time I asked." The reply was, "If I
>>>>> do it once it's a favor, if I do it again it becomes part of my job."

>>>> Heinlein was a genius- he understood the problems we face as a society
>>>> better than any politician alive.  And that quote perfectly captures
>>>> mark's attitude - once the government helps, they have no choice but to
>>>> keep helping.  That is exactly why government should never help anyone.
>>> ----------------

>>> Truer words were never spoken.

>>> The Government should never help anyone.

>>> mike

>> The government has the same job as a referee in a football game - to
>> enforce the rules.  Not to make the rules, not to help one time win the
>> game, not to change the outcome of the game, simply to enforce the
>> rules.  If we could get the government completely out of the game,
>> except for stopping crime, we would all be better off.

> If the government does not make the rules then who does?

>>> On 5/9/2012 3:03 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:54 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark<notherm...@not.here>   wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear
>>>>>>>>>>>> and help
>>>>>>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.

>>>>>>>>> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>>>>>> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>>>>>> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.

>>>>>>>> Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????

>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a clue?

>>>>>>>> What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>>>>>> mind?

>>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>>> Yeah - what he said is that if you help a person once, they are
>>>>>>> eternally entitled to everything you can give them from that point on to
>>>>>>> infinity.

>>>>>> Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein: Once of his characters was asked by
>>>>>> someone to do something for him and he replied "No." The person asked,
>>>>>> "Why not, you did it for me the last time I asked." The reply was, "If I
>>>>>> do it once it's a favor, if I do it again it becomes part of my job."

>>>>> Heinlein was a genius- he understood the problems we face as a society
>>>>> better than any politician alive.  And that quote perfectly captures
>>>>> mark's attitude - once the government helps, they have no choice but to
>>>>> keep helping.  That is exactly why government should never help anyone.
>>>> ----------------

>>>> Truer words were never spoken.

>>>> The Government should never help anyone.

>>>> mike

>>> The government has the same job as a referee in a football game - to
>>> enforce the rules.  Not to make the rules, not to help one time win the
>>> game, not to change the outcome of the game, simply to enforce the
>>> rules.  If we could get the government completely out of the game,
>>> except for stopping crime, we would all be better off.

>> If the government does not make the rules then who does?

>In the marketplace, the free market does.

>>> On 5/9/2012 3:31 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:46 -0400, RMcBane<rmcb...@aol.com>   wrote:

>>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:02 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 10:57 AM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>>>>>> Vito wrote:
>>>>>>>> "LonVanOstran"<Lvanost...@gmail.com>   wrote
>>>>>>>> | Vito wrote:
>>>>>>>> |>   My first job was with AT&T. The person interviewing me had two
>>>>>>>> choices:
>>>>>>>> |>   offer me a standard job package or not. I had two choices: accept it
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> |>   not. There was no negotiating because the interviewer had no
>>>>>>>> authority to
>>>>>>>> |>   better or reduce the offer. That's SOP in most corporate jobs.
>>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> | You were not obliged to accept that limited offer
>>>>>>>> | from a man who wasn't really the man with the power to offer it.
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> Kindly elaborate. Should I have demanded to see his supervisor's
>>>>>>>> supervisor and so on up to the guy who could negotiate who was 1000
>>>>>>>> miles
>>>>>>>> away?

>>>>>>> Negotiating for wages is only slightly different than haggling over the
>>>>>>> value of your Model 42 Winchester to a buyer at a gun show,

>>>>>>> He wants to get it as cheaply as possible BUT HE WANTS IT. It's part of
>>>>>>> the negotiating process to find out just how bad he wants it. What
>>>>>>> skills do you have that the employer wants? What does your resume say
>>>>>>> and what endorsements do you have from previous employers? Vito said it
>>>>>>> was his first job.....he never cut grass or other chores for someone?
>>>>>>> LZ

>>>>>> Just as importantly, a laborer has to be as accurate in assessing his
>>>>>> value to the employer as the seller to the buyer. Sometimes it is
>>>>>> appropriate to say, "I am not bringing any experience in this field, I
>>>>>> have no job history, I am a high risk to the employer, so I must be
>>>>>> realistic and accept this offer, with the understanding that as I gain
>>>>>> those skills and history, I will renegotiate." A person who comes in
>>>>>> with $5/hour skills should think twice before demanding $10/hour.

>>>>> It is also unreasonable for a person who has $10/hr skills to demand
>>>>> $10/hr for a job that is only worth $5/hr to the employer.

>>>> So you prefer communism?

>>> Clearly you do - anything but a free market.

>> Only in your mind.

>Only basing my opinion on what you have written here.  You have never
>supported a free market - EVER.  You are at a minimum a total STATIST -
>you want government control over all facets of life - a free market
>never enters your mind.

>>>>> Your problem is that you cannot see a market without government
>>>>> intervention.  In fact, you have gotten so used to government
>>>>> intervention that you believe that such intervention is the natural
>>>>> state of affairs.

>>>>> In a free market the only place for government involvement it to prevent
>>>>> crime - real crime, not some sort of regulatory nonsense - crime like
>>>>> theft (taking your money and not providing product) or gross fraud (most
>>>>> of what passes for anti-fraud law is really an excuse to relieve people
>>>>> of the responsibility to do their own due diligence).

>>>>> For a couple small scale examples of free markets, look at garage sales
>>>>> and auctions.  In both cases people offer a product and other people try
>>>>> to obtain that product.  The sellers ask a price and the buyers
>>>>> negotiate that price - those negotiations are made with both the seller
>>>>> and the other buyers.  In the end both buyers and sellers leave
>>>>> satisfied - a price has been agreed upon that causes both sides to get
>>>>> what they want - or no sale happens.  No force, no coercion, just free
>>>>> trade.

>>>>> Now, before you say that will only work on the small scale of yard
>>>>> sales, you are wrong - it works everywhere on whatever scale you can
>>>>> choose.  You don't notice the auction going on when you go into Walmart,
>>>>> but you look at the camping equipment, check the quality, compare the
>>>>> price, and then make your bid (you either buy it, or you don't).  If
>>>>> Walmart has priced it too high, you keep your money and look elsewhere.
>>>>>    If the price is low, they sell a lot of them, and realize they could
>>>>> ask more, so they raise the price.

>> Sorry, I missed this last time.

>> For the most part there is a big difference between garage sales and
>> Walmart.  Garage sales are extracting some value from "stuff" so any
>> money is profit.  Walmart, or any other retail business, needs to set
>> prices high enough to cover their costs plus make a profit but low
>> enough to get my business in preference to the competition.  Your
>> auction idea is only part of the mix.  One of the reasons the old
>> Montgomery Wards went belly up was their distribution costs got so far
>> out of line that they could not sell cheap enough to compete.  There
>> are many more examples of that.

>Again your lack of understanding about how markets work makes it
>impossible for you to comprehend the discussion.  The market aspect of
>businesses like Walmart is absolutely no different from the market
>aspect of a yard sale.  Buyers and sellers seek a sale based on VALUE -
>and remember that value is ALWAYS subjective so when expenses go up,
>that figures into the auction - but only to the seller, the buyer still
>must determine value for himself.  Just because some businesses cannot
>compete does not change that equation at all.  When Wards sells a widget
>for $100 that you can get at Walmart for $75, people will make their
>auction choice and place their bid at Walmart.  Wards then has a choice,
>find a way to add more value (customer service for example) or find a
>way to reduce the price, or go out of business.  Every one of those
>options is simply a part of the economic auction.

>And, of course, if an item becomes too expensive for the value it
>provides, people will quit buying it completely.  That is the market in
>action - no one is guaranteed that whatever it is they are selling,
>whether it be widgets or labor, that they will find a buyer.  And the
>higher the costs (or more accurately the lower the value), the fewer
>buyers they will find.  That is exactly the way free markets are
>supposed to work.

>>>>> Every day, every transaction is part of the auction - unless the
>>>>> government gets involved and changes the rules.  Your problem is that
>>>>> you are scared to death of the freedom that comes with a market economy,
>>>>> and you want to be protected from yourself, so you want the government
>>>>> to step in and regulate everything.

>> You are misreading me.  I am quite content to let the market set
>> pricing.

>No, you aren't.  You refuse to let the market set the price for labor.

>> The protections I want from the government are along the lines of
>> assuring the product is what the box says it is and, in the case of
>> food and medicine that it is prepared and packaged in a clean
>> environment with reasonably pure materials.  Individuals have no way
>> of telling that on one hand but the potential for damage is great on
>> the other.

>Once more, your absolute dependence on a nanny government rears its ugly
>head.  Do you really believe that the government is the only possible
>way to obtain protection in the marketplace?  Have you ever heard of
>Consumer Reports?  Underwriters Laboratory?  Civil courts?  Insurance
>companies?  The government is not only NOT the only way to get
>protection, it is not even the best - not by a long shot.

>>>>> You want to be lazy and never have
>>>>> to do the work of protecting yourself - and (of course) you are so
>>>>> arrogant that you believe that most people are incapable of protecting
>>>>> themselves - so you demand that the government relieve them of any
>>>>> responsibility for their own decisions.

>> It's not a question of laziness or arrogance.  Few people have he
>> knowledge or facilities to test every chemical compound they buy to
>> make sure it is what the box says it is.  That is why the people
>> delegate the chore to the government and supposedly fund them to do
>> it.

>Anyone too incompetent to look in consumer reports or do some research
>on the internet, deserves the results they end up with.  But far more
>importantly, a free market system will result in real competition with
>the side effect that companies will promote their adherence to good
>business practices.  This is somewhat like eBay where people proudly
>brag about their 1 millionth customer and 97% satisfaction rating.  In a
>market without government involvement, companies will advertise that
>they have the Consumers Insurance seal of quality proving that they are
>a good place to do business.

>>>>> On the other hand, I am quite willing to accept the job of watching my
>>>>> own back, and am quite willing to accept the consequences for failing to
>>>>> do a good job of it.

>> I do not know if you are really that talented, that arrogant, that
>> naive, or that stupid.  You pick.

>You don't need to be very talented to do a little market research, and
>understand how markets work.

>>>>> But far more importantly, I believe that the vast
>>>>> majority of people are capable of doing the same thing, and those who
>>>>> aren't are not my problem - their families, friends, neighbors,
>>>>> churches, civic organizations and other people who know them personally
>>>>> can take on that task - or just leave them to learn the hard way.

>> I think most of them profoundly disagree with you.  I hear a lot more
>> folks complaining that about the lack of oversight than I do

>>> On 5/6/2012 9:48 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>> No matter how you cut it....... people will start working when the
>>>> Government stops paying people not to work.

>>> bullshit

>>> cj

>> Much more likely they will change the government.  Most government
>> folks are well aware of that possibility.

>Just like in Greece and France - at the first sign that the government
>would slow down the gravy train (not even stop it, just slow it a bit),
>the people voted them out and found politicians who don't give a damn
>about the end result, they will keep stealing from one group of people
>to give it away to another group.  Anything to keep the freebies coming.
>  I just hope the rest of the world lets them all starve to death.

>>And neither you nor Lon understand what I have written let alone what
>>I think.  
>-------------------------

>Mark, I am convinced that you do not understand what you write.
>Seriously.

>mike

>>> On 5/9/2012 6:31 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:46 -0400, RMcBane<rmcb...@aol.com>   wrote:

>>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:02 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 10:57 AM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>>>>>> Vito wrote:
>>>>>>>> "LonVanOstran"<Lvanost...@gmail.com>   wrote
>>>>>>>> | Vito wrote:
>>>>>>>> |>   My first job was with AT&T. The person interviewing me had two
>>>>>>>> choices:
>>>>>>>> |>   offer me a standard job package or not. I had two choices: accept it
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> |>   not. There was no negotiating because the interviewer had no
>>>>>>>> authority to
>>>>>>>> |>   better or reduce the offer. That's SOP in most corporate jobs.
>>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> | You were not obliged to accept that limited offer
>>>>>>>> | from a man who wasn't really the man with the power to offer it.
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> Kindly elaborate. Should I have demanded to see his supervisor's
>>>>>>>> supervisor and so on up to the guy who could negotiate who was 1000
>>>>>>>> miles
>>>>>>>> away?

>>>>>>> Negotiating for wages is only slightly different than haggling over the
>>>>>>> value of your Model 42 Winchester to a buyer at a gun show,

>>>>>>> He wants to get it as cheaply as possible BUT HE WANTS IT. It's part of
>>>>>>> the negotiating process to find out just how bad he wants it. What
>>>>>>> skills do you have that the employer wants? What does your resume say
>>>>>>> and what endorsements do you have from previous employers? Vito said it
>>>>>>> was his first job.....he never cut grass or other chores for someone?
>>>>>>> LZ

>>>>>> Just as importantly, a laborer has to be as accurate in assessing his
>>>>>> value to the employer as the seller to the buyer. Sometimes it is
>>>>>> appropriate to say, "I am not bringing any experience in this field, I
>>>>>> have no job history, I am a high risk to the employer, so I must be
>>>>>> realistic and accept this offer, with the understanding that as I gain
>>>>>> those skills and history, I will renegotiate." A person who comes in
>>>>>> with $5/hour skills should think twice before demanding $10/hour.

>>>>> It is also unreasonable for a person who has $10/hr skills to demand
>>>>> $10/hr for a job that is only worth $5/hr to the employer.

>>>> So you prefer communism?

>>> How does paying someone for the value that they add to a company equate
>>> to communism?

>> The quickest way to communism or socialism is to impoverish a large
>> part of the working population.  That is essentially what you are
>> advocating when you say employers should be able to cut wages to suit
>> themselves.

>So you would advocate paying employees more than the work they preform
>can generate as income for the company?  How long do you thing a company
>can do that?

>>> On 5/9/2012 3:03 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:54 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark<notherm...@not.here>   wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear
>>>>>>>>>>>> and help
>>>>>>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.

>>>>>>>>> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>>>>>> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>>>>>> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.

>>>>>>>> Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????

>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a clue?

>>>>>>>> What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>>>>>> mind?

>>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>>> Yeah - what he said is that if you help a person once, they are
>>>>>>> eternally entitled to everything you can give them from that point on to
>>>>>>> infinity.

>>>>>> Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein: Once of his characters was asked by
>>>>>> someone to do something for him and he replied "No." The person asked,
>>>>>> "Why not, you did it for me the last time I asked." The reply was, "If I
>>>>>> do it once it's a favor, if I do it again it becomes part of my job."

>>>>> Heinlein was a genius- he understood the problems we face as a society
>>>>> better than any politician alive.  And that quote perfectly captures
>>>>> mark's attitude - once the government helps, they have no choice but to
>>>>> keep helping.  That is exactly why government should never help anyone.
>>>> ----------------

>>>> Truer words were never spoken.

>>>> The Government should never help anyone.

>>>> mike

>>> The government has the same job as a referee in a football game - to
>>> enforce the rules.  Not to make the rules, not to help one time win the
>>> game, not to change the outcome of the game, simply to enforce the
>>> rules.  If we could get the government completely out of the game,
>>> except for stopping crime, we would all be better off.

>> If the government does not make the rules then who does?

>The people involved in the deal through the contracts that they
>negotiate, whether verbal or written.

>> On 5/9/2012 8:55 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:06:25 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:03 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:54 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark<notherm...@not.here>    wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and help
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.

>>>>>>>>>> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>>>>>>> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>>>>>>> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.

>>>>>>>>> Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????

>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a clue?

>>>>>>>>> What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>>>>>>> mind?

>>>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>>>> Yeah - what he said is that if you help a person once, they are
>>>>>>>> eternally entitled to everything you can give them from that point on to
>>>>>>>> infinity.

>>>>>>> Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein: Once of his characters was asked by
>>>>>>> someone to do something for him and he replied "No." The person asked,
>>>>>>> "Why not, you did it for me the last time I asked." The reply was, "If I
>>>>>>> do it once it's a favor, if I do it again it becomes part of my job."

>>>>>> Heinlein was a genius- he understood the problems we face as a society
>>>>>> better than any politician alive.  And that quote perfectly captures
>>>>>> mark's attitude - once the government helps, they have no choice but to
>>>>>> keep helping.  That is exactly why government should never help anyone.
>>>>> ----------------

>>>>> Truer words were never spoken.

>>>>> The Government should never help anyone.

>>>>> mike

>>>> The government has the same job as a referee in a football game - to
>>>> enforce the rules.  Not to make the rules, not to help one time win the
>>>> game, not to change the outcome of the game, simply to enforce the
>>>> rules.  If we could get the government completely out of the game,
>>>> except for stopping crime, we would all be better off.

>>> If the government does not make the rules then who does?

>> The people involved in the deal through the contracts that they
>> negotiate, whether verbal or written.

> But who enforces the contracts?

>> On 5/9/2012 5:55 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:06:25 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:03 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:54 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark<notherm...@not.here>    wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and help
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.

>>>>>>>>>> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>>>>>>> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>>>>>>> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.

>>>>>>>>> Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????

>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a clue?

>>>>>>>>> What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>>>>>>> mind?

>>>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>>>> Yeah - what he said is that if you help a person once, they are
>>>>>>>> eternally entitled to everything you can give them from that point on to
>>>>>>>> infinity.

>>>>>>> Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein: Once of his characters was asked by
>>>>>>> someone to do something for him and he replied "No." The person asked,
>>>>>>> "Why not, you did it for me the last time I asked." The reply was, "If I
>>>>>>> do it once it's a favor, if I do it again it becomes part of my job."

>>>>>> Heinlein was a genius- he understood the problems we face as a society
>>>>>> better than any politician alive.  And that quote perfectly captures
>>>>>> mark's attitude - once the government helps, they have no choice but to
>>>>>> keep helping.  That is exactly why government should never help anyone.
>>>>> ----------------

>>>>> Truer words were never spoken.

>>>>> The Government should never help anyone.

>>>>> mike

>>>> The government has the same job as a referee in a football game - to
>>>> enforce the rules.  Not to make the rules, not to help one time win the
>>>> game, not to change the outcome of the game, simply to enforce the
>>>> rules.  If we could get the government completely out of the game,
>>>> except for stopping crime, we would all be better off.

>>> If the government does not make the rules then who does?

>> In the marketplace, the free market does.

> Then the two rules would be

> 1. There are no rules

> or

> 2. He who has the gold rules.

> Anarchy or dictatorship.  Probably anarchy leading to dictatorship
> leading to cyclic collapses of government.

>> On 5/9/2012 5:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:09:25 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:31 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:46 -0400, RMcBane<rmcb...@aol.com>    wrote:

>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:02 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 10:57 AM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Vito wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "LonVanOstran"<Lvanost...@gmail.com>    wrote
>>>>>>>>> | Vito wrote:
>>>>>>>>> |>    My first job was with AT&T. The person interviewing me had two
>>>>>>>>> choices:
>>>>>>>>> |>    offer me a standard job package or not. I had two choices: accept it
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> |>    not. There was no negotiating because the interviewer had no
>>>>>>>>> authority to
>>>>>>>>> |>    better or reduce the offer. That's SOP in most corporate jobs.
>>>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> | You were not obliged to accept that limited offer
>>>>>>>>> | from a man who wasn't really the man with the power to offer it.
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> Kindly elaborate. Should I have demanded to see his supervisor's
>>>>>>>>> supervisor and so on up to the guy who could negotiate who was 1000
>>>>>>>>> miles
>>>>>>>>> away?

>>>>>>>> Negotiating for wages is only slightly different than haggling over the
>>>>>>>> value of your Model 42 Winchester to a buyer at a gun show,

>>>>>>>> He wants to get it as cheaply as possible BUT HE WANTS IT. It's part of
>>>>>>>> the negotiating process to find out just how bad he wants it. What
>>>>>>>> skills do you have that the employer wants? What does your resume say
>>>>>>>> and what endorsements do you have from previous employers? Vito said it
>>>>>>>> was his first job.....he never cut grass or other chores for someone?
>>>>>>>> LZ

>>>>>>> Just as importantly, a laborer has to be as accurate in assessing his
>>>>>>> value to the employer as the seller to the buyer. Sometimes it is
>>>>>>> appropriate to say, "I am not bringing any experience in this field, I
>>>>>>> have no job history, I am a high risk to the employer, so I must be
>>>>>>> realistic and accept this offer, with the understanding that as I gain
>>>>>>> those skills and history, I will renegotiate." A person who comes in
>>>>>>> with $5/hour skills should think twice before demanding $10/hour.

>>>>>> It is also unreasonable for a person who has $10/hr skills to demand
>>>>>> $10/hr for a job that is only worth $5/hr to the employer.

>>>>> So you prefer communism?

>>>> Clearly you do - anything but a free market.

>>> Only in your mind.

>> Only basing my opinion on what you have written here.  You have never
>> supported a free market - EVER.  You are at a minimum a total STATIST -
>> you want government control over all facets of life - a free market
>> never enters your mind.

> I think Heinlein spelled it out for you in Doublestar.  Starship
> Troopers also did a good job.  The book, not the movie.

> The problem with your "free market" idea is that you want one with no
> rules.  I want one with rules equally applied to all players.  Neither
> of those models assume government control.  If you look hard my
> version is significantly more "free" than yours.

>> Just like in Greece and France - at the first sign that the government
>> would slow down the gravy train (not even stop it, just slow it a bit),
>> the people voted them out and found politicians who don't give a damn
>> about the end result, they will keep stealing from one group of people
>> to give it away to another group.  Anything to keep the freebies coming.
>>   I just hope the rest of the world lets them all starve to death.

> Watch the show.  It's not what they promise, it's what they deliver
> that counts.

>>> On 5/9/2012 8:55 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:06:25 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:03 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:54 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark<notherm...@not.here>    wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.

>>>>>>>>>>> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>>>>>>>> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>>>>>>>> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.

>>>>>>>>>> Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????

>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a clue?

>>>>>>>>>> What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>>>>>>>> mind?

>>>>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>>>>> Yeah - what he said is that if you help a person once, they are
>>>>>>>>> eternally entitled to everything you can give them from that point on to
>>>>>>>>> infinity.

>>>>>>>> Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein: Once of his characters was asked by
>>>>>>>> someone to do something for him and he replied "No." The person asked,
>>>>>>>> "Why not, you did it for me the last time I asked." The reply was, "If I
>>>>>>>> do it once it's a favor, if I do it again it becomes part of my job."

>>>>>>> Heinlein was a genius- he understood the problems we face as a society
>>>>>>> better than any politician alive.  And that quote perfectly captures
>>>>>>> mark's attitude - once the government helps, they have no choice but to
>>>>>>> keep helping.  That is exactly why government should never help anyone.
>>>>>> ----------------

>>>>>> Truer words were never spoken.

>>>>>> The Government should never help anyone.

>>>>>> mike

>>>>> The government has the same job as a referee in a football game - to
>>>>> enforce the rules.  Not to make the rules, not to help one time win the
>>>>> game, not to change the outcome of the game, simply to enforce the
>>>>> rules.  If we could get the government completely out of the game,
>>>>> except for stopping crime, we would all be better off.

>>>> If the government does not make the rules then who does?

>>> The people involved in the deal through the contracts that they
>>> negotiate, whether verbal or written.

>> But who enforces the contracts?

>Dumbass - that was the point of the discussion - the government enforces
>the rules - that means that the government's only job in that
>transaction is to enforce the contract.   They don't get to write the
>contract; they don;t get to decide if it is a good contract; they don't
>get to decide if it is a fair contract; the only thing they get to do is
>enforce the contract.

>>> On 5/9/2012 5:55 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:06:25 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:03 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:54 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark<notherm...@not.here>    wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.

>>>>>>>>>>> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>>>>>>>> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>>>>>>>> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.

>>>>>>>>>> Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????

>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a clue?

>>>>>>>>>> What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>>>>>>>> mind?

>>>>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>>>>> Yeah - what he said is that if you help a person once, they are
>>>>>>>>> eternally entitled to everything you can give them from that point on to
>>>>>>>>> infinity.

>>>>>>>> Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein: Once of his characters was asked by
>>>>>>>> someone to do something for him and he replied "No." The person asked,
>>>>>>>> "Why not, you did it for me the last time I asked." The reply was, "If I
>>>>>>>> do it once it's a favor, if I do it again it becomes part of my job."

>>>>>>> Heinlein was a genius- he understood the problems we face as a society
>>>>>>> better than any politician alive.  And that quote perfectly captures
>>>>>>> mark's attitude - once the government helps, they have no choice but to
>>>>>>> keep helping.  That is exactly why government should never help anyone.
>>>>>> ----------------

>>>>>> Truer words were never spoken.

>>>>>> The Government should never help anyone.

>>>>>> mike

>>>>> The government has the same job as a referee in a football game - to
>>>>> enforce the rules.  Not to make the rules, not to help one time win the
>>>>> game, not to change the outcome of the game, simply to enforce the
>>>>> rules.  If we could get the government completely out of the game,
>>>>> except for stopping crime, we would all be better off.

>>>> If the government does not make the rules then who does?

>>> In the marketplace, the free market does.

>> Then the two rules would be

>> 1. There are no rules

>> or

>> 2. He who has the gold rules.

>> Anarchy or dictatorship.  Probably anarchy leading to dictatorship
>> leading to cyclic collapses of government.

>Talking to you is conducting a circular discussion.  You are completely
>incapable of remembering one part of the discussion from one post to the
>next (even when it is quoted).  The general rules of society always
>apply (no coercion or force, no theft) but for marketplace transactions,
>beyond those societal rules, the marketplace does not need rules.  Every
>transaction becomes a contract, whether written or unwritten, and the
>only place the government is needed is to enforce those contracts.  If
>no one can force you to buy a product, you can't be harmed by the
>transaction.  Again, just like doing business at a yard sale - you
>ALWAYS walk away satisfied with the transaction - and if you don't, it
>is your own fault.

>Of course you are so completely afraid of freedom that you would never
>even consider a free market - you might have to think for yourself once
>in a while.

>> >Dumbass - that was the point of the discussion - the government enforces
>> >the rules - that means that the government's only job in that
>> >transaction is to enforce the contract.   They don't get to write the
>> >contract; they don;t get to decide if it is a good contract; they don't
>> >get to decide if it is a fair contract; the only thing they get to do is
>> >enforce the contract.
> If the government enforces the contracts then they are making rules
> along the line of "contracts must be met" and interpreting the
> contracts so that one party cannot claim the other party did not live
> up to the contract while the other party claims they did.  That pretty
> much describes what we have going on now.  The only immediately
> obvious issue is the legality of the actions contracted for.

> When considering the last comment you might want to consider the
> recreational drug business.  The major reason it is violent is that
> there is no outside power to enforce contracts.

>>> Just like in Greece and France - at the first sign that the government
>>> would slow down the gravy train (not even stop it, just slow it a bit),
>>> the people voted them out and found politicians who don't give a damn
>>> about the end result, they will keep stealing from one group of people
>>> to give it away to another group.  Anything to keep the freebies coming.
>>>   I just hope the rest of the world lets them all starve to death.

>> Watch the show.  It's not what they promise, it's what they deliver
>> that counts.

>That's two different discussions - my comment was regarding the people -
>the average person (well, the average person receiving some level of
>government largess) doesn't give a fuck about the country, other people,
>world markets, or any aspect of the future other than getting their
>freebies.  When they are told that they must give up the gravy train or
>the country will fail, they say, "So what?  I want my stuff, and it is
>your job to give it to me."

>The politicians might realize they are lying when they promise the moon,
>but they know full well that telling that lie will get them elected.

>In the end the same thing will happen here - the scum living off the
>government will demand that their goodies keep coming - "Tax the rich!"
>  "Confiscate corporate profits!"  "Nationalize business!"  "We don't
>care where you get the money, just keep our checks coming."  Even now,
>any talk of trimming government giveaways results in lies and
>demonstrations.  In a few short years we will be Greece because there is
>no national will to make the changes to prevent that from happening.

>> On 5/9/2012 8:52 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:48:21 -0400, RMcBane<rmcb...@aol.com>   wrote:

>>>> On 5/9/2012 6:31 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:59:46 -0400, RMcBane<rmcb...@aol.com>    wrote:

>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:02 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 10:57 AM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Vito wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "LonVanOstran"<Lvanost...@gmail.com>    wrote
>>>>>>>>> | Vito wrote:
>>>>>>>>> |>    My first job was with AT&T. The person interviewing me had two
>>>>>>>>> choices:
>>>>>>>>> |>    offer me a standard job package or not. I had two choices: accept it
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> |>    not. There was no negotiating because the interviewer had no
>>>>>>>>> authority to
>>>>>>>>> |>    better or reduce the offer. That's SOP in most corporate jobs.
>>>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>>>> |>
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> | You were not obliged to accept that limited offer
>>>>>>>>> | from a man who wasn't really the man with the power to offer it.
>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>> Kindly elaborate. Should I have demanded to see his supervisor's
>>>>>>>>> supervisor and so on up to the guy who could negotiate who was 1000
>>>>>>>>> miles
>>>>>>>>> away?

>>>>>>>> Negotiating for wages is only slightly different than haggling over the
>>>>>>>> value of your Model 42 Winchester to a buyer at a gun show,

>>>>>>>> He wants to get it as cheaply as possible BUT HE WANTS IT. It's part of
>>>>>>>> the negotiating process to find out just how bad he wants it. What
>>>>>>>> skills do you have that the employer wants? What does your resume say
>>>>>>>> and what endorsements do you have from previous employers? Vito said it
>>>>>>>> was his first job.....he never cut grass or other chores for someone?
>>>>>>>> LZ

>>>>>>> Just as importantly, a laborer has to be as accurate in assessing his
>>>>>>> value to the employer as the seller to the buyer. Sometimes it is
>>>>>>> appropriate to say, "I am not bringing any experience in this field, I
>>>>>>> have no job history, I am a high risk to the employer, so I must be
>>>>>>> realistic and accept this offer, with the understanding that as I gain
>>>>>>> those skills and history, I will renegotiate." A person who comes in
>>>>>>> with $5/hour skills should think twice before demanding $10/hour.

>>>>>> It is also unreasonable for a person who has $10/hr skills to demand
>>>>>> $10/hr for a job that is only worth $5/hr to the employer.

>>>>> So you prefer communism?

>>>> How does paying someone for the value that they add to a company equate
>>>> to communism?

>>> The quickest way to communism or socialism is to impoverish a large
>>> part of the working population.  That is essentially what you are
>>> advocating when you say employers should be able to cut wages to suit
>>> themselves.

>> So you would advocate paying employees more than the work they preform
>> can generate as income for the company?  How long do you thing a company
>> can do that?

> If everybody has the same approximate wage structure then the answer
> is quite a long time.  That is the basis for the minimum wage and
> living wage ideas.

> Most folks who want to pay $5 for a $10 skill worker are really either
> trying to screw the competition, trying to unduly increase their
> share, trying to cover their incompetence as a manager, or delusional
> about what a job is worth.  If I missed a reason please add it.

>> On 5/9/2012 8:55 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:06:25 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> On 5/9/2012 3:03 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:54 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark<notherm...@not.here>    wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and help
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.

>>>>>>>>>> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>>>>>>> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>>>>>>> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.

>>>>>>>>> Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????

>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have a clue?

>>>>>>>>> What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>>>>>>> mind?

>>>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>>>> Yeah - what he said is that if you help a person once, they are
>>>>>>>> eternally entitled to everything you can give them from that point on to
>>>>>>>> infinity.

>>>>>>> Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein: Once of his characters was asked by
>>>>>>> someone to do something for him and he replied "No." The person asked,
>>>>>>> "Why not, you did it for me the last time I asked." The reply was, "If I
>>>>>>> do it once it's a favor, if I do it again it becomes part of my job."

>>>>>> Heinlein was a genius- he understood the problems we face as a society
>>>>>> better than any politician alive.  And that quote perfectly captures
>>>>>> mark's attitude - once the government helps, they have no choice but to
>>>>>> keep helping.  That is exactly why government should never help anyone.
>>>>> ----------------

>>>>> Truer words were never spoken.

>>>>> The Government should never help anyone.

>>>>> mike

>>>> The government has the same job as a referee in a football game - to
>>>> enforce the rules.  Not to make the rules, not to help one time win the
>>>> game, not to change the outcome of the game, simply to enforce the
>>>> rules.  If we could get the government completely out of the game,
>>>> except for stopping crime, we would all be better off.

>>> If the government does not make the rules then who does?

>> The people involved in the deal through the contracts that they
>> negotiate, whether verbal or written.

> But who enforces the contracts?

>> On 5/10/2012 5:38 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:43:21 -0700, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> Just like in Greece and France - at the first sign that the government
>>>> would slow down the gravy train (not even stop it, just slow it a bit),
>>>> the people voted them out and found politicians who don't give a damn
>>>> about the end result, they will keep stealing from one group of people
>>>> to give it away to another group.  Anything to keep the freebies coming.
>>>>    I just hope the rest of the world lets them all starve to death.

>>> Watch the show.  It's not what they promise, it's what they deliver
>>> that counts.

>> That's two different discussions - my comment was regarding the people -
>> the average person (well, the average person receiving some level of
>> government largess) doesn't give a fuck about the country, other people,
>> world markets, or any aspect of the future other than getting their
>> freebies.  When they are told that they must give up the gravy train or
>> the country will fail, they say, "So what?  I want my stuff, and it is
>> your job to give it to me."

> Not really.  Most assume the government can afford it.  Look how much
> they waste on .... pick an answer.

>> Talking to you is conducting a circular discussion.  You are completely
>> incapable of remembering one part of the discussion from one post to the
>> next (even when it is quoted).  The general rules of society always
>> apply (no coercion or force, no theft) but for marketplace transactions,
>> beyond those societal rules, the marketplace does not need rules.  Every
>> transaction becomes a contract, whether written or unwritten, and the
>> only place the government is needed is to enforce those contracts.  If
>> no one can force you to buy a product, you can't be harmed by the
>> transaction.  Again, just like doing business at a yard sale - you
>> ALWAYS walk away satisfied with the transaction - and if you don't, it
>> is your own fault.

>> Of course you are so completely afraid of freedom that you would never
>> even consider a free market - you might have to think for yourself once
>> in a while.

> I am not in a circular arguement.  I suspect you have an incomplete
> model.  You are the one who specified no rules or the market supplied
> the rules.  Now you want "The general rules of society" applied.  In
> order to do that we need to codify "the general rules".