[A. Pole]

The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you!

Really? So before the employer finds someone willing to work how exactly this job exists? Employer provides the capital, employees provide the labor. Both sides are needed.

Second - whatever employer owns is defined by the laws/state. The private property is a legal construct sustained by the rest of society, same way as a corporation is a construct. Destroy the society - you will lose the constructs.

[Taliesan]

The private property is a legal construct sustained by the rest of society, same way as a corporation is a construct.

No! No, no no!

Private property is a moral reality which exists PRIOR TO LAW OR ANY SOCIAL CONTRACT, which the rest of society is morally obligated to revere by law. The existing society helps one to acquire and hold property, but the right to own the fruit of your work is a natural right. It is recognized in law, NOT IN ANY WAY CREATED BY LAW.

A corporation is a legal construct of convenience, entirely created by law. There is no natural right necessitating or hallowing the corporate form.

The argument for provate property is a moral one; the argument for corporations is a practical one.

The distinction between these two is THE CRUCIAL DISTINCTION between a socialist and and a normal person.

[MrB]

Private property is the basis of all liberty.
The right to private property is a basic right inherent in existence - the founders even had those words in the original pre-amble: "life, liberty, and property"

[MacDorcha]

private property is an idea that we as humans have had for eons as long as we have tried also to excel and produce. tribal lives tend to rely on "group thinking" to survive. this means they share everything to ensure that their neighbor survives, because it means that they survive.

a society begins when someone decides they desrve more for doing more. they take something (or someone in cases) and keep it for themselves and dont share. at that moment a hierarchy is established, and thus, people begin to either allow the guy with the most toys to be the guy with the most toys, or they compete. they can do this by fighting (revolting) or by gaining more power themselves (capitalism)

[stylin19a]

I'm scratchin my head. Supply & demand of the product and/or service determines whether I need to hire or not.

The employer and product\service generally exist before the need to hire exists.

What's your point ?

[Jhoffa_]

Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.

Thanks for the ping.

I agree with Boortz on this account, btw. I know it's not a popular point of view, but that's the way our free market works. To say anything less is to say that someone, somewhere is "owed" a job.

This is incorrect and foolhardy in my opinion. It borderlines on union-speak.

However, Congress does set trade policy.. the President signs bill related to this. Then can affect the viability of a particular skill set, product or process with the stroke of a pen.

In this realm, people have a perfect right to be angry, and vote any damn way they please. Because, just as in our free market example above, no one in elected office is "owed" a vote, either.

^ IMVHO.

[Redcloak]

So then you actually own your job? How interesting! What color is it?

[Mortimer Snavely]

Obviously developing the USA's underdevelopment by developing Red China's industrial and technical strength is considered a good thing.

Boortz is nuts, as are those who think he's brilliant. Trading with the enemy is as wrong as wrong could possibly be.