Um...because its ridiculous?

It's like a really nice toy that would be nice if everyone had, but not everyone can afford. Yet the idea is to force everyone to buy it anyway, even if they can't afford it.

I also do not think this is one of the most significant economic/social issues facing the country at this time, even on the state level. Really, this is like a whole buncha other stuff that is between the employer and the employee. And the proponents have failed to answer my earlier questions as to what benefits this legislation brings such that it is necessary. How was our economy failing before without it?

Depends on your POV, doesn't it? It's ridiculous to *you* is what you mean.

Again, it's not like we live in a world where this kind of thing doesn't happen. We just don't think about it because we're used to it.

Okay, I'm lost.

If the interdependence you're talking about means "mutually dependent" like the interdependence I'm talking about, then we are completely and totally interdependent on each other to feed ourselves. Which then seemed to be your point.

And I've been trying to explain how much I am for our interdependence and relying on other people.

But that is a separate issue from whether the government should mandate sick pay.

Sorry if I'm hard to follow at times. I promise you that I'm not trying to be like.... um, well, like a troll. I really am responding as directly as I can to what you're saying, but I tend to go really big-picture. Sometimes too much so.

Anyway, here's where I'm connecting this together. I'm talking about the idea of us not being personally responsible for stuff anymore b/c something larger takes care of it for us. We don't grow our own food, we don't make our own clothes, we don't educate our own children and teach them job skills, etc. With the issue of mandated sick pay, I'm talking about something larger (the government) taking care of something (the decision about sick pay) for us (i.e. businesses). Maybe it's a weird connection. But it makes sense to me and my weird brain. Because I think there's a progression that society is making, away from individualism and toward mutual dependence. The talk in this thread about people taking care of themselves is individualistic thinking. It's outdated and belongs in the 18th century. Now of course, American individualism came from the frontier period, and it has become a defining trait of our society. But honestly I think it's to our detriment. So many people say "take care of yourself" as a euphemism for "f*ck you and your problems, I couldn't be bothered to help you." And that's what I'm reacting against.

Understandable. (Not that I agree.)

Ugh, okay. I guess I forgot how unenlightened I am compared to you. How's this: its ridiculous to mandate what the majority of reasonable people deem to be an earned benefit based on what kind of job you have and how well you are able to perform said job to the point that it benefits the company you work for to grant you said benefit.

None of those reasonable people would expect to be granted benefits that are above their job and/or skill level, or unrelated whatsoever to their job. While I'd love my job to build a full-on retro arcade for me to use whenever I feel burned out or whatever like Google does as a benefit to its employees, I'd never in my right mind expect there to be some sort of serious bill drawn up in a branch of government in order to require my place of work to supply me with one.

And you'd better believe that I could argue that a daily dose of Ms. Pac Man from a stand-up cabinet would benefit me more than a few days a year of paid sick leave.

Hey, we all have Social Security. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not arguing specifically for this BTW. The free market will take care of it (zomg Hobbes'D!) because more and more, people are having to commute crazy distances (two hours with gas at these prices = ) and smart companies are offering transportation incentives.

Since the argument has gone in this direction anyway..

This is a great original series Star Trek ep. They go to a planet where flowers mandate everyone feel happy and take care of everyone.

http://www.surfthechannel.com/info/televis...html?aid=112139

Two things:

1) I have continually based my point on "here's how we help each other out without the government mandating it" and argued FOR our interdependence but argued for interdependence based on being decent people. You continually combat me with some sort of "interdependent cooperation vs. f*ck everyone else" viewpoint that has nothing to do with me or my posts. Please understand I am not Pro-f*uck everyone else.

2) I think your big picture is skewed - we are not smaller than the private companies that provide our food, clothes, etc. We are those companies. Most people have a job that helps to provide someone else with a good or service. The farms didn't go away, they just got bigger and more complex. Step back and see how you're a part of the machine that feeds McDonald's instead of just a guy that eats at McDonald's and I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

Offhand I'd say that has more to do with the drug culture than government mandates, but such is the beauty of Star Trek.

As JFK said, all of our problems are man-made. They can all be solved by men.. with a little help from Star Trek!

re: your first point, I don't think you're one of those people. But I have seen that sentiment expressed here, and that's where my comes from. I should have been clearer about distinguishing you from them. I think where we might disagree is in the degree of faith we might have in the decency of humanity. It's there, definitely, but it can easily and dramatically be compromised. Human decency is probably the most volatile component of our economy, IMO.

re: your second point, it's a good one.

He's talking about me Hobbes. which is cool, i am somewhat as he describes. not to the extent he probably believes, but somewhat. in my own defense here i must say..



alright dude, now i dont want to be classified as a caveman but i do believe as humans who can think for ourselves and make logical decisions, it is senseless to take all we have accomplished through individualism and just say...well thats far enough, lets let the govt take care of us from here on out. they'll give us a job and a car, they can give us all our needs and make sure we never have to think or do for ourselves again.
that is not progression. that is a total lack of progress. society is not making that progression, although there are some who want it to and one way they are trying to force it is by allowing the govt to have more and more control over our lives. Speaker Nancy comes to mind.
the talk in this thread is about the fact that the govt has no business telling business how to run. in the examples you use of interdependence, you pointed to businesses and people. we work either for ourselves or for someone else to achieve whatever our particular goals may be. are you suggesting that the goal should be to give all our responsiblilties to the govt and let them give us food, clothes, housing? the talk in this thread about people taking care of themselves is not 18th century, it is the talk of people who believe in actually getting up and making a difference in our own lives every day because we dont want the govt to take away our freedoms or responsibilities, we want to be responsible for ourselves and we want other people to be responsible for themselves. we are willing to help but not be forced to help. we are willing to build your house with you, but we dont want to buy it for you and we sure as hell dont want the govt to tell us we have to buy it for you.

some of my comments come off as "the world needs ditch diggers too" but you know what... when i got fired from my 5 year job i got another job...












digging ditches


until i found a better one. then i boxed rugs, worked in a dye house, crawled on my belly in mud to pull wire or whatever i had to do to move up. so yea, i think people should take care of themselves like responsible adults do and if they cant find a job...well, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Yeah, I've had crappy jobs too. Welcome to life, I guess. But I don't think that has much to do with the topic at hand. Individualism and initiative aren't the same thing. You weren't being individualistic unless you were out there working for yourself. Whether it's a business or the government, you owe your livelihood to something that isn't yourself.

Point being: I'm suggesting that the government should partner with people who are willing to work. I'm not suggesting that they do their work for them.

welcome to life, I guess? well look, you made a big deal about "work a shotty job and you might think different," but then you know I have and its "welcome to life". what a convenient way to disrespect and disregard an opposing view without addressing it.
some people work to earn and see the value, some believe they shouldnt have to. I am in the first group.

I was working for myself. we don't owe our livelihood to something else. even if you work for someone you still bear the responsibility of producing in a manner compliant with their standards. so you earn your livelihood. individualism is tied to initiative although they are different. and because of these things and experience I don't believe the govt should encroach on the rights or responsibilities of people.

and that isn't what you said at all before.

I was just saying that I don't think you're special for working some tough jobs. Everybody has to. So, you know, yay for you for getting a job and stuff. But what I don't get is why you think that working for a living is the opposite of what I'm talking about. You've set up this straw man argument about people who supposedly think that they shouldn't have to work hard to see the value of what they're doing or.....? something like that, I dunno. I don't get the perception you have. But I'll say it again for the hell of it: I believe that the government can and should partner with people who are willing to work -- you know, people like you. I think the government should reward work, in other words. And that is the core of what I'm trying to get across here.

*enjoys the angsty circular internet argument that he isn't a part of*

I think the government should reward hard work in its own employees so that it can attract the best and the brightest to come and do those jobs. But, when it comes to other occupations beyond government work, they need to make sure people aren't mistreated or abused by their employers, and that's it.

As soon as you start talking about a "benefit" you are officially outside the realm of mistreatment or abuse, IMO.

I guess we have different definitions of "reward", then.

Ok, I'll bite: I want you's guy's definitions.

To me a reward is like... a benefit

This'd work for me.

Can I change my definition?