Most free states run by Republicans. Least free states run by Democrats.

[epronovost]

No, he did not believe in equality; but part of his skewering of "Christian" morals consists of an attack against the fundamental resentment motivating these moral precepts. And, crucially, when he talked about "Christian" morals, he very much meant contemporary Christian morals; the Martyrs and other more expressive elements of early Christianity weren't at all who he was going after, it was the stuffy Spießbürger and their hypocritical conservativism, their ruthless censorship of art and sexuality; not to mention their virulent antisemitism (which was likely one of the things that broke his relationship with Wagner).

I don't think a Nietzschean morality is something to live by (or even livable in any society to begin with) but I think exclusively treating him as the "will to power" / "slave morality" guy is selling his ideas short.

That would not be a problem for the Cato Institute which is more of hard right, minarchist and laissez faire capitalists than the Christian nationalist branch of the American conservative movements. In fact, considering that the Cato Institute has no problem with things like abortion, contraception and sexual education and liberties for LGBTQ while Nietzsche himself was very sexist, strongly supporting the concept of male headship, the cult of domesticity and the general idea that a women should live in service of men.

 

[exchemist]

They have been doing this for years.

It's factual.

No it isn't. The methodology they use is rife with arbitrary assumptions and weightings.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You'll see many propertarians value the democratic process only when it produces the effects they want.
Otherwise, you always hear charges of "vote buying" as if that was how these proposals worked.

I have very little doubts Indiana still would not adhere to DST had it been brought to a vote. Nobody I ever talked to likes it, everyone thinks it's dumb, and it's widely hated. Right to work would not have easily passed because there are many union workers there.
Yet CATO claims this is more free.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They have been doing this for years.

It's factual.

Let this sink in:
Indiana does not let Hoosiers vote on a massive range of wide sweeping and deeply reaching bills. If you think paying for plastic bags is the nanny state, at least Californians get to vote on those things. In Indiana the state said DST is going to happen so it happened. In California we voted to stop doing all that nonsense.

 

[SomeRandom]

I have very little doubts Indiana still would not adhere to DST had it been brought to a vote. Nobody I ever talked to likes it, everyone thinks it's dumb, and it's widely hated. Right to work would not have easily passed because there are many union workers there.
Yet CATO claims this is more free.

Not being American can you explain to me the “right to work” thing I keep seeing referenced in the thread? Just curious

 

[Revoltingest]

One glaring omission, IMO: "at-will" employment laws are a significant threat to personal freedom, since they allow coercion of workers by employers that would otherwise not occur. AFAICT, this isn't even a factor in their list.

It seems that you're thinking more of government regulation
providing security than actual liberty. For government to
compel business to fire only for cause is a loss of economic
liberty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not being American can you explain to me the “right to work” thing I keep seeing referenced in the thread? Just curious

It's an anti-union measure that lets people work in unionized businesses without joining the union.
So, absolutely nothing to do with anything that resembles a right to work. They don't even bother applying the "go somewhere else" logic they apply to discrimination and getting a better paying job. They just wanted to hurt unions.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's an anti-union measure that lets people work in unionized businesses without joining the union.
So, absolutely nothing to do with anything that resembles a right to work. They don't even bother applying the "go somewhere else" logic they apply to discrimination and getting a better paying job. They just wanted to hurt unions.

Oh. So in America people are required to join unions if they work in an industry/job with a union. And this measure allows (or perhaps more accurately discourages) people from doing that? Is that right?

Sorry it’s a bit hard to wrap my head around it. Since yeah our unions are trampled by the government here, won’t lie. But at the same time there’s more of a flippant attitude due to the federal measures we have
(Mandated maternity and family leave, annual leave and sick leave.)
But that’s not guaranteed in the US by all businesses. Is that right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It seems that you're thinking more of government regulation
providing security than actual liberty. For government to
compel business to fire only for cause is a loss of economic
liberty.

There is nothing good if it's legal to tell someone she's not needed anymore as she's getting her shoes on to go out to the door to go to work. Or firing someone because a third party company mishandled her medical leave paperwork.
It's a thing that does get abused. It's liberty for the employer, but hell for the workers as it's a significant blow to their well being, security, and liberty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems that you're thinking more of government regulation
providing security than actual liberty. For government to
compel business to fire only for cause is a loss of economic
liberty.

... for the business owner. It's an increase in economic liberty for the employees.

Allowing termination at will also allows any number of ways that employers can coerce employees.

Do you think that coercion increases or decreases liberty?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh. So in America people are required to join unions if they work in an industry/job with a union. And this measure allows (or perhaps more accurately discourages) people from doing that? Is that right?

Correct. And unionized jobs are not common here.

But that’s not guaranteed in the US by all businesses. Is that right?

The only thing Uncle Sam entitles us to is a safe workplace, one 30 minute unpaid break if we work at least 8 hours, and monetary compensation for work done, and to make at least $7.25 if you're a non tipped worked ($2.something for tipped workers).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's an anti-union measure that lets people work in unionized businesses without joining the union.
So, absolutely nothing to do with anything that resembles a right to work. They don't even bother applying the "go somewhere else" logic they apply to discrimination and getting a better paying job. They just wanted to hurt unions.

IIRC, in Canada, workers have the right not to join the union, but they still have to pay dues and are still bound by (and protected by) the collective agreement.

That would be one way to deal with it if it weren't really about undermining the power of unions.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is nothing good if it's legal to tell someone she's not needed anymore as she's getting her shoes on to go out to the door to go to work. Or firing someone because a third party company mishandled her medical leave paperwork.
It's a thing that does get abused. It's liberty for the employer, but hell for the workers as it's a significant blow to their well being, security, and liberty.

I see a problem here, ie, many lefties are judging liberty
not as the freedom from government authority to do things,
but rather as what's "good" from a leftish perspective, eg,
providing benefits, providing job security.

If an employee isn't needed, the legal ability to terminate
employment is liberty. To force the employer to keep
employees is the opposite of liberty...but it could be
called "security". The Cato study didn't address that
concept.

 

[Audie]

Nietzsche considered "mastered morality", while imperfect and deserving of critique, to be superior to the "slave morality" of both Christians and humanists in general. Nietzsche didn't believe in equality nor that all were deserving of dignity and access to power and and prosperity, that those who are exceptional should be "allowed" to be exceptional and run over and rule over the mundane.

Not pc but, sane and credible. Esp as that's how i see things.

 

[Revoltingest]

... for the business owner. It's an increase in economic liberty for the employees.

That is "security", not liberty. The Cato study was
about government restrictions on us. It wasn't about
largess granted by government, particularly at the
expense of business.

Allowing termination at will also allows any number of ways that employers can coerce employees.

Do you think that coercion increases or decreases liberty?

You claim coercion, but I dispute that.
You're conflating government imposed security
with liberty from government coercion.

 

[SomeRandom]

Correct. And unionized jobs are not common here.

The only thing Uncle Sam entitles us to is a safe workplace, one 30 minute unpaid break if we work at least 8 hours, and monetary compensation for work done, and to make at least $7.25 if you're a non tipped worked ($2.something for tipped workers).

Sheesh. That’s pretty harsh.
Even in my first job I got more benefits. And I was what we call a casual. (Not full time or part time. So no leave but slightly higher hourly wage to make up for it.)
Break times vary job to job here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see a problem here, ie, many lefties are judging liberty
not as the freedom from government authority to do things,
but rather as what's "good" from a leftish perspective, eg,
providing benefits, providing job security.

Well, no. I for one said what I meant:

In fact, there's quite a bit missing from the list if we look at freedom through the lens of "as I live my life, am I free to do what I want and live as I see fit?" - i.e. actual freedom - rather than their lens of "what laws are imposed on individuals and corporations in our society?"

If an employee isn't needed, the legal ability to terminate
employment is liberty. To force the employer to keep
employees is the opposite of liberty...but it could be
called "security". The Cato study didn't address that
concept.

When the law requires cause to dismiss an employee, "shortage of work" is still generally a reason to dismiss an employee. It's just that when you dismiss an employee who's done nothing wrong, they're entitled to severance, notice, "pay in lieu of notice," or some combination of the three.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I see a problem here, ie, many lefties are judging liberty
not as the freedom from government authority to do things,
but rather as what's "good" from a leftish perspective, eg,
providing benefits, providing job security.

If an employee isn't needed, the legal ability to terminate
employment is liberty. To force the employer to keep
employees is the opposite of liberty...but it could be
called "security". The Cato study didn't address that
concept.

Or why not be decent about it and give an employee at least a few weeks notice in order to try to have something else lined up and prepared instead of being suddenly and unexpectedly let go (so unexpected one supervisor told me they'd keeping me).

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, no. I for one said what I meant:

In fact, there's quite a bit missing from the list if we look at freedom through the lens of "as I live my life, am I free to do what I want and live as I see fit?" - i.e. actual freedom - rather than their lens of "what laws are imposed on individuals and corporations in our society?"

That is a modern N Ameristanian liberal view of liberty,
which includes security & largess. Cato, which leans
libertarian has the perspective of liberty being about
having the freedom (from government restriction) to do
things....not necessarily the government provided ability
to do things
To call security & largess "liberty" is a stretch.

When the law requires cause to dismiss an employee, "shortage of work" is still generally a reason to dismiss an employee. It's just that when you dismiss an employee who's done nothing wrong, they're entitled to severance, notice, "pay in lieu of notice," or some combination of the three.

When the law imposes such requirements, there is less
liberty. Sure, you like the lessened liberty because it
benefits terminated employees. But it's not more liberty.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or why not be decent about it and give an employee at least a few weeks notice in order to try to have something else lined up and prepared instead of being suddenly and unexpectedly let go (so unexpected one supervisor told me they'd keeping me).

No one's arguing that one must do non-decent things.
But liberty is about the freedom to do things....some of which
you might find undesirable. It's like freedom of speech....you
lack the right to be free from offensive speech. You lack the
right to a platform (that someone else provides) for your speech.

I sense that the definition of "liberty" is being muddied with
morality...the personal flavor. If something is seen as immoral,
then it's not "liberty". If something is moral, then it's "liberty",
even if it's a government imposition upon someone.