Maternity is the state of motherhood. Men are not mothers.
Stop fucking around with semantics and answer the fucking question.
But then he wouldn't be KevinNash! :x
I've never seen a man take paternity leave in my office. I've seen a few women do it. 2 didn't return and 1 of them was on paid leave for 9 months. I'm not sure about paternity leave practices in other corporate offices but from what I've seen in the past is men usually take a day or two, not a month or two.
I'd take a month or two if my future wife made more than me. I think it helps to see the little bastards as much as you can, within reason.
I'd love to take time off for that. Who wouldn't? But I don't know if that's really fair to my employer or my co-workers. Bailing out on several projects and replacing my workload with an unqualified temp isn't necessarily appropriate. Even if it is appropriate that should be something that I can decide on with my employer at my place of work, not something that is mandated by a law.
Wait, so you're saying that while both men and women can take leave to help with the early portions of raising a kid (and unless I'm missing something, in the US and most western countries leave is available for either the mother or the father), but you've only seen women do it?
Because I would suggest that that's less because they're lazy or feel like letting people down than because they are more likely to be making less than their male counterpart. I don't know that you'll find women taking maternity leave if they make twice as much as their partner. Generally new parents don't want to take lots of monetary risks.
Now, if it's paid leave, why would you begrudge them that? If I got 5 years paid leave because my company felt it was important that I have a satisfactory child-rearing experience, I'd take it in a second. As far as I can tell though, paid leave isn't the norm in the US. The onerous examples of long leave that you cite are just contracts between the employer and employee. Unless I'm completely wrong, and a 9-month paid maternity leave is in fact mandated by law.
It isn't mandated at all. There is also nothing wrong with leave contracts between and employer and employee. I just think that when you mandate these things they tend to create situations where they disregard specific facts about individual employment. Sometimes a 6 month leave is perfectly justified, sometimes a 2 week leave isn't. Every case is different.
And yes of course we'd take leave if we felt that was in the best interests of our kids. I don't blame women (or men) for wanting it, I just think it should be at the private contractual level, not the legal level.
Libertarians: Should people be allowed to sell their own organs (feel free to make distinctions between essential and nonessential) on the free market if they so wish?
Yes. This could only save lives - right now you have to rely on charity or a relative to get an organ. You can argue that only the rich could afford it, but even so - they get an organ and a donated organ is freed up for somebody who can't pay but needs it just as much.
So instead of creating a waiting list based on severity and a few qualifications, we create a market that drives prices so high most people won't have access to them?
Awesome. I hope nobody but the Carnegie and Gates families get cancer.
Libertarians: Should people be allowed to sell their own organs (feel free to make distinctions between essential and nonessential) on the free market if they so wish?
Yes. This could only save lives - right now you have to rely on charity or a relative to get an organ. You can argue that only the rich could afford it, but even so - they get an organ and a donated organ is freed up for somebody who can't pay but needs it just as much.
Don't forget all the negatives associated with creating a market like this.
Like what? I'm not saying that we should abolish the current waiting lists based on need at all. I probably wouldn't donate a kidney to stranger, not knowing if I'll ever need to give one to a family member or a friend, but if I really needed the money I would probably part with one.
You think that the black market that currently exists because it is illegal to buy and sell is better? At the very least these people would be able to get the operations done in clean facilities.
Libertarians: Should people be allowed to sell their own organs (feel free to make distinctions between essential and nonessential) on the free market if they so wish?
Yes. This could only save lives - right now you have to rely on charity or a relative to get an organ. You can argue that only the rich could afford it, but even so - they get an organ and a donated organ is freed up for somebody who can't pay but needs it just as much.
Don't forget all the negatives associated with creating a market like this.
Like what? I'm not saying that we should abolish the current waiting lists based on need at all. I probably wouldn't donate a kidney to stranger, not knowing if I'll ever need to give one to a family member or a friend, but if I really needed the money I would probably part with one.
You think that the black market that currently exists because it is illegal to buy and sell is better? At the very least these people would be able to get the operations done in clean facilities.
Once you make this a market, the rules for being destitute will change, the Black Market will explode, and it would exploit poor decisions and people in poor situations even further.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
There is also the question of why people would people would donate their organs when they can sell them. Seems like it would break the current system.
Well we can make blind assertions, or we could look at Iran who has adopted a market system (though very regulated) which has no waiting list for their kidney transplants.
Do you, you know, have some evidence that legal programs cause more prejudice? You talk out of your ass a whole lot, so I'm just going to call you on this and see if you can back it up. If it's needed, I can hop on my school's library directory and dig up hundreds and hundreds of pages worth of studies that easily counter that claim.
Richard Epstein makes a pretty good case in his book Forbidden Grounds. It argues that the opinions of the left: we still need anti discrimination laws and of the right: we needed them then but not now are both wrong and that they never should have been enacted in the first place because they do more harm than good.
You can look it up on Amazon or read a review here:
Do you, you know, have some evidence that legal programs cause more prejudice? You talk out of your ass a whole lot, so I'm just going to call you on this and see if you can back it up. If it's needed, I can hop on my school's library directory and dig up hundreds and hundreds of pages worth of studies that easily counter that claim.
Richard Epstein makes a pretty good case in his book Forbidden Grounds. It argues that the opinions of the left: we still need anti discrimination laws and of the right: we needed them then but not now are both wrong and that they never should have been enacted in the first place because they do more harm than good.
You can look it up on Amazon or read a review here:
Government officials might abuse the power of anti trust laws. Abloo. Businesses can't succeed as well as they could without the laws. Well damn. I guess will just have to look at the bright side in that they're not abusing their power to make as much money as they can while screwing over everyone else.
And that article did nothing to address oligarchies.
Not when the government mandates something. It's then a monopoly.
Not necessarily. My town mandates clean sidewalks, but there's competition for who does the shoveling.
If the government does it, it isn't really a monopoly. Monopoly is something that occurs in private markets.
Suggesting that government operates in the same way as a business really shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how government operates.
What about when government saw its job as building and owning monopolies? For example in my country the government owned (and built) the railways, civil engineering, telephone company/network, electricty distribution (and 80-90% of generation)? I believe in the case of the phone company the monopoly was protected by law, in that competitors were legally not allowed.
Posts
It isn't mandated at all. There is also nothing wrong with leave contracts between and employer and employee. I just think that when you mandate these things they tend to create situations where they disregard specific facts about individual employment. Sometimes a 6 month leave is perfectly justified, sometimes a 2 week leave isn't. Every case is different.
And yes of course we'd take leave if we felt that was in the best interests of our kids. I don't blame women (or men) for wanting it, I just think it should be at the private contractual level, not the legal level.
So instead of creating a waiting list based on severity and a few qualifications, we create a market that drives prices so high most people won't have access to them?
Awesome. I hope nobody but the Carnegie and Gates families get cancer.
You think that the black market that currently exists because it is illegal to buy and sell is better? At the very least these people would be able to get the operations done in clean facilities.
Maybe not such a bad idea?
The quote is kinda out of context so I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. A case for repealing of anti-trust laws is outlined here however:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2894
Richard Epstein makes a pretty good case in his book Forbidden Grounds. It argues that the opinions of the left: we still need anti discrimination laws and of the right: we needed them then but not now are both wrong and that they never should have been enacted in the first place because they do more harm than good.
You can look it up on Amazon or read a review here:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=2113
Or you can just ignore these opinions and accuse me of making things up because you don't agree with them.
Assumption of economics: there is competition.
Not when the government mandates something. It's then a monopoly.
Not necessarily. My town mandates clean sidewalks, but there's competition for who does the shoveling.
If the government does it, it isn't really a monopoly. Monopoly is something that occurs in private markets.
Suggesting that government operates in the same way as a business really shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how government operates.
And that article did nothing to address oligarchies.
I'd just mandate people to donate organs upon their demise to the donation-queue thingee.
And allow living people to sell their organs.
What about when government saw its job as building and owning monopolies? For example in my country the government owned (and built) the railways, civil engineering, telephone company/network, electricty distribution (and 80-90% of generation)? I believe in the case of the phone company the monopoly was protected by law, in that competitors were legally not allowed.