31–40 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> rights, which are inalienable Says who?
John Locke.
If we want an argument for the inalienability of natural/human rights that works in a society with religious pluralism, I fear we'll need to look again.
Good grief. Do these people think the ability to write the kind of garbage published by Slate is in any way rare?
There is no way unionized writers/editors are going to be impartial in their political media coverage, given all of their leverage hinges on laws restricting the contracting rights of their employer.
None of their leverage hinges on laws. Laws are a caching layer for rights, which are inalienable. Their leverage hinges on a capacity to organize one another and express their interests.
No, they aren't. Law sometimes expresses either a consensus view or a compromise between views of rights, sometimes it deals with things at a level only distantly related to rights.
> which are inalienable.
Even in most conceptions of rights that include some inalienable rights, not all rights are inalienable.
Can we deduct union dues? That 10% isnt looking too bad on a 200k comp package
The striking sounds exhausting though
Good grief. Do these people think the ability to write the kind of garbage published by Slate is in any way rare?
There is no way unionized writers/editors are going to be impartial in their political media coverage, given all of their leverage hinges on laws restricting the contracting rights of their employer.
"Impartial" is an admirable aim, but ultimately unreachable and undefinable. We all bring our unique upbringing and view of the world to our creative efforts. I think most media outlets like Slate gave up chasing this goal. Unfortunately, the consumers have rewarded them for doing so.
I don't even think that "impartial" is necessarily even worth striving for. No one is impartial and I'd much rather journalists be open and honest about their world view and assumptions rather than trying to hide them behind some thin veneer of "impartiality". As long as you're not being underhand or deceptive in your reporting there is nothing wrong in saying "This thing happened and I think it's great/terrible for these reasons".
Imagine how much us tech workers could make in a union Can we deduct union dues? That 10% isnt looking too bad on a 200k comp package The striking sounds exhausting though
There is no way unionized writers/editors are going to be impartial in their political media coverage, given all of their leverage hinges on laws restricting the contracting rights of their employer.
None of their leverage hinges on laws. Laws are a caching layer for rights, which are inalienable. Their leverage hinges on a capacity to organize one another and express their interests.
Interested to see how this plays out. I'm a Slate Plus member, mainly for the extra segment on the Slate Political Gabfest. Ironically, none of the three hosts of that show have worked at Slate in years, which is probably a large part of what makes it enjoyable. For reasons I'd be hard-pressed to explain, I listen to a number of other Slate podcasts, even though I often find them irritating. Most (but not all) Slate…
Spotted the neoliberal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
John Locke.
His argument for why they're inalienable is completely dependent on the existence of (a particular conception of) God. I found reading the Second Treatise of Government an eye-opening experience for this reason. If we want an argument for the inalienability of natural/human rights that works in a society with religious pluralism, I fear we'll need to look again.
Any meaningful system of ethics is characteristically normative, which means it rests on authority; divine authority is the highest form of authority that can be thought of.