Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

Its a Chinese company, his race is irrelevant, nice fallacy.
16
Freedom of Association should allow anyone to fire a workfork that goes on strike, its an actual violation of human rights to disallow freedom of association.
10
@blackgorillaarmy9204 Freedom of association (that's one of the points of the 1st Amendment, not just speech) is a right, you have no right to be employed, you have a right to seek work, that's it, the government is not obligated to give you a job. Also you have no right to keep your job, a job is a privilege you agreed to do for payment so the business can function.
7
Okay and? As a family of conscientious and religious objectors, who the freak cares?
5
@andrescruz9741 The company has no obligation to give you them though, like collective bargaining is a strategy, but nobody is entitled to keep a job nor its benefits, you can negotiate that by going to a place that respects your work. (and yes they do exist if you actually want to work a real job)
4
@blackgorillaarmy9204 Freedom of association need be my only caused for firing someone, meaning I need no justification.
4
@Miriam-ug5pc Its basic economics, an employer also has to compete for employees, and thus the unregulated free market naturally has incentives to do so. That's why employee benefits predates both business taxes and benefit regulations. (in our modern economy, benefits are the only non-taxed financial consideration you can give to an employee, hence why I include business taxes, normally they'd be irrelevant)
3
@coragoodwin344 You're not entitled to a job.
3
They don't even know what a right is, nobody should even be entitled to have their job, that's how you know the system has failed these idiots.
3
@merryhunt9153 It means I choose who I will and won't associate with freely, whether I'm the employer or employee, so if I don't want to work, I don't have to work, but if I don't want you to work for me, I don't have to employ you. And it goes back to even before John Locke and was iterated by every American founder.
3
@M3TALG0DS That's a false conclusion and an ignoratio elenchi fallacy. No you're not. Nobody is obligated to employ you, you are responsible for taking care of yourself, if you can't do that, that's your fault.
2
@blackgorillaarmy9204 The working class can take care of itself if the government would just get out of the way of business, the free market naturally regulates, the state should only interfere when someone is being assaulted or attacked, not simply because they believe they're being discriminated against.
2
@jessups123 As someone who has had a job, I have never had entitlement to it, I agreed to the job for so long as the job needed me, the government does not exist to make you feel safe and comfortable, it exists to punish evil, firing someone on the basis of freedom of association which is a right, not to have a job which is a privilege, is the only moral outlook. Your outlook is socialist by nature, you don't understand anything about economics. No you don't deserve to keep a job just because you have one.
1
@M3TALG0DS That's what the US was like in the 1890s, in the 1800s there was no emergency services, it was voluntary business. Hospitals were paid only in the private market and through brotherhood networks, you joined a neighborhood brotherhood and through the private market you were given benefits, sometimes the business freely gave them too, in the 1910s, 90% of the economy was entrepreneurs running their own businesses. (nowadays 90% of the market is employees, not employers, an employee can't live the American Dream) Most police enforcement tended to be citizen self-defense, and firefighters were subsided by the private market because letting a city burn down is bad for all businesses.
1
@andrescruz9741 The Law part however violates the basis and spirit of the US Constitution and rights of man because we were infiltrated by communist narcissists.
1
26 million+ views
1
You don't have a right to a job, you have a right to seek for a job, freedom of association is a right, violating it by restricting the association of people is a violation of human rights expressly stated in the 1st Amendment. Nobody has a right to be provided nor to keep a job, they're just stupid or lazy.
1
@Northman1963 You are not entitled to work, you don't have to work if you're feeling you're being exploited, that's an agreement between the employer and employee, also the law doesn't stop you from being exploited, there isn't even an objective definition of exploitation, and what about the government exploiting me? Why is the private market who I trust better not allowed to exploit me but all my taxes go to a social security fund I'll never have access to cause its constantly stolen from? To a healthcare tax I can't and will never use, and if I don't I get fined twice the tax over it? Why am I taxed and my savings inflated just to support geriatrics who never actually worked a day in their lives? Why do I have to work to pay off a deadbeat college kid who can only take minimum wage jobs because they went to a school for gender studies?
1
Why would the race matter? The company is Chinese and ran by a Chinese owned company, that's a completely irrelevant point.
1
Nobody is entitled to a job. And yes I have had a job.
1
Illegal immigration pollutes the supply of employees and thus drives down wages through basic market forces, (cause if demand remains the same but supply increases, prices drop, that's literally economics 101) even if they don't "take" the job, they drive down the wage of said job by purely existing. Not to mention since they would be hiring an illegal alien, they are more capable to cheat their wage driving wages down further, this is why minimum wage is stupid, let people work for their own decided agreed upon value between the business and employee, let people compete, freedom of association if the right of all men, its a violation of rights to restrict it.
1
Social security is such a stupid idea if you know anything about economics.
1
@Builderjim Nobody is restricting collective bargaining, but it is not the government's job to interfere simply because you got laid off for it, that's your fault, go to a job that wants to pay for your work, not one that needs warm bodies. And if you can't do a skill worth being sought out and paid for then that's your fault for being low skill, not the business's.
1
@Builderjim First off its not the government's job to do that, secondly the middle class thrived the most when it didn't create the monopolies, look up The Myth of Natural Monopoly from the Mises Institute, it has good references on that subject. Or look up The Myth of Middle Class from the Mises Institute, another good one.
1
@Builderjim First off its not the government's job to do that, secondly the middle class thrived the most when it didn't create the monopolies, look up The Myth of Natural Monopoly and The Myth of Middle Class from the Mises Institute.
1
@Builderjim Look up The Myth of Natural Monopoly and The Myth of Middle Class from the Mises Institute.
1
@LyonsM And that's a violation of human rights and economic prosperity.
1
@LyonsM You can strike, but nobody is entitled to give you a second thought nor to employ you for doing so, the 1st Amendment is expression, not to be heard, nobody has the obligation to care about you, only not to regulate your free acts until you violate someone's rights, which includes free association.
1
@BillMartin-h2g When you don't have "legal cause" to do so, also DEI practices are spawned from the Civil Rights Act where unequal outcomes always presume oppression of some sort, also known as the equity fallacy.
1
@MyCatsChannel841 That's my point, you don't own business if you need to get permission for it, if you're taxed on it, and if you can't control absolutely, having private property requires total control without any oversight. Anything else is renting, not owning.
1