Bill Maher nails it... warning for language
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaC1-U8LIY0
Printable View
Bill Maher nails it... warning for language
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaC1-U8LIY0
Agreed I watch bill Maher often despite his political views.
I have always liked Maher. I dont agree with his policy views a lot but I respect people who are intellectually honest and are not afraid to say what they believe even if it is not popular. Abolisitionists were hated in the South and North for advocating an end to slavery for example.
When peoppe are honest about their views we can have open and meaningful debate.
Another guy I like who is similar is Jimmy Dore. He doesnt support people just because they have a D next to their name on the ticket.
This is the one I was telling you guys about on Friday night (after I watched it) in another thread. It's a classic
Now the left is demanding a boycott against Uber, because they had the audacity to offer people rides to and from JFK airport... rather than refusing to drive in order to boost the protests.
Uber sent out a tweet saying that since cabs were not performing rides, that Uber would suspend surge pricing so that people wouldn't get screwed over with huge fares.
After massive backlash, the Uber CEO went public with an apology.
Did they have a permit to protest? Pretty sure thats required. If I am a bad guy subject to arrest for breaking arbitrary laws then I want everyone else held to that same standard. Send the ****ing SWAT teams into these airports and arrest the criminals. Dont forget to shoot anyone who makes any sudden movements too.
Talk about nailing it, and being intellectually honest, even if it's not popular: NYTWA squares Uber, but doesn't fail to criticize Lyft, which (while ever-so-slightly fairer to its "independent contractor" workers than Uber) is nonetheless no less problematic just because it (quite opportunistically) pledged to donate a large sum to the ACLU:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3cVRpEW8AEThDT.jpg
I think I'll download the Uber app
Last I checked working for Uber is completely voluntary.
This is what drives me crazy about the left... it's a service that allows people to earn money that many of them weren't able to earn before... but because it's not enough to meet their insane standards of "fair," then it is a sweatshop
Last I checked working for Uber is completely voluntary.
This is what drives me crazy about the left... it's a service that allows people to earn money that many of them weren't able to earn before... but because it's not enough to meet their insane standards of "fair," then it is a sweatshop
And if another company (enter the ****acular Lyft) chooses to join the market, and meets those standards (or at least pretends to), then those workers are free to take their services to the competition ... and we have this wonderful free marketplace with companies entrepreneurially spurred on by one another.
Though I think there are areas for common ground to be found amongst libertarians and the true left—mostly where civil liberties are concerned—this is what drives me crazy about libertarians—who I otherwise tend to find, if not more sensible, at least more intellectually-consistent than most other elements of the right: they act as if workers—whose labor actually generates the bulk of whatever value a company, corporation, or industry offers—should just be supplicatingly thankful for the mere opportunity to hawk their labor, even if for a tuppence, and otherwise pipe-down about how fair or commensurable their compensation ends up being.
Often those workers are independent contractors for each corporation, because compensation from either (and even, often, both) is insufficient for living with any shred of comfort.
But hey, I'd find these types of "independent contractor" situations, and the general notion of "sharing" economics—which, under our current system, are tantamount to wage-theft—a lot more palatable if they operated on top of some basic economic protections—say actual universal health-care, a universal basic-income, government-funded access to post-secondary education, and a reformulation of taxation away from regressive sales-taxes on vital (ie non-luxury) goods.
The communist threat never died.
Ok, now I will be glibly dismissive:
lol
---
But yea: if you consider economic justice to be your enemy, then you should be afraid: because the combination of (a) tepid, establishment (neo)liberals blithely knocking over progressive candles until they've blindly burned down the Democratic Party's house and (b) a right-wing autocratic santorum-stain ascending to the head of the executive branch has radicalized a lot of folks, young and old, to pursue a more truly-equitable economic ordering, as opposed to agitating for a few more band-aids on the suppurating gash of late-state capitalism. And the sort of redresses I seek—single-payer, UBI, better-subsidized post-secondary, more stringent worker-protections, increased access to the franchise for those marginalized by fiduciary or social status, restrictions on corporate financing of our elections, less regressive and more progressive taxation, less privatisation of public funds—well those are all actually pretty damn minor, pretty damn mainstream, and pretty damn still-working-within-the-established-economics compared to what a lot of those folks would entertain.
i must have missed where it said that in the Amendment
and i would even take it a step further that if i was a strict interpreter of the document any law saying you need a permit is unconstitutional cause the permit would fall under "Congress shall make no law"
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You mean the country that initially only franchised land-owning males, whose economy for the first century was largely driven by chattel slavery, and whose understanding of unusual cruelty in criminal justice was being drawn by a horse and quartered?
Again: This country was founded on an ideologies that are alien to either of us, and our respective ideologies would be alien to any of the men who founded this country.
You can be sad; but formulate better, more historically-aware reasons than those.
As Libertarian as I am I do feel lIke when we get to a certain point in automation and technology a communist system might work best.
I have absolutely no such faith—especially since the labor-pool of Uber et al is not sufficiently organized to even make such a cogent demand to the corporation for which they "independently contract", even if drivers independently developed the complaint. This is why unions are so important.
Honestly, as a libertarian, I'd think you'd be in favor of organized labor, and against so-called "right-to-work" laws. The former represents an entirely non-government regulatory check on the capital-side of industry—the market working to self-correct, as it were—while the latter is an example of governmental intrusion and imposition on the free workings of the market: in this case, burdensome regulation on the labor component, analogous to those burdens on the capital component you always pillory.
The government has nothing to do with "suppressing their pay", except insofar as the misdesignation as "independent contractors" creates a lot of regulatory, benefits, and taxation loopholes for these companies employing-but-totally-not-employing those drivers.
Now, if the driver is "doing it for some extra cash" or is working to earn "strictly side money"—as a "side hustle", as Uber has taken to advertising—the effects of these loopholes and pitfalls are less dramatic, more mitigated by the fact of the driver's primary means of employment. However, while precise numbers as hard to come by, a good many rideshare drivers do depend on driving for Uber or Lyft (and often both) as their sole or primary source of income and employment. When these companies take a large cut of fares, unilaterally set (read: drop) fares for their drivers, and (in the case of Uber) discourage gratuities, margins are thin and hours are long or unsustainable. And then there's the lack of benefits and worker protections. And then there's the added tax burden of being 1099 instead of W-2.
But look: what Uber did in New York City—which is what began this line of discussion—is totally legal, and totally expected: capitalism, with few or no fetters, encourages maximum profits and discourages solidarity with fellow workers (or one's fellow man). And so, opportunistically advantaging their company during the NYTWA's airport strike is not only their right, under our current system, it's logically consistent. But it's also within a concerned consumer's rights to make a political statement through deleting their apps; and it's likewise logically consistent for me* or anyone else who supports organized labor to boycott strike-breakers.
*(I actually already never used Uber, for the reasons outlined; everyone else is late to the bandwagon.)
It's not volitional if you have no other employment or income options. What's necessary is often not voluntary.
And I guarantee you that, in the absence of any other employment options, plenty of nobodies would drive for the lowest compensation that still represented a net-positive; and if they could, Uber—or almost any other corporation, without outside impositions like governmental regulation—would pay their workers the bare minimum that still kept them staffed. Because the market doesn't demand mercy, it demands margins. Capitalism is a system of concentrating welfare, not sharing it.
I'm making this a separate post, because it's a separate and more general issue—but I notice you conspicuously responded to the rideshare-specific comments I made (which was only the first sentence), and not the the bulk of my post to you:
I'm actually much more interested in your thoughts on that topic.
I absolutely support people's right to organize. There is nothing wrong with unions or their formation, but they tend to do more harm than good to their members in the longer picture. At least today.Quote:
Honestly, as a libertarian, I'd think you'd be in favor of organized labor, and against so-called "right-to-work" laws. The former represents an entirely non-government regulatory check on the capital-side of industry—the market working to self-correct, as it were—while the latter is an example of governmental intrusion and imposition on the free workings of the market: in this case, burdensome regulation on the labor component, analogous to those burdens on the capital component you always pillory.
I support a company paying the minimum amount necessary to retain an employee's service... And I support employees deploying all potential efforts to maximize their compensation while retaining employment.
I am a daily listener to the Tony Kornheiser podcast... Everyone on there is extremely liberal (but pretty reasonable)...
Yesterday, they had Republican senator Tom Cotton on the show. They spoke very little about politics, but more about Cotton's life in the military and how he got into service.
Before the podcast was released, they tweeted that Cotton would be a guest on the show.
On today's show, they discussed how there was UPROAR before the show was even dropped - with tons of people emailing and tweeting saying they will absolutely not listen to the show, etc.
Tony - who is a huge Obama supporter - is baffled on today's show that people behave like that. Making up their minds without even listening. And essentially saying both sides are basically echo chambers.
It's truly sad how polarized people are... but to not listen to a show you love because of a guest that is a republican? Seriously?
Now - they have no reason to ever bring back anyone from the right
So this is where we'll always diverge, because ultimately we're arguing from different frameworks and on different grounds. I believe that it's morally wrong for a company to generate maximum surplus-value from an employee, which means working them as much as possible and compensating them as little as possible. You believe that's fine, in principle, because you believe in practice the market—when truly free—will correct such that conditions will never be unlivably unfair for workers, with the additional benefit that maximum economic liberty will be achieved. I dispute that theory's practical viability, and believe history likewise tells another tale.
I think that is sadly often the case with many very large unions, due to the anti-worker bureaucracy that has become an albatross of their effective organization. Naturally I argue that the reactionary pressures of vested capital in the mid-century are largely to blame, and so still believe in the basic cause of organized labor—I just think much needs to be dramatically reorganized. And, indeed, I am hopeful that the current perturbations provide a decisive opportunity for precisely that reorganization and restructuring.
Fair enough. That's what I was looking for you to say, since you usually are intellectually consistent.
And there is nothing especially or essentially anti-libertarian about organized labor—in fact, unions often arise because of a deficit in governmental protections for workers. Indeed, if unfettered capitalism were to truly operate with any humane force, I'd think its advocates would, moreover, conceive labor-organization as a vital and necessary counter-balancing component within the market—which is why I scratch my head when some self-styled libertarians are staunchly anti-union.