The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed... It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state. - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 October, 1785.
Think carefully about the concept; the fundamental right to labor the earth. It is the fundamental right of man to work. In stripping anyone of their right to work, you impose upon them a breed of tyranny that rips away their fundamental rights. Our natural state - is for men to work.
What you're suggesting as a counter-argument is, in essence, the same thing as simply arguing that people must be vaccinated to labor - in opposition to the argument that people must be vaccinated to labor. In other words - a logical fallacy.
All men that can and will work, should and shall. Any mandate put in place to prevent them from working based on any aspect of their identity, is a violation of their fundamental rights. It really is that simple.
This isn't about "employing who they want," though. This is about selective discrimination to bar individuals from employment based upon personal medical decisions - inquiry thereof violating the right of the prospective candidate's right to privacy.
By your argument - if I mandated that I would not employ a man unless he is surgically neutered, your position is "this is fine." I want a qualified, intelligent, and capable worker for my business - if I turn down five of those because I want a eunuch, that is a problem.
We once had a president named Ronald Reagan. Many honor him as a hero to our nation. He allowed Corporations to accumulate power faster than ever before, in exchange cutting down the strength of government and allowing Corporatists to challenge the United States Government to a trial of strength - The Corporatists won. We ended up with monstrosities like Blackrock, Big Tech conglomerates, and the argument you and I have now.
Ronald Reagan also passed the 1986 firearms ban. He signed his name in endorsement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. He betrayed the American People.
This country - the United States - does not function correctly when We, the People, are not allowed to hold those with more power than the common man accountable. Period. The gears of Freedom stop turning, here.
It has nothing to do with being a Brit. If I wasn't concerned about what's going on or willing to fight for freedom, I wouldn't be on here would I?
I'm not saying it's right that a company should be allowed to discriminate. All this tyranny boils my piss as much as it does yours.
However, that is something that a court should decide based on existing discrimination laws.
What if a Governor mandated that companies were only allowed to hire trans or blacks? Is that something a Governor should do?
Do you see yet what she means with slippery slope?
Think carefully about the concept; the fundamental right to labor the earth. It is the fundamental right of man to work. In stripping anyone of their right to work, you impose upon them a breed of tyranny that rips away their fundamental rights. Our natural state - is for men to work.
What you're suggesting as a counter-argument is, in essence, the same thing as simply arguing that people must be vaccinated to labor - in opposition to the argument that people must be vaccinated to labor. In other words - a logical fallacy.
All men that can and will work, should and shall. Any mandate put in place to prevent them from working based on any aspect of their identity, is a violation of their fundamental rights. It really is that simple.
Well you can formulate an argument if you want but in essence, if you read what I wrote, we do not disagree.
I also believe it is a violation of fundamental rights.
However, business owners also have the right to employ who they want.
Hence why I say it should be addressed in a court of law.
This isn't about "employing who they want," though. This is about selective discrimination to bar individuals from employment based upon personal medical decisions - inquiry thereof violating the right of the prospective candidate's right to privacy.
By your argument - if I mandated that I would not employ a man unless he is surgically neutered, your position is "this is fine." I want a qualified, intelligent, and capable worker for my business - if I turn down five of those because I want a eunuch, that is a problem.
We once had a president named Ronald Reagan. Many honor him as a hero to our nation. He allowed Corporations to accumulate power faster than ever before, in exchange cutting down the strength of government and allowing Corporatists to challenge the United States Government to a trial of strength - The Corporatists won. We ended up with monstrosities like Blackrock, Big Tech conglomerates, and the argument you and I have now.
Ronald Reagan also passed the 1986 firearms ban. He signed his name in endorsement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. He betrayed the American People.
This country - the United States - does not function correctly when We, the People, are not allowed to hold those with more power than the common man accountable. Period. The gears of Freedom stop turning, here.
Well fren, you mentioned your ancestors fighting and dieing for your country.
BTW, I had 6 uncles (all brothers) fighting against the Nazis simultaneously so we all have ancestors who fought against tyranny.
Perhaps such a time has arrived again?