Someone doesn't want to work more than 40 hours then they shouldn't. That's their choice. They don't want to pool their resources with others, then don't.

Make the choices you want but stop looking for society to "make them whole" when they make choices that fail to deliver the standard of living you or they desire.

If you want people to be reasonably comfortable and secure in their lives then stop making them victims, remove the incentives that keep them from doing more for themselves and stop forcing me at gunpoint to support their lifestyle. Yes, it is as simple as that.

Every mandate you place on a business or impose from the government further limits choices and opportunities for people to succeed.

All of the above is your perception of what is valued and your reason for why it is of value.

I am not willing to tie my choices to someone else's value system. Nor am I willing to tie my choices to a single company and single job so that I can become a cog in someone else's idea of Utopia.

I know a lot of people who work more than 8 hours a day very productively. I did that for many years. I am not willing to trade away the benefits to me as an individual for someone else's idea of societal benefits. No one, including you, is in a position to decide what is best for me.

You can not create a world where you mandate this much in the economy without additionally mandating many things even you would not like to have.

They don't need public assistance. They need to work an additional job or pool their resources.

What the fuck is a living wage?

Indeed, they shouldn't.

If an individual feels they want a better standard of living than they get from their lower-skilled job then they should either pool their resources or get an additional job, or both. This concept that individuals should be able to get a "living wage" by working a single job and living alone is absurd.

First, you would have to define a "living wage" by also defining what an individual is allowed to purchase. Does a living wage include the ability to have a cell phone? Cable TV? An automobile? Steak vs. tofu? Abortions? Nice clothes or just so-so clothes? A shared room in a flop house, a one-bedroom apartment or a house?

Secondly, you can't have this world of a guaranteed "living wage" without taking away individual choice. You want to work part-time? Sorry, you must earn your living wage. You want to work two jobs? Sorry, that other job is required by another person so that person can earn their "living wage."

People make choices every day. They choose whether or not to improve their skills in order to earn more. They choose the items for which they will trade their currency. They choose the labor they are willing to provide in exchange for currency or barter.

There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize big business because the mean, old businesses won't pay a "living wage."

If you can't earn a living wage from your job then choose a lower standard of living, choose to work more than one job or choose to pool your resources with another person.

This argument about government subsidies is way too fucking idiotic to have picked up this much steam.

Since when was it a good idea to mandate that a job, any job, that an individual holds must enable that person to be self-sufficient in and of itself?

What do you have against someone willing to work more than one job?
What do you have against someone willing to pool their resources with another person?

This argument is essentially an argument that everyone should be guaranteed a certain amount of leisure time. Workers of the world, unite; you can, as an individual, work only 40 hours per week and have all of your dreams come true.

There are plenty of people on minimum-wage who don't get government services. You seem very willing to trade away individual liberty and choice in order to reach your Utopian world that every job provide self-sufficiency.

Megacorps, minicorps or individuals who hire service providers should pay the value of the service provided - no more, no less.

If an individual can't support themselves working full-time or any other-time job then they should either pool their resources or work more than full-time.

Your position essentially argues that individuals have a right to a certain amount of leisure time; basically that an individual shouldn't have to work more than 40 hours per week and that each individual should be able to independently live "self-sufficiently," whatever the fuck that means, by working no more than 40 hours a week.

If an individual makes a choice to have more leisure time or less leisure time, to work more hours or fewer hours, to work one job or more than one job then it is their choice. Mandating that companies pay a wage sufficient to satisfy some arbitrary definition of self-sufficiency destroys the market and requires mandates across the entire spectrum of choices that heretofore were individual in nature.

Furthermore, if your opening statement that there should be no jobs that don't allow for the worker to be self-sufficient were to become true then we would destroy a huge swath of the economy. Someone wants to work on the weekends to save for a luxury item? Sorry, no jobs for you because you couldn't be self-sufficient on a weekend-only job. Someone wants to work a couple of hours a day while their children are in school? Sorry, no jobs for you. Someone want's to do independent work as a handyman? Would you have them prove that they can be self-sufficient before being allowed to take on that job?

Sounds just like a perpetual motion machine. Let me know when you get one of those working.

Is it really so difficult for you to distinguish between subsidizing infrastructure and operating expenses?

Let's have a debate about public support of infrastructure. I have no issue with user fees to cover it and could rather easily be convinced to use general tax dollars to build and maintain infrastructure.

I have a huge issue with subsidizing operating expenses, especially when a 1997 law required Amtrak to be operationally profitable by 2002.

I focus on passenger rail as the problem because we're subsidizing a lot more than the rail-line infrastructure. We are subsidizing operating expenses for a bloated inefficient organization.

There's a legitimate debate regarding the role of taxpayers subsidizing infrastructure such as roads and rails.

Give me a legitimate argument why we should be subsidizing Amtrak's daily operating expenses. Because of Congressional interference and failure to follow the 1997 law we have a situation where taxpayers are paying up to half the cost of a ticket for those almost 1 million riders who ride the northeast corridor on a daily basis.

I don't care how many people per day or per anything else ride the rails - why should I subsidize their ticket prices?

Here's just one article that talks about the subsidies and where they lie. The northeast regional routes of Amtrak was making over $200 million in profit each year. Once Amtrak became a foster-child of the federal government the federal government started interfering. Most of the money-losing routes that Amtrak operates are there because of demands from local members of Congress in order to gain their support for more subsidies.

Here's another article highlighting that Amtrak's operating law required them to become profitable by 2002. That didn't happen.

Countries don't count homicides the same way. In England and Wales, as an example, deaths don't count as homicides unless, and until, there is a conviction for the death. Here is a report that highlights that difference: www.parliament.uk

Don't you think it's sad that extra guards are required because of the content of someone's speech?

I guess the heckler's veto is not only alive and well but growing bolder day-by-day.

"...then you may want to consider moving to a safer area."

I wish that were so easy. I'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon and carry my pistol pretty much wherever I go. The only time I had to defend myself I was in a very safe area. It just so happens that was the same are where someone decided he was going to start beating the woman who was with him. He took exception to me witnessing the beating and calling the police and decided I would be the next target of his rage. Fortunately, as with most defensive uses of a handgun, I didn't have to fire a shot.

If needing to defend oneself was restricted to specific geographic areas then I would, as you suggest, simply move to a safer area. The problem is you don't know where something will happen and the only question will be whether or not you're prepared.

Your guess is wrong. It was held at this venue because of a "Stand With The Prophet" event that was held at the same place after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The purpose of that event was to highlight that the media and American Islamaphobes are the reason that Islam has such a bad reputation in the west. More can be read here.

You can continue your canard that Bush lied if it makes you feel good. Robb-Silberman placed the issue squarely at the feet of the intelligence community, generally, and the CIA specifically. Under George Tenet, the CIA assigned a 90% probability that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The real issue was Hussein's insistence on maintaining the illusion of having WMD so that Iran would not see him as week. This is the reason he wouldn't allow the inspections.

Go ahead and keep claiming that Bush lied; perhaps one day you will actually learn what that word actually means.