Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 12, 2012, 01:08 PM   #51
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by obeygiant View Post
Congratulations to Glocke12 who was just promoted from a single person to "some people".
You're probably right.

I'm sure if we polled Americans, Glocke12 would be the only person in the entire nation who'd support such a measure.

citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 01:36 PM   #52
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
You're probably right.

I'm sure if we polled Americans, Glocke12 would be the only person in the entire nation who'd support such a measure.

I'm certainly right there with him!

Call it a poll tax, call it disenfranchisement, call it outright discrimination. I don't really care.

Individuals who vote with zero knowledge of the candidates, their positions, the issues which need to be addressed, et al, do no service to the positive evolution of this country.

I'm just one of those crazy, insensitive, prejudiced individuals who believe that there are responsibilities that are tied to the right to vote.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 01:47 PM   #53
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Individuals who vote with zero knowledge of the candidates, their positions, the issues which need to be addressed, et al, do no service to the positive evolution of this country.
What if you can't get to the test in time?
What if you're disabled and can't get to the test?
What if you can't read?
What if you don't speak the language the test was written in?
What if the test isn't "fair" (for whatever reason)?

You could be plenty knowledgeable about candidates/positions and still be tripped up by the test requirement. We need to make voting as EASY as humanly possible.
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 01:48 PM   #54
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
I'm certainly right there with him!
The interesting aspect of this is how it fits into the promise of the U.S. being "the land of the free".

My original point was we restrict personal freedom in many, many ways for the sake of society.

And you—I would imagine—value freedom and believe yourself to be an advocate for it. Yet you support this idea that would take away one of the most cherished freedoms this nation has traditionally held so dear.

I'm not trying to bash you for supporting this (though I personally disagree with your position). I'm really just addressing classicliberal's original question of whether we should sacrifice personal freedom for the benefit of society.

And you've helped reinforce that we should.
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 01:54 PM   #55
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
What if you can't get to the test in time?
What if you're disabled and can't get to the test?
What if you can't read?
What if you don't speak the language the test was written in?
What if the test isn't "fair" (for whatever reason)?

You could be plenty knowledgeable about candidates/positions and still be tripped up by the test requirement. We need to make voting as EASY as humanly possible.
What if you're just an idiot? (Generic "you're", not personal)

Yeah, you're right. In fact, it is blatantly unfair to have any kind of qualifying rules for anything. Driver's license tests? Forget 'em. College entrance qualifications? Throw 'em away. Handgun purchase/carry rules? Naw!

It's just not fair to have to make anyone abide by any rules at all. Just not fair...
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:03 PM   #56
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
What if you're just an idiot? (Generic "you're", not personal)

Yeah, you're right. In fact, it is blatantly unfair to have any kind of qualifying rules for anything. Driver's license tests? Forget 'em. College entrance qualifications? Throw 'em away. Handgun purchase/carry rules? Naw!

It's just not fair to have to make anyone abide by any rules at all. Just not fair...
Voting is the only system we have for influencing the legal/government world we live in. Disenfranchisement must be avoided at any/all costs. It's so easy to strip a group of their rights, consider them "lesser", and marginalize them away. This has happened throughout all of human history (human nature), and our grand democratic experiment is trying to resist that temptation.

Tell you what, if you won't let me (generic "me") vote, then I'm no longer subject to laws passed by congressmen, as I am no longer represented in government.

Maybe we should go back to pre-woman's suffrage times? You know, those flighty women shouldn't be making decisions about important things...
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache

Last edited by lannister80; Dec 12, 2012 at 02:04 PM. Reason: typo
lannister80 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:09 PM   #57
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
...

Maslow later explained this in the sense that motivation is more complex than just money, operates on different levels of functioning, and it has a huge relationship to worker productivity. Chester Barnard identified many of the issues that corporations and governments fail to take into account leading to not just low efficiency, but low effectiveness. Sadly, neither governments nor corporations seem to have read his book.
That's an interesting point. I think we've seen that the right way to eliminate the need for a union is to have a shop that pays well, not trying to attack the union's ability to organize or manage itself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftLives View Post
I live in a right-to-work state. So please forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand some of the intricacies and nuances of unions. I get that it's a way for workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits. But in union-friendly states, are you required to join one? Do you have the option of not joining a union? Can non-union members and union members work alongside each other at the same job?
So do I. My understanding is that certain 'shops' like say steel fabrication could be 'union shops' requiring that new employees either join the union and pay dues, or pay a fee commensurate with the union's costs to defend an employee against unfair labor practices.

Someone who was ideologically opposed to the union could escape, but they'd still have to send a part of their paycheck to the union. Now, in Michigan, people can refuse the union altogether, though they will still get the benefits should they be injured, fired without cause, or should the shop argue for raises.

And, this will make it harder for new unions for form.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
I'm certainly right there with him!

Call it a poll tax, call it disenfranchisement, call it outright discrimination. I don't really care.

Individuals who vote with zero knowledge of the candidates, their positions, the issues which need to be addressed, et al, do no service to the positive evolution of this country.

I'm just one of those crazy, insensitive, prejudiced individuals who believe that there are responsibilities that are tied to the right to vote.
I guess the question is, what's in the test? Basic citizenship questions? Current events? Should I be able to answer economic or social questions? History?

How will the test be managed? Do I do it at the polling station? Maybe as part of my voter registration?

Who writes the test? State secretaries? Or is the test national?

Basically, I see this as a jurisdictional nightmare with huge partisan manipulations that will end up souring voters who understand a particular issue very well, but may not be learn'd in others. Ultimately, such a test won't give us a better electorate.

Of course, part of me says go for it, because every almost every knucklehead I've run into at the voting location has been a hard-set Republican. The evangelicals will step on a rake on any fair test, and I see the cadre of scientists/researchers/journalists I hang out with passing such a test with flying colors. Literally, big gay flags over the capitol.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:12 PM   #58
anonymouslurker
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
What if you're just an idiot?
You'd think the diehard liberals would be in favor of this, since they're always going on about how much "more educated" people tend to vote Democrat?

Wouldn't they just love to get rid of the "dumb southern" Republican base that just blindly votes?
anonymouslurker is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:12 PM   #59
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
... Maybe we should go back to pre-woman's suffrage times? You know, those flighty women shouldn't be making decisions about important things...
If you think denying the voting right to women (or blacks, or gays, or ...) simply because of their physical, ethnic, genetic, etc. makeup is equivalent to denying the right to vote to people who can not or will not make the effort to understand what the ****** they're voting for, then it is pointless to continue the conversation.

I know, I'm just a cruel, heartless bastard. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:14 PM   #60
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by LethalWolfe View Post

In my personal experience I would say that large corporations (national or global in size) are generally unethical when it comes to things impacting fiances and profit. I've worked for some of the biggest and I never got the feeling that they cared about the 'rank and file' employees. Some things they did were illegal like work schedules that prevent people from taking lunch breaks or being denied pay for authorized over time and others were just underhanded like changing your position from staff to freelance so they wouldn't have to offer you benefits.
While that does happen, the IRS can deem it illegal. They have a checklist to determine whether someone is an employee or a contractor. I don't know how well it's reported or enforced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post

Oh, interesting. I didn't know that. A friend of mine just signed one, will have to let her know it's boilerplate.

But, of course, my point still stands. Employees agree not to compete, not to disclose secrets, not to do a bunch of drugs on the weekend, etc. in what would be considered "freedom-limiting" agreements, but we understand that this freedom faces a kind of balance test. A union membership, or paying a fee, is just another example.

The William Wallace cries for "freedom!" are put-ons.
I looked for a better article on this one. I couldn't find many. The pdf on the ruling is no longer at that link as it's several years old.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...mpete-clauses/
Quote:
California law was a bit of an exception, as it appeared to limit the scope of these clauses, but the relevant statutes had been interpreted differently in the State and Federal court systems. Now, the California Supreme Court has issued a ruling (PDF) that holds that, with the exception of a few narrow situations explicitly spelled out by law, noncompete clauses have no legal standing.
This should provide more background on the case. I found a couple other links, but that one was actually pretty good.

I think NDAs provide sufficient protection along with the obvious not showing up to work with a hangover. Otherwise companies could hire off employees for their secrets and knowledge of future product cycles rather than their actual skills. Non compete clauses are just artificial salary caps. They rely on skills and experience rather than confidential proprietary knowledge.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:15 PM   #61
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouslurker View Post
You'd think the diehard liberals would be in favor of this, since they're always going on about how much "more educated" people tend to vote Democrat?

Wouldn't they just love to get rid of the "dumb southern" Republican base that just blindly votes?
The problem is they're afraid they'd lose a large chunk of their electorate as well.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:23 PM   #62
Raid
macrumors 68020
 
Raid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
I'm looking for a valid reasonable explanation from someone on the other side as to why free individuals shouldn't have the choice of whether or not to join a union. I'm seeking to better understand the alternative view. Thank you in advance.
First off as an Economist, I'm generally not in favour of unions in their current structure; unions seem more inclined to protect themselves than the workers who pay dues and, on the flip side, the companies who use their workforce.

However this right-to-work legislation is a race to the bottom of labour bargaining power. Without a consolidated group representing the labour force, the result will be a lack of standardized wages, benefits, job security, and labour negotiating power for when employers or the employee(s) want to change the deal.

In terms of the issue of personal freedom vs 'good of the society' i would assert that generally those countries with strong unionized work forces have a better standard of living than those countries without. Now I know correlation != causation, but the data is interesting:

HDI Rank Country Percent of Union Members
1 Norway 57%
2 Sweden 82%
3 Canada 30%
4 Belgium 53%
5 Australia 25%
6 United States 13%
7 Iceland !
8 Netherlands 25%
9 Japan 22%
10 Finland 76%

Observation, all but Iceland were in the top unionized countries list. 7 of these countries in the top 10 of the HDI ranking had at least 25% of their labour force unionized.

Sources:
Human Development Ranking: UNDP (2002 release using 2000 data)
Union members as % of all employees. Figures are from the OECD. The figures are from EIRO for France, Ireland and Italy Figures are for 2000.
! Iceland missing from labour data source. A 2007 document puts the count of trade union members at 96,400 and the wiki (quoting the CIA world factbook) quotes the 2007 population of Iceland to be 309,605, for a minimum percentage of 31.1%. This is expected to be much higher as the size of the labour force of any given nation is less than the total population.

You're welcome.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton

Last edited by Raid; Dec 12, 2012 at 02:47 PM. Reason: how do you format tables in this thing, seriously
Raid is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:28 PM   #63
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouslurker View Post
You'd think the diehard liberals would be in favor of this, since they're always going on about how much "more educated" people tend to vote Democrat?

Wouldn't they just love to get rid of the "dumb southern" Republican base that just blindly votes?
I'd argue freedom is more important then protecting my own political base.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
If you think denying the voting right to women (or blacks, or gays, or ...) simply because of their physical, ethnic, genetic, etc. makeup is equivalent to denying the right to vote to people who can not or will not make the effort to understand what the ****** they're voting for, then it is pointless to continue the conversation.

I know, I'm just a cruel, heartless bastard. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it.
It's worth bringing up. The old Poll Tax and reading tests were created out of the Jim Crow south to disenfranchise black voters. So, you should be to answer why your proposal is different in method and mode.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
While that does happen, the IRS can deem it illegal. They have a checklist to determine whether someone is an employee or a contractor. I don't know how well it's reported or enforced.



I looked for a better article on this one. I couldn't find many. The pdf on the ruling is no longer at that link as it's several years old.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...mpete-clauses/


This should provide more background on the case. I found a couple other links, but that one was actually pretty good.
Thanks. Didn't see the arstechnica article.

Quote:
...I think NDAs provide sufficient protection along with the obvious not showing up to work with a hangover. Otherwise companies could hire off employees for their secrets and knowledge of future product cycles rather than their actual skills. Non compete clauses are just artificial salary caps. They rely on skills and experience rather than confidential proprietary knowledge.
There are good reasons for each, but they're "freedom limiting" just like the RTW law. So, conservatives who support RTW on the notion of freedom should be able to describe why NDAs and non-competes are okay. Or, at least be willing to throw them all out in a search for ideological purity.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:37 PM   #64
kavika411
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alabama
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
It's worth bringing up. The old Poll Tax and reading tests were created out of the Jim Crow south to disenfranchise black voters. So, you should be to answer why your proposal is different in method and mode.
Perhaps a better place to start than explaining why his is different in method and mode is for you to explain why you are implicitly suggesting the disproportionateness in education/reading levels between blacks and whites then - due to both direct and indirect, de facto and de jure obstacles - is exactly the same as it is now. Or are not you indeed suggesting that the reason the racist/discriminatory Jim Crow laws were effective at discriminating - that blacks were largely less educated in the south that whites - is the same now?

Are you seriously arguing the reading/reading comprehension disparities are the same today?
kavika411 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:47 PM   #65
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavika411 View Post
Perhaps a better place to start than explaining why his is different in method and mode is for you to explain why you are implicitly suggesting the disproportionateness in education/reading levels between blacks and whites then - due to both direct and indirect, de facto and de jure obstacles - is exactly the same as it is now.
I didn't make that argument at all. Instead, I'm arguing that since such tests were historically used to disenfranchise voters (poor whites were hit hard by such tests as well), we would need to understand how any new version of such a test *could* have similar effects.

Educators continue to assess the racial bias in the SAT, so how could a voter test, as likely to be shaped by partisanship as anything else, create a similar (in effect) situation?

Quote:
...Are you seriously arguing the reading/reading comprehension disparities are the same today?
No. I'm arguing that since these efforts once disenfranchised certain races and classes of voters, how would a modern voting test avoid doing something similar?
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:52 PM   #66
kavika411
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alabama
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
I'm arguing that since these efforts once disenfranchised certain races and classes of voters, how would a modern voting test avoid doing something similar?
A one-question voting test asked centuries ago - is the world round or flat - would have disenfranchised just about everybody.

Is it necessary to explain how a modern day administration of that same voting test would "avoid doing something similar"?
kavika411 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:53 PM   #67
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavika411 View Post
Perhaps a better place to start than explaining why his is different in method and mode is for you to explain why you are implicitly suggesting the disproportionateness in education/reading levels between blacks and whites then - due to both direct and indirect, de facto and de jure obstacles - is exactly the same as it is now. Or are not you indeed suggesting that the reason the racist/discriminatory Jim Crow laws were effective at discriminating - that blacks were largely less educated in the south that whites - is the same now?

Are you seriously arguing the reading/reading comprehension disparities are the same today?
I think he went a bit too far in that the Poll tax was to only discriminate against blacks in the south during Jim Crow. Not in the sense that it was a racist thing, but in the since that the scope didn't just end with Blacks. It went further than that, and discriminated against Whites who also were not educated enough to be able to vote.

As far as the his method and mode are concerned, I would find it discriminatory for those who were disabled from being prevented to vote. If they couldn't get to the polling place (or even if they could and were refused, just like Blacks and Whites were in Jim Crow), you would have a huge problem that would invalidate the entire voting process. Here, at least in the case of the disabled, we reference the recent discussion of the Treaty for the disabled discussed in another thread here, and in our case, the ADA.

The scope is different, yes, but the mindset behind it is the same. That would make his proposal wrong in any and all senses, self proclaimed bastard that he is or otherwise.

As a lawyer, you know that legally, that wouldn't pass any muster. In all honesty, I would call his proposal a case of straw man and pushing the goal posts further down the way.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:55 PM   #68
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
If you think denying the voting right to women (or blacks, or gays, or ...) simply because of their physical, ethnic, genetic, etc. makeup is equivalent to denying the right to vote to people who can not or will not make the effort to understand what the ****** they're voting for, then it is pointless to continue the conversation.
The problem isn't whether they understand that they're voting for or not, the problem is that there is no equitable/fair way to DECIDE if they understand or not. Who would write the test? Who would approve it as "neutral"?
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:00 PM   #69
bizzle
macrumors 6502a
 
bizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
As someone who's very anti-union, I am all for this.
__________________
get your own damn blood.
bizzle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:00 PM   #70
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
I'm certainly right there with him!

Call it a poll tax, call it disenfranchisement, call it outright discrimination. I don't really care.

Individuals who vote with zero knowledge of the candidates, their positions, the issues which need to be addressed, et al, do no service to the positive evolution of this country.

I'm just one of those crazy, insensitive, prejudiced individuals who believe that there are responsibilities that are tied to the right to vote.
As long as it doesn't cost money I agree as well.

Fundamentally if people don't understand the issues to a basic degree (which everyone here does) then I'm not convinced it is useful for you to vote.

At the end of the day if you can't read English (or French if we are talking about France) then you aren't really going to be able to make a useful civic stand.
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:01 PM   #71
kavika411
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alabama
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
I think he went a bit too far in that the Poll tax was to only discriminate against blacks in the south during Jim Crow. Not in the sense that it was a racist thing, but in the since that the scope didn't just end with Blacks. It went further than that, and discriminated against Whites who also were not educated enough to be able to vote.

As far as the his method and mode are concerned, I would find it discriminatory for those who were disabled from being prevented to vote. If they couldn't get to the polling place (or even if they could and were refused, just like Blacks and Whites were in Jim Crow), you would have a huge problem that would invalidate the entire voting process. Here, at least in the case of the disabled, we reference the recent discussion of the Treaty for the disabled discussed in another thread here, and in our case, the ADA.

The scope is different, yes, but the mindset behind it is the same. That would make his proposal wrong in any and all senses, self proclaimed bastard that he is or otherwise.

As a lawyer, you know that legally, that wouldn't pass any muster. In all honesty, I would call his proposal a case of straw man and pushing the goal posts further down the way.

BL.
Of course it wouldn't pass muster under current laws, but I believe what we are debating here - at least in part - is the question of what is Right.

The real problem, as far as I can see, is that when someone calmly, objectively says, "You know, I wish there were a way to test people's knowledge of the candidates, issues, etc., so that informed voters were voting," that person is immediately, publicly castigated. "Oh, you must have loved Jim Crow." "Guess lynchings here and there don't bother you." "You must really hate women voting." It's suddenly this carte blanche opportunity to assign every historical, hateful, villainous, vile attribute available without reproach.

If we can't talk maturely about the advantages and disadvantages - not of a poll tax - of a more issue/candidate educated voting pool, a conversation that doesn't immediately disintegrate into BUT JIM CROW BUT JIM CROW BUT JIM CROW, then really, what are we doing here?
kavika411 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:03 PM   #72
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouslurker View Post
You'd think the diehard liberals would be in favor of this, since they're always going on about how much "more educated" people tend to vote Democrat?

Wouldn't they just love to get rid of the "dumb southern" Republican base that just blindly votes?
You would probably also lose some uneducated minorities who institinctively vote to the left.

At the end of the day you'd probably get better politics.
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:04 PM   #73
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
There are definitely some that operate without integrity, and I agree it is more concentrated within larger corporations. I think the key here is having a type of oversight that doesn't look at big business as neither good nor bad, just as-is.
I agree and don't think there is anything inherently bad about a large company or corporation. I should've had said I think most large corporations are run in an unethical manor.

Quote:
Small business, unlike large corporations and governments, don't seem to be prone to these issues...
According to Dunbar's Number humans can only maintain around 150 stable personal relationships so I wouldn't be surprised if smaller businesses typically had a more 'family' feeling where management felt a personal responsibility for the workers and the workers felt a personal responsibility to perform well. Gore (makers of Gore-tex) actually puts this into practice and none of their offices or factories have more than 150 people in them. As they company expands they just erect new buildings (sometimes on the other side of a property from an existing building). They also have a unique management structure in that there really isn't a management structure. Link
Quote:
At Gore – a $2.4 billion, hi-tech materials company that most people know best for the Gore-Tex fabric that waterproofs their anoraks and walking boots – no one can tell any of the company’s 8,500 associates what to do. Although there is a structure (divisions, business units and so on) there is no organization chart, no hierarchy and therefore no bosses. Kelly is one of the few with a title.

…That makes her job rather different from that of most CEOs. Bill Gore, who set up the company wanted to build a firm that was truly innovative. So there were no rule books or bureaucracy. He strongly believed that people come to work to do well and do the right thing. Trust, peer pressure and the desire to invent great products – market-leading guitar strings, dental floss, fuel cells, cardiovascular and surgical applications and all kinds of specialized fabrics – would be the glue holding the company together, rather than the official procedures other companies rely on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
While that does happen, the IRS can deem it illegal. They have a checklist to determine whether someone is an employee or a contractor. I don't know how well it's reported or enforced.
It is illegal for an employer to wrongfully categorize someone as a contractor instead of an employee (which removes tax burdens from the employer and places them on the employee) and this is a rampant problem in the entertainment industry but it's not what I was referring to. What I was referring to was an employer basically laying off a staff employee but saying they are welcome to continue working the exact same job but as a freelance employee (which means greatly reduced, if any, benefits compared to staff employees).

Freelance employees typically are hired on a temporary or project-based basis but when they get hired on indefinitely (basically to do the work of a full time staff position) they are unofficially dubbed a permalancer. Viacom got raked over the coals for this a few years ago and eventually offered all the permalancers full time staff positions but now Viacom is in the process of reverting some of those staff positions back to permalance.
__________________
Looking For Lenny - documentary about comedian Lenny Bruce's timeless impact on stand-up comedy & Free Speech.
Netflix, iTunes, Amazon
LethalWolfe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:05 PM   #74
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
...As a lawyer, you know that legally, that wouldn't pass any muster. In all honesty, I would call his proposal a case of straw man and pushing the goal posts further down the way.

BL.
Yes, you're right. It is most definitely just a straw man argument to fantasize about an informed electorate. Stupid me, what could I possibly be thinking?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:17 PM   #75
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavika411 View Post
A one-question voting test asked centuries ago - is the world round or flat - would have disenfranchised just about everybody.
And, a test asking about the flight speed of an unladen swallow would do the same. But, what's your point?

Quote:
...Is it necessary to explain how a modern day administration of that same voting test would "avoid doing something similar"?
I say the color red is nice, you say, nice colors are red.

The words are the same, but the meaning is totally different.

I'll restate:

How a voting test would avoid partisan, racial, and economic biases is a question worth asking, because historically voting tests were about disenfranchising black voters. So would a modern test disenfranchise other protected or unprotected classes? Would a test be biased against the young? Old? Disabled? Hearing-impaired? The newly emigrated?

Would a test be built on economic principles? Science? Sociology? A big casserole of everything? Or, would you just be required to rewrite a short paragraph?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
I think he went a bit too far in that the Poll tax was to only discriminate against blacks in the south during Jim Crow.
It was designed to do so, that it also worked against poor whites and others was also a problem.

Quote:
...Not in the sense that it was a racist thing, but in the since that the scope didn't just end with Blacks. It went further than that, and discriminated against Whites who also were not educated enough to be able to vote.
Keep in mind that some of the literacy tests were different depending on your race, so a white voter might have to copy down a short sentence, but a black voter would have to copy down a huge legalistic paragraph. So, officials could switch. They also tended to play games with party affiliations.

Quote:
...As far as the his method and mode are concerned, I would find it discriminatory for those who were disabled from being prevented to vote. If they couldn't get to the polling place (or even if they could and were refused, just like Blacks and Whites were in Jim Crow), you would have a huge problem that would invalidate the entire voting process. Here, at least in the case of the disabled, we reference the recent discussion of the Treaty for the disabled discussed in another thread here, and in our case, the ADA.
Exactly. We've gone into the weeds a bit, but my question to CalWiz was about how such a test would be designed and administered. Not just because it might affect black voters, but depending on the test, you could invalidate the voting rights of millions.

So, yes, people who espouse such a voting test should be able to discuss how they would do it.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oliver North: GOP Must Oppose Marriage Equality Like It Fought Slavery Michael Goff Politics, Religion, Social Issues 57 Mar 9, 2014 05:55 PM
Maryland Police Chief Cites Satirical Article to Oppose Pot Legalization Wild-Bill Politics, Religion, Social Issues 57 Mar 2, 2014 09:53 PM
Both Republican Oklahoma Senators oppose disaster relief funding mcrain Politics, Religion, Social Issues 90 May 24, 2013 01:37 PM
Police oppose gun restrictions? eric/ Politics, Religion, Social Issues 27 Apr 10, 2013 01:59 PM
Did you oppose a larger screen when it was 3.5'', and have you changed your mind? NovemberWhiskey iPhone 3 Oct 9, 2012 02:28 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC