What constitutes "humanely"?

So the improvement of the lives of the employees constitutes meeting the owners' moral obligation? Is there no obligation to the nation that they are citizens of?

So as long as they are following the laws of the land, and they create revenue for the owners of the company, nothing more need noting? That's it? That concludes the moral aspect?

Employees do not have a right to the fruits of their own labor?

They don't have the right to agree to work at a certain wage and then change their mind and ask Big Government or Big Union to come in and force the employer to raise their wages,

The accumulation of great wealth depends upon society. Without society, there can be no such thing.

That is fact.

Probably not in your and Tom Delay's paradise, but they certainly do in India and America.

That doesn't make it right in the moral or legal sense, however.[.quote]

I leave the moral stuff to the religious people. How is it not legally right to unionize in America and india?

Such pathetic attempts at logic are committed in these forums. It's sad.

I never said it was "moral" to work in a sweatshop, I said it's moral to build and run them there. It is a very great boon to 3rd world citizen who gets to work in a sweatshop. Sweatshops are moral in 3rd world countries, because it offers the citizens a better alternative than their country can allow. It also creates more jobs than the country already has. It also gives the employees job experience that will come in very useful as the economy grows.

Maybe the reason you don't believe in what Jeb Bush has said is because you are incapable of understanding what he said? I'm not saying that you have a mental deficiency, but rather an emotional one. You are clearly intelligent, but you allow your emotions to blind your reason. You should calm down and look at the facts rationally. I didn't always believe sweatshops were good, I educated myself. If someone says something you don't agree with, you don't have to lash out at them from pure emotion, you can research the subject and come to an informed decision.

LOL!! Who's 'lashing'? I'm just pointing out the contradiction of your position and the fact that you are unwilling to put your actual money where your proverbial mouth is.

And as usual, the torrent of ad hominems and eqivocations proves I've pushed your buttons sufficiently to get you to surreptitously abandon your logical fallacies in favor of 'tough guy' rhetoric and 'politician's answers'.

In other words, all the things you decry in others.

But by all means, DEMAND that your Far Right stalwarts like Rick Santorum bring sweatshops back to America. Let them grab the 3rd rail of politics so we can put them back where they belong- outside of Congress looking in fulminating to Fundy crackpots. That's how we handed Santorum his walking papers in Pennsylvania. Remember his supporters chanting "Hee Hee, ho ho ho- Social Security's to go"? More than even his many exposed hypocrises, that sound byte came back to haunt him ruthlessly.

-Kerry O.

And without a special person who can find a need and fill that need, great wealth wouldn't exist. What's your point? That because a society allows each person to reach their fullest potential, those who have the most success should be over taxed? Why should they try as hard, when they receive diminishing returns with more effort?

lets discuss THEE problem,,,lol

its just a funny title, as if there is only one problem


Id say the big problems holding us back are 'greed' and 'ego'

if we could produce and share,, allowing a balance of give AND take
and if we could value ourself as much by what we share as by what we produce ,,,,we could reinforce a frame of existence where we werent the only person that should matter to us and things might be going a bit more smoothly


,,,just my opinion though

Your post is so stupid and dangerous, it should declared a hate crime.

well, our government has no RIGHTS to anything but 'we the people' did give them the POWER to levy taxes against our income.

That in itself is debatable particularly given the fact that the income tax was never officially ratified by all the states. It's an illegal tax on those grounds.

Spider,

What is an employer/business owner's moral obligation to his/her nation and/or employees?

you keep saying that, but in fact it is ILLEGAL to not pay taxes... ask willie nelson, or red fox, or wesly snipes...where or when is/has there been a country that didn't require tax payments?

How much of it is reign by fear though? And if there's a law, why the hell is it so damn hard to follow what it is, and why won't they admit it if asked outright if there is one?

All this is, is little more than legalized extortion, and even then it's more like illegalized.

How much of it is reign by fear though? And if there's a law, why the hell is it so damn hard to follow what it is, and why won't they admit it if asked outright if there is one?

All this is, is little more than legalized extortion, and even then it's more like illegalized.

I've already answered this, I'm not going to answer it again.