Mozilla CEO resigns after donation to Prop 8

Superfreak said:
No String... you JUST got done telling me that you were simply listing the differences between libertarians and conservatives/Republicans. You specifically stated you weren't talking about me. Yet you keep saying I am not libertarian, but rather Republican.

So tell us String... THIS time are you saying that I 'reject' free markets with respect to drugs/sex? Are you saying that in the past ten years you have heard me saying I support subsidies, trade barriers and bailouts?

Come on String... don't be your normal cowardly self... tell me which of the above positions you are claiming that I differ from Libertarians on.
Click to expand...

Already listed them coward. For starters, you reject freedom of association and seem to believe one has a property right in their job in the absence of any contractual agreement. Why are you running away from the example that is still fresh?

You said...

Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

This non sequitur is a complete and total rejection of libertarian ideals. How does firing someone violate their rights? What right? How could the state limit Mozilla's ability to fire an employee without interfering with their rights?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Already listed them coward. For starters, you reject freedom of association and seem to believe one has a property right in their job in the absence of any contractual agreement. Why are you running away from the example that is still fresh?
Click to expand...

LMAO... I have already addressed those you twit. Yet you claim I am not libertarian. For the sake of argument... say I am different than Libertarians on how we view the two examples above... do you think one must agree on every issue with a party to be a part of the party? Is that what you claim?

Or is it that you know all of your 'other' examples do not apply to me.

You are a fucking coward... as I stated.


This non sequitur is a complete and total rejection of libertarian ideals. How does firing someone violate their rights? What right? How could the state limit Mozilla's ability to fire an employee without interfering with their rights?
Click to expand...

You are so full of shit. It is precisely what Libertarians believe. Firing someone for having religious beliefs that do not interfere with their work most certainly violates not only the law, but also the values of Libertarians.

Seriously... you should just run away again... you clearly have no clue what a Libertarian believes.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
So? Eich's right to exercise sole dominion over his own life has not been interfered with. You seem to be suggesting that the state should interfere with Mozilla's rights.
Click to expand...

It has NOTHING to do with the state you fucking retard. Legally the company has a right to do what they did. That does not mean that what they did is in accordance to Libertarian beliefs.

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

That is the primary belief of a Libertarian you moron.


 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... so again... none of those things do I differ from Libertarians. You just proclaim that fiscally conservative people reject free markets for sex and drugs. Why would a fiscally conservative person do that String? Do you even understand the words you are using? I do not reject freedom of association... you are simply misconstruing what Libertarians actually think about it.
Click to expand...


I already stated the reason. They do it because they wish to control the culture. I did not say you did. You continue to conflate comments I was making about conservatives with yourself.

You do reject freedom of association and how have I misconstrued it? I don't think there is much chance of misunderstanding Rothbard's point about the 6 foot Swedes. You have offered nothing to counter my comments. You are only quoting out of context passages and hoping that some non sequiturs and sloppy thought will bail you out.

Superfreak said:
Yeah... which is why it is funny that you continue to claim that I am not libertarian, yet the only thing you can point to is that we disagree on freedom of association and what it means to Libertarians. Every other point you CLAIM to have made you reference conservatives and not MY beliefs. Because you know you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Why should I bring up any other point than the one that is fresh and we can source easily? Let's deal with this one. Why are you running from it?

Superfreak said:
LMAO... again with your bullshit accusations... yet you still refuse to point out how I differ... other than abortion and your 'opinion' on how libertarians view this issue.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Now tell us String... in the Mozilla case... who was being forced to sacrifice his or her values?
Click to expand...

No one. But you seem to want to bring in the state to force Mozilla to sacrifice their values.
 
Superfreak said:
It has NOTHING to do with the state you fucking retard. Legally the company has a right to do what they did. That does not mean that what they did is in accordance to Libertarian beliefs.

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

That is the primary belief of a Libertarian you moron.
Click to expand...

They did not forcibly interfere with Eich's rights. Are you arguing that firing someone is an initiation of force?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I already stated the reason. They do it because they wish to control the culture. I did not say you did. You continue to conflate comments I was making about conservatives with yourself.

You do reject freedom of association and how have I misconstrued it? I don't think there is much chance of misunderstanding Rothbard's point about the 6 foot Swedes. You have offered nothing to counter my comments. You are only quoting out of context passages and hoping that some non sequiturs and sloppy thought will bail you out.
Click to expand...

Wrong moron. I do not reject freedom of association. I reject what YOU think the libertarian position is on the topic. You simply saying that my posts are out of context is quite amusing. I posted you a link to the LP platform. You can read what the party ACTUALLY believes or you can choose to remain ignorant.

I am not conflating anything. You keep saying I am not a Libertarian, yet your ONLY 'proof' is that we disagree on where a Libertarian stands on freedom of association. You have nothing else to back up your bullshit claim. Nothing.



Why should I bring up any other point than the one that is fresh and we can source easily? Let's deal with this one. Why are you running from it?
Click to expand...

Again you coward, I have addressed that point. You refuse to bring up anything else, because you know how foolish you are. You know you have no other point. Which is why you run like a little coward.


No one. But you seem to want to bring in the state to force Mozilla to sacrifice their values.
Click to expand...

No one? You don't think Eich was asked to do just that? They asked him to recant his position from 2008. To admit he was 'wrong'.

As for the state... show me one instance where I said the state should be brought into this? Oh wait, that is yet another lie of yours.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... I have already addressed those you twit. Yet you claim I am not libertarian. For the sake of argument... say I am different than Libertarians on how we view the two examples above... do you think one must agree on every issue with a party to be a part of the party? Is that what you claim?

Or is it that you know all of your 'other' examples do not apply to me.

You are a fucking coward... as I stated.

You are so full of shit. It is precisely what Libertarians believe. Firing someone for having religious beliefs that do not interfere with their work most certainly violates not only the law, but also the values of Libertarians.

Seriously... you should just run away again... you clearly have no clue what a Libertarian believes.
Click to expand...

You have not addressed it and you evaded the questions. How does firing someone violate their rights? What right? How could Mozilla be prevented from doing so without violating their rights?

Then you contradict your previous claim about it not being about the state by claiming that it violates the law. What law? This had nothing to do with religion.

Libertarians do not believe there should be any such law. Where is your source for this claim? Where is the libertarian argument against freedom of association? All you are providing is your non sequitur opinion and some out of context quotes you clearly do not understand. And all you are going to do in response is run away and evade the points and questions.

You could at least try to form a libertarian argument for a law but since you don't understand the philosophy and obviously have not done any study you are just rationalizing nonsense and grasping at straws to support your whim wishing.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You have not addressed it and you evaded the questions. How does firing someone violate their rights? What right? How could Mozilla be prevented from doing so without violating their rights?

Then you contradict your previous claim about it not being about the state by claiming that it violates the law. What law? This had nothing to do with religion.

Libertarians do not believe there should be any such law. Where is your source for this claim? Where is the libertarian argument against freedom of association? All you are providing is your non sequitur opinion and some out of context quotes you clearly do not understand. And all you are going to do in response is run away and evade the points and questions.

You could at least try to form a libertarian argument for a law but since you don't understand the philosophy and obviously have not done any study you are just rationalizing nonsense and grasping at straws to support your whim wishing.
Click to expand...


At some point, String, you just have to laugh.
 
Superfreak said:
Wrong moron. I do not reject freedom of association. I reject what YOU think the libertarian position is on the topic. You simply saying that my posts are out of context is quite amusing. I posted you a link to the LP platform. You can read what the party ACTUALLY believes or you can choose to remain ignorant.

I am not conflating anything. You keep saying I am not a Libertarian, yet your ONLY 'proof' is that we disagree on where a Libertarian stands on freedom of association. You have nothing else to back up your bullshit claim. Nothing.

Again you coward, I have addressed that point. You refuse to bring up anything else, because you know how foolish you are. You know you have no other point. Which is why you run like a little coward.

No one? You don't think Eich was asked to do just that? They asked him to recant his position from 2008. To admit he was 'wrong'.

As for the state... show me one instance where I said the state should be brought into this? Oh wait, that is yet another lie of yours.
Click to expand...

You posted a link to something that had nothing to do with this topic and you are clearly misusing it. It was out of context.

I posted an older plank, statements from the party chairman, articles from libertarian sources, third party sources and referenced the writings of the libertarian titans all of them directly related to this topic.


Here you go...

https://www.google.com/search?q=lib...i61.7455j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

See what you find.

I don't have examples of your other deviations from libertarians that are more easily available than these. Why would I change the subject for you? You are trying to hide from what is here.

How does asking him to recant his position (which you have not established they did) forcibly interfere with his rights?

You bringing the state in...

Firing someone for having religious beliefs that do not interfere with their work most certainly violates not only the law, but also the values of Libertarians.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
They did not forcibly interfere with Eich's rights. Are you arguing that firing someone is an initiation of force?
Click to expand...

So the man has done his job and done it well for years. A co founder of the company. Inventor of Java. Never had any complaints against him at work. Yet they force him out because of a political contribution that he made six years ago because he refused to recant that position or discuss it further at this time? Yes... they forced him out for his personal beliefs. Not his work history, not his actions at work... but for his THOUGHTS. No Libertarian would support such nonsense.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You posted a link to something that had nothing to do with this topic and you are clearly misusing it. It was out of context.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... so the libertarian party platform has nothing to do with libertarians beliefs? Ok String.

Quoting something and providing the link to where that quote came from is not using it out of context. You can see precisely where it came from. The meaning of the quote did not change by posting it by itself either.

I posted an older plank, statements from the party chairman, articles from libertarian sources, third party sources and referenced the writings of the libertarian titans all of them directly related to this topic.
Click to expand...

LOL... yeah, you posted an older plank... that had nothing to do with the current situation. Your other links also referenced the GOVERNMENT and its actions against the individual. Again, which had nothing to do with the current topic.

LOL... you referenced libertarian 'titans'... ok String. Again, those libertarians do not support your nonsense.


Here you go...

https://www.google.com/search?q=lib...i61.7455j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

See what you find.
Click to expand...

Show me in there where it says libertarians believe a company can fire you for your outside beliefs. I will wait.
I don't have examples of your other deviations from libertarians that are more easily available than these. Why would I change the subject for you? You are trying to hide from what is here.
Click to expand...

Again you show us all what a coward you are. I have addressed your baseless accusations on this thread over and over again. Yet you call it 'hiding'.

You refuse to provide anything else because you know you are full of shit... and you are a lying coward.

How does asking him to recant his position (which you have not established they did) forcibly interfere with his rights?
Click to expand...

Telling him he HAS to recant his personal beliefs if he wants to keep his job? Are you kidding?

Thanks for proving again you are a fake libertarian.

You bringing the state in...

Firing someone for having religious beliefs that do not interfere with their work most certainly violates not only the law, but also the values of Libertarians.
Click to expand...

You truly are a fucking retard.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You have not addressed it and you evaded the questions. How does firing someone violate their rights? What right? How could Mozilla be prevented from doing so without violating their rights?
Click to expand...

I have addressed it multiple times. You continuing to ignore it doesn't change that fact. Firing someone for religious beliefs does violate the law. It ALSO goes against libertarian beliefs that people should feel FREE to BELIEVE and support anything they wish SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO SO. MOZILLA VIOLATED THAT LIBERTARIAN IDEA.

Then you contradict your previous claim about it not being about the state by claiming that it violates the law. What law? This had nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...

I did not contradict my claim you fucking idiot. It does violate law. But OUR discussion was whether or not it violated Libertarian beliefs. Which it ALSO does. Saying it does BOTH does not contradict my point that OUR DISCUSSION was not about the government, but rather Libertarian beliefs.

Nothing to do with religion? You think his stance on gay marriage had nothing to do with religion? Please show us your evidence of this.

Libertarians do not believe there should be any such law. Where is your source for this claim? Where is the libertarian argument against freedom of association? All you are providing is your non sequitur opinion and some out of context quotes you clearly do not understand. And all you are going to do in response is run away and evade the points and questions.
Click to expand...

You truly are an idiot. You are the one jumping all over the board with your responses. I have addressed this same nonsense time and again and you simply ignore it and then post something like the above... yet again.
 
maineman said:
his point is valid.... if you think that a company should NOT have the right to do something, clearly, you can't expect them to act on the honor system. Who is going to ensure they don't do what you believe they should not have the right to do?

I don't want factories dumping toxic waste into places like Love Canal.... but I certainly don't expect them to simply DO the right thing out of some altruistic corporate sense of citizenship. If that were the case, how did Love Canal happen in the first fucking place? Corporations are, by their very nature, amoral. Barring some form of regulation, they have one purpose: maximizing shareholder wealth. period.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that a BIG Government dunce like you would use the "love canal" to support your Fascist tendencies.

Do you know who the biggest polluter in the nation is? That's right, Big Government dunce, THE GOVERNMENT!!

Man you people are stupid; no wonder you elected a dunce like Obama.
 
As is so predictable; once again on JPP another thread wanders into an off topic circle of stupidity.

How anyone can support Fascist tactics like these is beyond intelligent comprehension. But this is the internet and this is JPP.
 
Superfreak said:
I have addressed it multiple times. You continuing to ignore it doesn't change that fact. Firing someone for religious beliefs does violate the law. It ALSO goes against libertarian beliefs that people should feel FREE to BELIEVE and support anything they wish SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO SO. MOZILLA VIOLATED THAT LIBERTARIAN IDEA.

I did not contradict my claim you fucking idiot. It does violate law. But OUR discussion was whether or not it violated Libertarian beliefs. Which it ALSO does. Saying it does BOTH does not contradict my point that OUR DISCUSSION was not about the government, but rather Libertarian beliefs.

Nothing to do with religion? You think his stance on gay marriage had nothing to do with religion? Please show us your evidence of this.

You truly are an idiot. You are the one jumping all over the board with your responses. I have addressed this same nonsense time and again and you simply ignore it and then post something like the above... yet again.
Click to expand...

You have not addressed it. How does him being fired violate his rights? What right? How is it that the state could interfere without violating Mozilla's rights?

You have not offered reference to any libertarian material that agrees with you. You have taken a general statement out of context and evade requests to answer how it applies.

Your contradiction is your claim that you are not bringing the state into it yet you are arguing that it violates a valid law. But it does not. There is no law this violates.

Libertarians would argue that Mozilla has every right to fire Eich (they did not he resigned). Such an act does not violate libertarian beliefs or Eich's rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top