True. Speaking of which.... Why is sex legal, paying for sex illegal, but paying for sex and filming it legal?
That's not a sexual orientation. Animals isn't a sex children isn't a sex and dead bodies isn't a sex. Sexual orientation refers to what sex you are oriented towards in respect to yourself. Male female or both. That's really the only options.
So either gay or straight. Yeah you shouldn't be fired for either if there is no weird stuff involved.
Agreed people should be fired for criminal behavior especially if your business involves dealing with animals, children, or the dead. I would say it's imperative that they do get fired. I dislike how people try to legitimize pedophilia by claiming it's a sexual orientation. It isn't it's perverse.
Yeah people use it that way. So it's entering common parlance. I was just explaining why I was being persnickety. I'm not accusing you of anything. I hope you didn't take it that way.
Of course not! You were simply clarified the point to me as I had misinterpreted the language being used and started to steer the conversation into an irrelevant direction. No need to explain yourself.
Some people get really touchy making certain topics into minefields just want to be sure I'm not doing that.
Even if the are not breaking any laws and staying within expected behavior guidelines of the employer?
Yeah I can imagine it. Whats wrong with anarchy? You cannot have a free market with government regulation. Say you got a loaf of bread and I got some marbles. You need marbles I need bread. We agree that one loaf of bread is worth five marbles, and so we make an exchange based on that. This is the free and natural exchange of goods. - A free market. But then government comes along and says,"No, no, no. Two loaves of bread are worth seven marbles". But there is no way you would naturally exchange two loaves for seven marbles. The value of the items is now artificial. It is no longer a fair deal because we already agreed a loaf is worth five marbles.Third party interference, not a free market.
What could be wrong with anarcho-capitalism? Let’s travel back to the 19th century, where business loved monopolies, worker safety wasn’t a thing and children worked cheap, where untested chemicals were in products and businesses lied about their products, no minimum wage and no health care provided. There were the super rich and the super poor. Is that what you wish for? Social Darwinism.
Freedom and liberty are not the burden you seem to believe that they are. What's wrong with rich people? Let me tell you how people get rich in a free market- through hard work and merit along with providing employment to others. Have you ever been employed by a poor person? Now in a rigged economy, such as we got now, people get rich through government subsidies and bloated government contracts paid for with the blood of the taxpayers.
Anarchy does not mean "no rules". Anarchy means no government rules, the consequences of which is that there are no slaves.
Who said freedom and liberty are a burden and who said there is something wrong with being rich? Who is going to make the "rules", businesses, who are more concerned with the bottom line or will it be society negotiating the best outcome for society as a whole rather than the individual business' bottom line? That is done by the societies representative which is called government. Your belief that, "now, people get rich through government subsidies and bloated government contracts paid for with the blood of the taxpayers" shows just how naïve you are.
Probably compared to the rest of the world. I can support myself comfortably without having a job through past investments. Do you expect Monsanto to make its own "rules" not to poison people? What percent of business CEOs making over a million a year got there through "government subsidies"?
I don't know a percentage. Do you? And no, I don't expect Mansanto to make their own rules. But I got as much faith in Mansanto made rules as I do in government made rules. The purpose of government is to secure natural rights, not to make up arbitrary rules. Got any shoes Edna Kawabata? I bet you do and I'll also bet that they are imported. I also know that on imported shoes there is a 40% protective tariff. So, if you paid $55 for a pair of shoes, you paid about $15 towards the privilege of protecting the American shoe manufacturers., The thing about is there are literally like three shoe manufactures the make product in the U.S.. It's a ridiculous obsolete rule and there are many more like it, and we consumers pay for it. Maybe not a good example, but it's the first one that came to mind. I need new shoes.
This is NOT the way our government operates. We DO allow prices to naturally follow supply and demand, only making corrections when there are extremes that have significant impact on the reasonable needs of our population. We even let BigPharma gouge the crap out of us Americans when we need certain medications for life saving treatments, available at far lower prices in Canada and other countries.
I'm aware of the government/big pharm complex. I can only imagine how much got skimmed off, but they were handing out "free" covid shots like they are post poll "I voted!" stickers. We get the bill, gratuity included.
So Monsanto will not make its own rules? Who would in your imaginary dystopia? I know, you could sue Monsanto in a class action suit after your kid gets leukemia. Big pharm is skimming but they don't need any government oversite or guardrails. Have at it big pharm. No testing necessary before you bring out a new drug.
