It is rather difficult to keep up with your sloppy thoughts and lies. But the sources I have provided clearly show that you are wrong about libertarianism.
Mozilla CEO resigns after donation to Prop 8
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
It is rather difficult to keep up with your sloppy thoughts and lies. But the sources I have provided clearly show that you are wrong about libertarianism.
Again it isn't difficult even with your pretend dubious "misunderstanding". The idea that somebody else noticed that Obama held the same opinion as this person notwithstanding, that specifically Newt noticed it, doesn't discount reality nor does it mean that anybody is or isn't libertarian.
This person was excoriated and ultimately lost his job due solely to the fact that he agreed with Obama in 2008. Was it "just"? Do you agree that we should seek out all of the 52% of Californians who voted for that measure and ensure they too cannot hold a job?
What do you believe is "just" in this case? Double Jeopardy in the "court" of public opinion only to those who disagreed with me in 2008, or do you think that maybe that Mozilla should have simply rejected this inanity and simply pointed out that they (as they said they did) support and hope their employees would express their opinions in public?
Right.
It will help if you either stop pretending to be stupid or hire a Middle Schooler to read the post to you.
Right.
It will help if you either stop pretending to be stupid or hire a Middle Schooler to read the post to you.
I honestly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Below is my first post in this thread along with a subsequent clarification. Let me know if you have any other questions:
Ah, you are under the false assumption that I read posts other than the ones where you quoted me.
Fair enough. Let me ask you, would you support a law like the one I described?
It does indicate that one is a fake libertarian. The argument and position is not based on libertarian principles which clearly lead to the conclusion that Mozilla had a right to fire Eich, though he resigned, and that the consumers and employees had every right to use economic pressure against Mozilla/Eich. SF's/Newt's argument and position is based on partisan tit for tat and betrays a bias against Democrats. Obama has nothing to do with this. Libertarianism is not about a knee jerk reaction to Obama or "liberals."
Besides all that, the comparison is apples to oranges. Obama opposed Proposition 8. He also has publicly changed his position to gay marriage. Eich supported Prop 8 and has not publicly changed his position.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080502211.html
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
This is why random people from the internet shouldn't try and tell other people where they actually stand.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LOL LOL LOL.... you are quite the fool. Again... you have no Libertarian that supports what occurred. None.
Your distraction of 'who should regulate if not the government' was irrelevant to your erroneous views of what Libertarians stand for.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You stated the following...
No, I would argue that libertarians are more supportive of free markets than conservatives. Conservatives toss out free market economics unless they support the cultural hegemony they wish to maintain or regain. Obvious examples are their position on drugs or sex trades. But they also are more likely to support trade barriers, farm subsidies, bailouts for corporations, etc., than libertarians are. Economics for them is just a means to gain cultural control and true free markets are too unwieldy and disruptive for their liking.
Now tell us String... which of the above do you think I stray away from vs. Libertarians? Do you know? Can you provide any examples? No, you cannot. You simply continue to make bullshit claims about where I stand with nothing to back them up. Nothing.
If libertarians think companies should not have the right to fire people for their beliefs that are displayed outside of work, that have no impact on their work, who exactly do libertarians believe should deprive companies of this right?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
This is how you can spot a fake libertarian. He desperately continues to try and associate his opponent with Newt/Bush/etc... with the hope of distracting from what has actually been said. It is Strings way of trying to dismiss the discussion based on his vain attempt to associate me with 'evil right wingers'.
On this particular incident I heard a radio news head describe why what happened was wrong. Basically free market reactions, as opposed to orchestrated ones, are the best way to deal with behavior. The reason given by the radio head was spot on.
In free market or spontaneous reactions , the outcome is one based on a fair playing field. In an orchestrated boycott where the reaction is to silence ones free speech, the outcome smacks of vindictiveness. Though not illegal it is repugnant to think an employer has the right to intrude into ones personal beliefs when they have not spilled over in anyway to their job.
In free market or spontaneous reactions , the outcome is one based on a fair playing field. In an orchestrated boycott where the reaction is to silence ones free speech, the outcome smacks of vindictiveness. Though not illegal it is repugnant to think an employer has the right to intrude into ones personal beliefs when they have not spilled over in anyway to their job.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Libertarians believe in the rights of the individual to live and act as they choose provided that their actions do NOT interfere with the same rights other individuals have. Eich's actions outside of work had NO bearing on the employees of the firm. It only became a 'problem' when he went from CTO to CEO. To pretend that his promotion suddenly made it a problem is nothing short of nonsense. Therefore it violates Libertarian beliefs in the rights of the individual.
for you and String to continue to pretend Libertarians would support such nonsense is comical. They do not.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
String?
You're still not answering the question. You said that libertarians do not think that companies should have the right. Well, who do libertarians believe should take it away?
What exactly does the first sentence mean? That the government should prohibit employers from firing without cause except where the termination is due to cost effectiveness?
And the second sentence leaves me struggling as well. What policies? What labor laws?