Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Thorfinn · 03-27-2003, 04:26 PM

But Grojlach, the point is that the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not a grant to say anything you like. You always could say anything you like, but the intent of 1st A was to prevent government from punishing you for so doing. "Congress shall make no law, etc." The First Amendment in no way obligates any person or company to provide a forum for you to express your opinion. Just as no Jehovah's Witness can barge into your home at dinnertime and lecture you and claim it as his First Amendment rights, the mall is not obligated to allow Mr. Downs to express his opinion on their grounds, either.

Timber Loftis, I am going to have to let the asbestos question slide. I am just not certain where I read that the variation of asbestos in Canada was not a health issue. I'll see if I can find it if you would be interested in reading it.

And I'm not sure that my one argument does undercut the other. I agree that corporations can do things and hide behind their liability shield. What should be done, then, is eliminate the liability shield. If Congress wanted to really protect workers, they would remove the Worker's Comp cap, and eliminate the corporate shield so that the principals of the company are again responsible for their actions, and not just in cases of gross negligence or outright fraud. Let the workers prove their damages, and companies will factor that into the bottom line. Limiting the claims simply prevents the market from clearing, and the net result is damages end up being externalized, in the asbestos case, upon workers and their families, rather than upon the people who make the decisions to put people into harms way without informed consent.

Cloudbringer, I do, in fact, take freedom pretty seriously. When I look at the changes I have seen in America since my childhood, I am dismayed, and have a fervent desire to do what I can to give my kids the same kind of advantages I had.

Though I belittled the website about the sweatshops, I did explain myself, and more importantly, my criticism not aimed at harleyquinn, but at the politically charged website itself.

I agreed early and often that unfairness should be dealt with if possible, but as I have nearly as often said, you must correct that unfairness with fairness, not with yet more unfairness.

I am definitely not hot under the collar -- I was actually hoping that maybe, just maybe, I would be able to show at least a few people the extent to which our nation has changed, in many ways for the worse, IMO, in employee relations and many other ways. I believe it was Lord Acton who said of the United States, "The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion of equality made vain the hope for freedom."

Anyway, if anyone was offended by tone or semantics, I apologize.

03-27-2003, 04:26 PM	#71
Thorfinn Zhentarim Guard Join Date: February 24, 2003 Location: Indiana Age: 61 Posts: 358	But Grojlach, the point is that the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not a grant to say anything you like. You always could say anything you like, but the intent of 1st A was to prevent government from punishing you for so doing. "Congress shall make no law, etc." The First Amendment in no way obligates any person or company to provide a forum for you to express your opinion. Just as no Jehovah's Witness can barge into your home at dinnertime and lecture you and claim it as his First Amendment rights, the mall is not obligated to allow Mr. Downs to express his opinion on their grounds, either. Timber Loftis, I am going to have to let the asbestos question slide. I am just not certain where I read that the variation of asbestos in Canada was not a health issue. I'll see if I can find it if you would be interested in reading it. And I'm not sure that my one argument does undercut the other. I agree that corporations can do things and hide behind their liability shield. What should be done, then, is eliminate the liability shield. If Congress wanted to really protect workers, they would remove the Worker's Comp cap, and eliminate the corporate shield so that the principals of the company are again responsible for their actions, and not just in cases of gross negligence or outright fraud. Let the workers prove their damages, and companies will factor that into the bottom line. Limiting the claims simply prevents the market from clearing, and the net result is damages end up being externalized, in the asbestos case, upon workers and their families, rather than upon the people who make the decisions to put people into harms way without informed consent. Cloudbringer, I do, in fact, take freedom pretty seriously. When I look at the changes I have seen in America since my childhood, I am dismayed, and have a fervent desire to do what I can to give my kids the same kind of advantages I had. Though I belittled the website about the sweatshops, I did explain myself, and more importantly, my criticism not aimed at harleyquinn, but at the politically charged website itself. I agreed early and often that unfairness should be dealt with if possible, but as I have nearly as often said, you must correct that unfairness with fairness, not with yet more unfairness. I am definitely not hot under the collar -- I was actually hoping that maybe, just maybe, I would be able to show at least a few people the extent to which our nation has changed, in many ways for the worse, IMO, in employee relations and many other ways. I believe it was Lord Acton who said of the United States, "The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion of equality made vain the hope for freedom." Anyway, if anyone was offended by tone or semantics, I apologize.