Moms are turning to crowdfunding to help pay for maternity leave

[dblack]

Nope.. all we can do is go forward in time. Again, what you long for is corporatism, and I'm adamantly opposed to it. Government should protect the rights of all individuals equally, regardless of which 'bargaining unit' they belong to.

Where did you get the notion I'm pro-corporatist when virtually everything I post says the opposite?

Corporatism isn't what you think. I saw in interesting article on Salon a while back that suggested the word be retired, because no one wants to use it correctly. So, apparently you aren't the only one who is confused. Did you read anything at that link?

Numerous specialized definitions all saying essentially the same thing: "Humans tend to form groups."

Well, it's more than that. It's government that distributes power to competing interest groups. In particular, it's government where our rights are based on which group we belong to.

Well, if we're going meta, we can define "government" as "any overarching authority." Start with parents and teachers and go from there.

No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.

I doubt you'd say authority qua authority is wrong; it just depends on who the authority is, appointed by whom, and whether or not that authority can be replaced or escaped from.

It doesn't depend on any of those things, actually. It depends on what the government is authorized to do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, Fuck yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it. Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.

You sound like an elitist asshat.

Or a handout seeking moron.

It just does not seem to register that people in America like living in houses and driving cars (not living in high rise apartments and taking mass transit all over the place).

But the left is bound and determined to get us there.

Weird because I live in a house and have 2 cars. Yet my wife was able to take mat leave for both our kids.

Let's see.....first, you didn't address my question. Is a country without maternity leave uncivilized ?

Second, it's great you have those things. So why are we talking about this ?

I live in the U.S....and have more than two cars, a house and a wife who had maternity leave. Shows the market can provide.

 

[koshergrl]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, Fuck yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it. Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.

You sound like an elitist asshat.

Or a handout seeking moron.

It just does not seem to register that people in America like living in houses and driving cars (not living in high rise apartments and taking mass transit all over the place).

But the left is bound and determined to get us there.

Because they think it's their duty to reduce everybody to the same circumstances they have chosen.

They're nothing but small minded, brain washed minions.

 

[Arianrhod]

No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.

So, um, what kind of government doesn't pass laws? And what kind of government passes laws but doesn't enforce them?

 

[Arianrhod]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, Fuck yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it. Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.

You sound like an elitist asshat.

Or a handout seeking moron.

It just does not seem to register that people in America like living in houses and driving cars (not living in high rise apartments and taking mass transit all over the place).

But the left is bound and determined to get us there.

Weird because I live in a house and have 2 cars. Yet my wife was able to take mat leave for both our kids.

First, welcome to the board!

Second, you'll notice very quickly who talks about you in the third person because they're unable to discuss the topic. The cute little assumptions they make about you are hilarious.

They apparently have no concept of how maternity leave is handled in the real world.

 

[dblack]

No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.

So, um, what kind of government doesn't pass laws? And what kind of government passes laws but doesn't enforce them?

I don't know. Or why you're asking. We were talking about corporatism, a style of government that dispenses with individual rights in favor of group-based privilege. It promotes the notion of government as a power broker and resource allocator.

 

[Arianrhod]

No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.

So, um, what kind of government doesn't pass laws? And what kind of government passes laws but doesn't enforce them?

I don't know. Or why you're asking. We were talking about corporatism, a style of government that dispenses with individual rights in favor of group-based privilege. It promotes the notion of government as a power broker and resource allocator.

Aside from small tribal entities where everything was shared in common, you're describing all of human history.

 

[dblack]

Hey dblack,

I can't see your "opponents" posts, but do get you are arguing with an idiot.

Can you tell me what corporatism has to do with the OP.

I'd be curious.

Corporatism is a kind of government that distributes power and influence to competing interest groups. It dispenses with the goal of protecting the equal rights of individuals in favor of attending to the demands of organized 'corporations' (people organized around a specific purpose). The 'corporations' of corporatism can be modern, incorporated business, but more often they are organizations that represent larger groups. Trade unions, industry associations, political parties, labor advocates etc... Basically, any group that has a vested interest in using the power of government to steer society their way.

In this case, labor advocates (and other interested parties) have lobbied government to force businesses to provide certain 'benefits' to employees.

 

[dblack]

No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.

So, um, what kind of government doesn't pass laws? And what kind of government passes laws but doesn't enforce them?

I don't know. Or why you're asking. We were talking about corporatism, a style of government that dispenses with individual rights in favor of group-based privilege. It promotes the notion of government as a power broker and resource allocator.

Aside from small tribal entities where everything was shared in common, you're describing all of human history.

Not at all. You'll have to read up on the topic if you want to have an intelligent conversation about corporatism. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

 

[Arianrhod]

No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.

So, um, what kind of government doesn't pass laws? And what kind of government passes laws but doesn't enforce them?

I don't know. Or why you're asking. We were talking about corporatism, a style of government that dispenses with individual rights in favor of group-based privilege. It promotes the notion of government as a power broker and resource allocator.

Aside from small tribal entities where everything was shared in common, you're describing all of human history.

Not at all. You'll have to read up on the topic if you want to have an intelligent conversation about corporatism. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

I read the Wikipedia article. "Corporatism" seems to be another one of those words that's defined on the basis of confirmation bias. So you'll have your definition and I'll have mine and never the twain shall meet.

I find your overall sense that government is oppressing you untenable to begin with. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...if you're even willing to do that.

 

[dblack]

No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.

So, um, what kind of government doesn't pass laws? And what kind of government passes laws but doesn't enforce them?

I don't know. Or why you're asking. We were talking about corporatism, a style of government that dispenses with individual rights in favor of group-based privilege. It promotes the notion of government as a power broker and resource allocator.

Aside from small tribal entities where everything was shared in common, you're describing all of human history.

Not at all. You'll have to read up on the topic if you want to have an intelligent conversation about corporatism. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

I read the Wikipedia article. "Corporatism" seems to be another one of those words that's defined on the basis of confirmation bias. So you'll have your definition and I'll have mine and never the twain shall meet.

I find your overall sense that government is oppressing you untenable to begin with. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...if you're even willing to do that.

You've shown hardly any comprehension of my views so far. Here, again, you are wildly off the mark. I don't have any sense that government is oppressing me. And as far as "your definition" vs "my definition" nonsense - well, that's just more diversion.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.

This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, Fuck yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it. Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.

You sound like an elitist asshat.

Or a handout seeking moron.

It just does not seem to register that people in America like living in houses and driving cars (not living in high rise apartments and taking mass transit all over the place).

But the left is bound and determined to get us there.

Because they think it's their duty to reduce everybody to the same circumstances they have chosen.

They're nothing but small minded, brain washed minions.

Actually, I think they are afraid.

Security is more important than liberty. And security is just a pipe dream. They have neither.

Do I think we have issues that are oppressive to people in this country...yes.

Is there any evidence Obama has fixed anything...no.

This constant bulls**t about insuring more people ignores the fact that others are now paying more for insurance they can't use.

Some freaking security.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, um, what kind of government doesn't pass laws? And what kind of government passes laws but doesn't enforce them?

I don't know. Or why you're asking. We were talking about corporatism, a style of government that dispenses with individual rights in favor of group-based privilege. It promotes the notion of government as a power broker and resource allocator.

Aside from small tribal entities where everything was shared in common, you're describing all of human history.

Not at all. You'll have to read up on the topic if you want to have an intelligent conversation about corporatism. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

I read the Wikipedia article. "Corporatism" seems to be another one of those words that's defined on the basis of confirmation bias. So you'll have your definition and I'll have mine and never the twain shall meet.

I find your overall sense that government is oppressing you untenable to begin with. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...if you're even willing to do that.

You've shown hardly any comprehension of my views so far. Here, again, you are wildly off the mark. I don't have any sense that government is oppressing me. And as far as "your definition" vs "my definition" nonsense - well, that's just more diversion.

Voila ! Your are catching on.

It's endemic to the left and right.

 

[Arianrhod]

So, um, what kind of government doesn't pass laws? And what kind of government passes laws but doesn't enforce them?

I don't know. Or why you're asking. We were talking about corporatism, a style of government that dispenses with individual rights in favor of group-based privilege. It promotes the notion of government as a power broker and resource allocator.

Aside from small tribal entities where everything was shared in common, you're describing all of human history.

Not at all. You'll have to read up on the topic if you want to have an intelligent conversation about corporatism. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

I read the Wikipedia article. "Corporatism" seems to be another one of those words that's defined on the basis of confirmation bias. So you'll have your definition and I'll have mine and never the twain shall meet.

I find your overall sense that government is oppressing you untenable to begin with. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...if you're even willing to do that.

You've shown hardly any comprehension of my views so far. Here, again, you are wildly off the mark. I don't have any sense that government is oppressing me. And as far as "your definition" vs "my definition" nonsense - well, that's just more diversion.

It's true you haven't used the word "forced" in at least a couple of days. Tell you what: Given that all human organizations are only as good as the people forming them (and, in my view, most start out with good intentions but eventually fall prey to entropy), maybe you can give a concrete, RL example of what you consider an optimal form of "corporatism."

If you can say "I think the fact that Iceland has had a representative government featuring direct interaction and universal suffrage since the ninth century makes it a good form of corporatism," or something along that line, we'd have a basis to begin.

 

[dblack]

I don't know. Or why you're asking. We were talking about corporatism, a style of government that dispenses with individual rights in favor of group-based privilege. It promotes the notion of government as a power broker and resource allocator.

Aside from small tribal entities where everything was shared in common, you're describing all of human history.

Not at all. You'll have to read up on the topic if you want to have an intelligent conversation about corporatism. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

I read the Wikipedia article. "Corporatism" seems to be another one of those words that's defined on the basis of confirmation bias. So you'll have your definition and I'll have mine and never the twain shall meet.

I find your overall sense that government is oppressing you untenable to begin with. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...if you're even willing to do that.

You've shown hardly any comprehension of my views so far. Here, again, you are wildly off the mark. I don't have any sense that government is oppressing me. And as far as "your definition" vs "my definition" nonsense - well, that's just more diversion.

It's true you haven't used the word "forced" in at least a couple of days. Tell you what: Given that all human organizations are only as good as the people forming them (and, in my view, most start out with good intentions but eventually fall prey to entropy), maybe you can give a concrete, RL example of what you consider an optimal form of "corporatism."

If you can say "I think the fact that Iceland has had a representative government featuring direct interaction and universal suffrage since the ninth century makes it a good form of corporatism," or something along that line, we'd have a basis to begin.

If you want to learn about corporatism, do some reading. Or don't.

 

[Arianrhod]

Aside from small tribal entities where everything was shared in common, you're describing all of human history.

Not at all. You'll have to read up on the topic if you want to have an intelligent conversation about corporatism. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

I read the Wikipedia article. "Corporatism" seems to be another one of those words that's defined on the basis of confirmation bias. So you'll have your definition and I'll have mine and never the twain shall meet.

I find your overall sense that government is oppressing you untenable to begin with. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...if you're even willing to do that.

You've shown hardly any comprehension of my views so far. Here, again, you are wildly off the mark. I don't have any sense that government is oppressing me. And as far as "your definition" vs "my definition" nonsense - well, that's just more diversion.

It's true you haven't used the word "forced" in at least a couple of days. Tell you what: Given that all human organizations are only as good as the people forming them (and, in my view, most start out with good intentions but eventually fall prey to entropy), maybe you can give a concrete, RL example of what you consider an optimal form of "corporatism."

If you can say "I think the fact that Iceland has had a representative government featuring direct interaction and universal suffrage since the ninth century makes it a good form of corporatism," or something along that line, we'd have a basis to begin.

If you want to learn about corporatism, do some reading. Or don't.

Okay, so now let's get back to paid maternity leave. There's plenty of evidence that a great deal of learning and personality development occurs in the first year of life. Arguably the care of a newborn is one of the most important jobs there is. Where do you suppose the uniquely American resistance to allowing parents a little extra time with their newborn comes from?

 

[dblack]

Not at all. You'll have to read up on the topic if you want to have an intelligent conversation about corporatism. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

I read the Wikipedia article. "Corporatism" seems to be another one of those words that's defined on the basis of confirmation bias. So you'll have your definition and I'll have mine and never the twain shall meet.

I find your overall sense that government is oppressing you untenable to begin with. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...if you're even willing to do that.

You've shown hardly any comprehension of my views so far. Here, again, you are wildly off the mark. I don't have any sense that government is oppressing me. And as far as "your definition" vs "my definition" nonsense - well, that's just more diversion.

It's true you haven't used the word "forced" in at least a couple of days. Tell you what: Given that all human organizations are only as good as the people forming them (and, in my view, most start out with good intentions but eventually fall prey to entropy), maybe you can give a concrete, RL example of what you consider an optimal form of "corporatism."

If you can say "I think the fact that Iceland has had a representative government featuring direct interaction and universal suffrage since the ninth century makes it a good form of corporatism," or something along that line, we'd have a basis to begin.

If you want to learn about corporatism, do some reading. Or don't.

Okay, so now let's get back to paid maternity leave. There's plenty of evidence that a great deal of learning and personality development occurs in the first year of life. Arguably the care of a newborn is one of the most important jobs there is. Where do you suppose the uniquely American resistance to allowing parents a little extra time with their newborn comes from?

We're not debating whether it's good for parents to be with their children. We're debating whether we have the right to work for companies that don't offer paid maternity leave as a benefit.

 

[Arianrhod]

I read the Wikipedia article. "Corporatism" seems to be another one of those words that's defined on the basis of confirmation bias. So you'll have your definition and I'll have mine and never the twain shall meet.

I find your overall sense that government is oppressing you untenable to begin with. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...if you're even willing to do that.

You've shown hardly any comprehension of my views so far. Here, again, you are wildly off the mark. I don't have any sense that government is oppressing me. And as far as "your definition" vs "my definition" nonsense - well, that's just more diversion.

It's true you haven't used the word "forced" in at least a couple of days. Tell you what: Given that all human organizations are only as good as the people forming them (and, in my view, most start out with good intentions but eventually fall prey to entropy), maybe you can give a concrete, RL example of what you consider an optimal form of "corporatism."

If you can say "I think the fact that Iceland has had a representative government featuring direct interaction and universal suffrage since the ninth century makes it a good form of corporatism," or something along that line, we'd have a basis to begin.

If you want to learn about corporatism, do some reading. Or don't.

Okay, so now let's get back to paid maternity leave. There's plenty of evidence that a great deal of learning and personality development occurs in the first year of life. Arguably the care of a newborn is one of the most important jobs there is. Where do you suppose the uniquely American resistance to allowing parents a little extra time with their newborn comes from?

We're not debating whether it's good for parents to be with their children. We're debating whether we have the right to work for companies that don't offer paid maternity leave as a benefit.

So you're concerned that you might be "forced" to work for a company that does offer paid maternity leave? How do you perceive that would affect you?

 

[dblack]

We're not debating whether it's good for parents to be with their children. We're debating whether we have the right to work for companies that don't offer paid maternity leave as a benefit.

So you're concerned that you might be "forced" to work for a company that does offer paid maternity leave? How do you perceive that would affect you?

You are quite determined to make this some kind of weird personal thing, aren't you?

To reiterate, I'm not concerned about personal repercussions. I'm arguing against the continuing encroachment on our economic freedom. Government shouldn't be involved in mandating how we're compensated.

 

[Arianrhod]

We're not debating whether it's good for parents to be with their children. We're debating whether we have the right to work for companies that don't offer paid maternity leave as a benefit.

So you're concerned that you might be "forced" to work for a company that does offer paid maternity leave? How do you perceive that would affect you?

You are quite determined to make this some kind of weird personal thing, aren't you?

To reiterate, I'm not concerned about personal repercussions. I'm arguing against the continuing encroachment on our economic freedom. Government shouldn't be involved in mandating how we're compensated.

If you could explain why paid maternity leave encroaches on your freedom, it might help.