PatrickG38
Posts: 338
Joined: 10/8/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Where do you get that?
You two are impuning an awful lot of positions not expressed.
I don't see myself as a victim of corporations. I'm sorry if you see yourself that way. I'm not a slave waiting outside the castle for a handout. I have choices where I go, where I work, whether I work, to create my own work, and none of that is at the hands of corporations.
There's a whole lot of ranting about "my monetary values," about which neither of you have a clue. In fact, it's always been my policy that it's in service that we create mutual benefits. But...that wouldn't fit into your rant.
If you're so hot for free speech--a value I hold quite highly, despite the mischaracterizations here--you'd not want to squelch it in one quarter to raise it in another, and especially not by mandate from the government--can you not see how that itself would violate the First Amendment?
What are you going to do...imprison Dixie Chick fans who stopped buying albums?
You want to do something about this instance, start a Marlins boycott. It's your right.
ETA:
Should opponents of abortion, for example, stop their crusade to defund government health efforts that include not only abortion, but also contraception? Should they morally say "We disagree with pro-choice views, but we will continue to fund their programs, because we value American free speech, and will not sell our principles by denying funding."?
And if they crusade against funding anyway, are they money whores selling their first amendment values for capital?
If you applied your voiced principles uniformally, you'd have to accuse them of exactly that. Free speech is more important than choice over one's own money, according to you, and any attempt to channel money toward efforts you favor just spits on the first amendment.
It's a pretty radical view, and one that frankly doesn't sell values, but rather puts one value above all others.
Suppose you got your car maintained at the same place for years. Then they hired a service manager who spent his entire day bitching to everyone that "Those kink people are commies, they are ruining America, I wish I could just spit in their faces--hell, they should all be rounded up and killed, slowly, by torture--they should love that! Fucking asshole idiots."
Honestly, you'd keep going there, because you value his free speech so much?
Or would you vote with your dollars and patronize a more customer oriented shop?
I am assuming you are addressing me.
It is, admittedly, a radical opinion in this political economy and that by itself is no sound argument against it. It is further a position that has limits; you are no doubt correct in that and might not apply to a highly paid, high profile position such as the one involving the Marlin's manager. I do not view it as an absolute rule by many any means, but, of course, I do not really think most views should be absolute.
The two of us might be able to relocate or switch jobs at ease, but hat is not the condition the vast majority of American workers find themselves in and to pretend that is the nature of the larger economy is not helpful and somewhat dishonest (especially the present economy).
Your hypothetical does pose a real question even if posed in extremis. Generally when choosing my service providers I try not to hold individual opinions of an employee or even an owner against them (my dry cleaner is extremely right wing, but he dry cleans very well and I do not want to live my life in contact only with people I agree with). If the service manager did that all day instead of managing service, he would be rightly fired. If I saw my service manger say at a tea party protest, I wouldn't refuse to bring my car to him; that seems very small minded. Of course, I would not jail people who refused to buy albums and you know that, and I accept people will use their rights stupidly on occasion. It would be limiting is I could not listen to Ted Nugent because I abhor his views just it would be limiting to avoid Wagner because of his antisemitism, but that is not the issue.
I do believe 'at-will"employment is a relic of highly simplistic laissez faire mentality and that salaried workers should generally have more protections than those provided currently by statute. If you believe say the manager of walmart should be able to fire an associate because he made a blog post in favor of paid sick leave policies, I think that diminishing to very important civic engagement and the health of our democracy, and I may be wrong, but I think you might find wrong as well.
I have a good deal of respect for your opinions and have read many of your posts, I responded in I hope a spirit of good will and reasoned dialogue.
Patrick
|
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread