You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #13: Most of those are sensible; 4 and 7 are blinders; 2 and 10c are daft. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. Most of those are sensible; 4 and 7 are blinders; 2 and 10c are daft.

1: Yes, of course.

2: No. Speaking as a non-American, I can assure you that there is nothing immoral about employing non-Americans, any more than there's anything immoral about employing Americans (do you think that companies that employ Americans but make profits in other countries should be penalised?). In a clash of interests between poor Americans and rich Americans, one should usually side with the former; in a clash of interests between poor Americans and poor people in other countries there's no such "presumption of rightness" on one side.

3: I don't know enough about this to comment, but it sounds like a good idea on the face of it.

4: Yes, this is one of the two I agree with most strongly - I've heard an awful lot of people who appear to be right about other things blame the recent economic meltdown on the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

5: Yes, of course. But I don't expect there to be many - the crash was caused by regulations being removed, not by regulations being broken; it was the fault of government and the electorate, not individual bankers.

6: Yes, of course.

7: Yes, of course. America spends far more on healthcare than Europe, for worse results. Take a look at the NHS, and learn.

8: Yes, of course, in theory, although I suspect easier said than done.

9: No, this looks to me like a bad idea. Employees interests are represented by unions; boards are there to represent the interests of shareholders. I think this would be a lot like requiring every union to have 50% of its members appointed by the shareholders.

10a1&2: Certainly something like this would be a good idea; this may go too far.

10a3: Seems sensible.

10a4: I think this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and goes too far, albeit in a sensible direction. Every election needs to leave a paper trail so it can be checked, but there's no reason not to count votes by computer. Press a button on the screen, get a receipt, check it says what it should, drop it in a box, and only bother counting what's in the box if there's a controversy.

10b: No, I like being able to sue corporations, than you very much. And the idea that "the interests of corporations" are not a vital part of "the interests of society" is just silly.

10c: God no. An amendment saying you have a right to employment is like an amendment saying you have a right not to get cancer. Keep constitutional amendments for nitty-gritty literal stuff, and save high-minded waffle for speeches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC