Guns in vehicles while at work

[CalebToNowhere]

I just toss my gun on the dash of my car and wear my empty holster around all day... never had a problem...

I'm torn on this actually. It's private property and they should be able to decide what and who they want on it. Of course I like being able to have my gun in my car. I would hate for there to be a law that says I have to allow something on my property that I didn't want

I do the same thing, sans the gun on the dash...

 

[Bummer]

My employer is specifically exempted from the law. I get caught with a gun anywhere on the property it's a Federal Offense. Nobody's going to change it, so this whole thing is academic for me.

 

[finity]

I totally agree about your statement about not knowing the difference between the types of economies and system of governments.

I didn't realize that capitalism, communism, socialist, etc. were types of economies. I've been under the mistaken impresession for the past 30 years or so that the three types of economies were market, command, and traditional (with a smattering of mixed when the lines between the three are blurred). When did political ideology elevate itself to types of economies? Is this a new math thing?

The statement that hiring and firing practices are a right handed down by the government through its legislature implies a belief that the government controls the means of production, which is a socialist ideology.

The statement that what the government giveth the government can taketh away (in this context property ownership) implies a belief that all property is owned by the government, and rights to use that property come from the government, which can curtail those rights at it's will. As government is a ficticious entity established to administer and enforce the will of the people collectively, the further implication is that property is owned by the people collectively. This is a communist ideology.

Both of these statements are antithical to American ideals. They are better made by a Chicom than an American.

I'd love to hear more about these new types of economies sometime. Is there a book or something I can get?

And I will ask you, when did simple economic systems get elevated to the level of political ideologies?

Capitalism, mixed, socialism & communism ARE types of economies. They are just more specific types than those you listed. They still fit directly into those BASIC definitions of economy types that you listed.

Pure Capitalism = market economy (which, by the way, doesn't exist ANYWHERE in the world as far as I know)

Real-world "Capitalism" = mixed economy (which by my estimation seems to be running second with socialism as the most common economic policy in the world. I don't have the exact numbers but at a minimum they are running neck & neck.

Socialism = planned economy, or as you call it 'command'.

Pure Communism = pure 'command' economy. Not very common at all.

Just because you (& so many others) confuse & conflate simple economic systems with the types of governments that run them doesn't make them a TRUE political ideology. To talk intelligently about this people need to be able to seperate out the two (ultimately) interconnected social institutions of government & economy.

Here's a quick primer on economic systems:

Economic system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can see why people tend to confuse the two. Of course a community WILL establish a government that can/will direct it's "chosen" economic philosophy. That doesn't mean that a certain type of government will always direct a certain economic style.

As I said, their has been (& still are with many) democratic communism, democratic socialism, socialist republics, mixed economy republics, totalitarian communism, totalitarian mixed economies, etc., etc.

A communist country doesn't, BY DEFAULT, HAVE to have a totalitarian government. A republic doesn't HAVE to have a "capitalist" economy BY DEFAULT.

We can all pretty much agree that totalitarian type governments are bad. The only ones who think that they are good are the ones who are in power. Even Bush said he wouldn't mind living in a dictatorship as long as he was the dictator. Yes, I know he was only joking. It was a tasteless joke to be made by the president of the USA, IMHO, but that's how dictators truly think.

On the other hand, there are both good & bad things with all economic systems. That's why mixed type economies or economies with at least some degree of direction are so prevalent. It's trying to achieve a balance between the good things of directed economies & the good things of a purely capitalist economy while minimizing the attendant bad things of each.

Let's face it, when the issue is forced almost nobody really wants a purely capitalist economy (except the very rich) & almost nobody really wants a purely communist economy (except the very poor).

As to the statement about "what the government giveth the government can taketh away":

WE have allowed (even desired) the government to create the artificial entity called a "corporation". We desired that the government give LEGAL (not natural) rights to those corporations. We did that IN EXCHANGE for the PROTECTIONS from liability & financial loss that incorporating gives the company owners. NOBODY is forcing ANYBODY to incorporate. People do that of their own free will in order to benefit from those PROTECTIONS.

The government (US) did give those rights to the people who (freely & willingly) incorporated. If the government (US) sees fit that a change is needed in those rights then the government (US) has the power to change them since they were given by US in the first place. If you don't like it then you can freely & willingly dissolve the corporation & return the company to private ownership, with all the attendant liabilities that entails.

NOBODY HERE has implied that the government OWNS a corporation. It has been given (by US) the power to regulate those corporations. To state otherwise is a strawman.

I also agree that the government is a fictitious entity created by US to adminster & enforce the will of the people. One of those things that it administers & enforces our will upon is the at least EQUALLY fictitious entity called a "corporation" that was created solely by the government (US).

The idea that the government (US) can control hiring/firing (among other activities of businesses from worker safety & discrimination to environmental concerns) stems from the fact that we have a MIXED economy. We ALLOW businesses to "freely" operate within a set of guidelines established by US to protect the interests of the general population (collective) while minimizing the infringements on the Natural Rights of (non-incorporated) business owners.

Again, NOBODY, when the issue is forced, would really want that businesses could do WHATEVER they wanted to their workers or the environment in the HOPE that EVENTUALLY the "market" would help to correct the damages done (except those who are the perpetrators of those crimes). That has never worked. The reason we have most of the laws that we have is because of the history of abuse by "pure capitalists". OSHA, EPA, EEOC, SEC & all the other various "alphabet" agencies came about as a direct result of the abuses by some business owners.

Actually, now that I think about it, the "market" DID decide & correct those abuses. The way the "market" (US - we are also the "market" as well as being the "government") decided to correct those abuses was to ctreate government agencies to regulate those businesses so the abuses were eliminated or, at the least, minimized.

Call me "un-American" all you like but I have no problem with the government regulating businesses to some degree. The only debate I can reasonably see is to decide where that "degree" lies.

 

[Bummer]

^^ Well explained. The big question: Will it be absorbed or will it simply generate more Limbaughisms? Based upon what I've seen over the last six months here I hold out little hope.

 

[andy2720]

We are allowed to have them in our vehicle as longas they are not visible.