They do have a right to negotiate how their content is distributed but they are a monopoly and that gives them an unfair advantage to negotiate those terms. Removing the antitrust exemption will allow the government to go after the NFL for these practices, as well as many other practices, rookie pay scale, salary caps, merchandizing, franchising, stadium deals... The NFL is allowed to get away with a lot of things because of this protection. It's all just election cycle dick waving but the NFL should be wary about this gaining traction, if that happens the senators will be forced to use their dicks on the NFL.

How about this where does Jesus say it is required that you have to give up your possessions in order to go to heaven? Your quote is missing the context of the second half of his statement. Jesus does not say that the only way to make it to heaven is to sell all your possessions and give them to the poor.

You going to have to understand the context of what I was saying. It's a big boy concept which means that you can't just look at one sentence you have to look at everything. If we are discussing workers being entitled to more of the profits, a person of average intelligence would be able to grasp that when someone says private property ownership in that context they are talking about workers having a share in the means of production. None of that changes the fact that your comment was about workers that did not invest in capital equipment getting more of the profits that were gained by that equipment. Which is a socialists concept.

Again I am talking about means of production when I say property, I know it's tough for you to understand context.

Your logic has failed you again, it's not necessary that the ownership stake is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid. The ability to use it is a factor as well, two people one that is qualified to use machinery and one that is not, the one that is qualified will be paid more then the one that can only do manual labor. You are trying to define a grey world in black and white terms it simply won't work.

This was your quote.

If you go by my model they people working now have 6.5% less then before the lazy revolution, I would count that as negatively impacting those who work hard. I know you really wish you could do nothing get something in return and not impact anybody else but it's not true.

This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.

How did I do that, please don't tell me it's because I didn't explicitly say owning the means of production? We are talking about worker owner relationships, your quote was about the threat of workers rioting because the owners are pocketing what is rightfully theirs. That has nothing to do with owning a house, car, or any other possession, it's hard to believe you are that dumb.

Could you find where I stated that violence is only a tool of socialism? Didn't think so? Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.
Vladimire Lenin "Peaceful surrender of power by the bourgeoisie is possible, if it is convinced that resistance is hopeless and if it prefers to save its skin. It is much more likely, of course, that even in small states socialism will not be achieved without civil war, and for that reason the only programme of international Social-Democracy must be recognition of civil war."

Is it possible that the owner is in his tractor plowing the fields? Here is your quote.

That has not been established the people footing the bill can be working hard, just not doing unskilled labor.

I'll try to explain it very simply so even you can under stand. These numbers are just for illustration so don't take them literally. We start out with 90% of the people working, those 90% pay for the safety net of the 10% of lazy people 11.11% of their pay goes to the safety net. 5% of the people realize that they too could stop working and live off the safety net. Now 85% are paying for 15%, and pay 17.64% of their pay for the safety net. You simply can't have more people taking the same amount out while having fewer people put something in unless the people putting something in put in more.

I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation. What Jesus is saying is that is you give up your possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him you will be rewarded with eternal salivation. He did not say that is the only way to end up in heaven.

Can you have socialism with ownership of the means of production? Please give me your definition of socialism that does not include the means of production being controlled by the people. Gravity being inverse square to the distance is just as fundamental part of the definition of gravity as the means of production being owned by the collective is to socialism.

The threat of violence either through the government or mob riots to demand "a fair share" is socialism. Negotiating wages is not socialism, unionizing and refusing to work until demands are met is not socialism. There are many avenues that can be taken without the threat of violence to get "a fair share". The use of violence implies that the workers are entitled to the profits beyond what they originally agreed to, and they are simply taking what is theirs.

We have not established that, you would need to show that the owner is not working, which has not been done. There are many other things that have to be done on a farm besides picking fruit.

That how a business works, you have to make more money then you are putting in other wise you lose money and go out of business and then nobody is working. Do you think all business should lose money?

It does when you have safety nets. Someone has to pay for those benefits. When you have more people receiving them you need more money to pay for them, since the contributor base is shrinking because you have more lazy people the larger burden will fall on the rest of the people working.

It's not just power surges that can damage electronic components, under-voltage can do the same. You would need a UPS with power conditioning for all susceptible equipment.

No it does not, it sounds like you are free to choose to sell your possessions and give them to the poor. Socialism doe not allow for a choice it's give up your wealth by force or threat of force. Rousseau's quote was saying that no person had a right to private property and that all property belongs to the collective. "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.". I don't have a subscription to Modern Socialists but I'm pretty sure the means of production being controlled by the government is a pillar of socialism.

Let me put it this way, if the understanding of gravity being inverse square to the distance was known before Newton officially defined gravity. Would that concept of gravity being inverse square to the distance not be considered an idea that lead to the Newtonian definition of gravity? That idea is in the Newtonian definition. Rousseau's idea that there is no private property is a socialists idea. Your idea that the land owners should give more to their workers less they revolt and take from the land owner is a socialists concept as well.

If you owned the technology you could work significantly less. How much depends on how fast a person could plow with a tractor, seed with machinery, spraying with herbicide, insecticide and fertilizer, mowing/harvesting with a tractor, and transporting to sell. You would also need to account for costs to maintain your tractor, amortize your equipment over it's life, and consumables like seed, fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides, and diesel. I don't know where your coming up with minutes per week but you could definitely work much less.

The seasonal migrants all ready do work less only 1/4 of the the year. The year round workers don't own the technology so they don't see lions share of the benefit but yes if they choose to forgo modern technology they would not have to work as much to provide for them selves.

Are you saying that "Rational or not, justifiable or not, inequitable distribution of wealth breeds unrest. That's a fact, and the wealthy among us would do well to keep that in mind." is not a socialists concept?

"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or death" was the slogan of the French revolution. Fraternity was a concept that people had a legal responsibility to ensure that everyone gets their fair share. That sounds like the beginning of socialism to me.

Here is a quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1754, way before the French revolution.
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naÃve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

So I guess it's safe to say that bounding ideas or concepts by the date is pretty foolish. Did gravity not exists before Newton defined it?

80% of migrant workers have cell phones
42% drive a car to work, 8% walk, 35% ride with others, 8% take a bus, 7% use Raitero (shuttle).
95% had water for washing, 80% drinking water and cups, 93% had a toilet

Living space? serfs had live stock living in their "houses". I don't know if you know this but goats and sheep crap all the time. I don't know about you but I would rather live in a house cramped with people then with animals, feces, and urine.

Now for your claim of leisure time. From the study I cited the average hours worked per week was 43 hours. It's safe to say that is the average for a year round worker, serfs worked more then that. Now to the seasonal migrant. Seasonal migrant workers are not working 3/4 of the year, they would have to work 23 hours a day every day to work the same hours as someone who works 40 hours a week year round.

You can stop responding any time you like, yet you still continue to respond.

"Rational or not, justifiable or not, inequitable distribution of wealth breeds unrest. That's a fact, and the wealthy among us would do well to keep that in mind." Is it possible to have socialists ideas before the term socialism was coined? It doesn't matter what you were referencing, the idea you were conveying is a socialist one.

Did you read below that I will repeat it since you missed it, if you are saying they had it equally as good you need to find something that made up for a serf's lack of technology, like cell phones, clean drinking water, indoor plumbing, living quarters without livestock, cars, laundry facilities,... What area did the serfs have it better then migrant workers to make up for all those things I listed.

If they are only given enough not to riot then they are way over compensated. People are breaking the law just for the opportunity to go work as a migrant worker, that is a long way away from a revolt.

What evidence have you provided, you have not given a single source for your claims. The only source you provided was your racist "packed like Mexicans ones".

Here is what I said, "There are fewer people farming then there was 600 years ago, this means fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population". This statement was never about few farmers correlating to a larger population. I made the assumption that you would be able to grasp that there has been a population increase and that the statement was not about those two items but about the efficiency in production that made it possible. I did not think you were so simple that I had to spell every thing out so rigorously.

And when did I say Socialism predated the French Revolution. Here is a quote from your comrade Trotsky "The party that leans upon the workers but serves the bourgeoisie, in the period of the greatest sharpening of the class struggle, cannot but sense the smells wafted from the waiting grave." That is very similar to your quote, and I don't think you are even thick enough to say Trotsky was not a socialist revolutionary.

So the stereotype that Mexicans live in cramped quarters is not a negative attribute. That negative attribute applied to all Mexicans does not make them inferior? A racial stereotype with negative or positive connotations is racists.

You certainly debated the fact that serfs had it better. Your quote.

Another quote

To make up for all the modern amenities a migrant worker has a serf would have to have it much better they did not. At least now faced with overwhelming evidence and common sense you concede this point even if it's just you claiming not to have made it.

I have never denied that nor debated that the people that can not afford to buy the technology do not see most of the benefits of using that technology. The people that pay for the technology are the ones that see the majority of the benefits from that technology. I have asked you multiple times this same simple question which you can't seem to answer. Why should the person risking their capital forfeit the benefits?
Your only answer was to avoid socialists revolution. Migrant workers have seen benefits from technology, instead of working long hours plowing, seeding, weeding, and harvesting, they only work long hours harvesting, a seasonal job, a vast majority of their income is generated in 1/4 of the year. Even if you assume they worked 80 hours a week during that quarter of a year that's still only 20 hours a week averaged per year. Unless you think that migrant workers work 160 hours a week during the season they will be working less then 40 hours a week over the course of a year.

I never cited a reference for that claim because you were the one that made it you said it's quite possible that some work a few weeks at 80+ hours. Again you are ignoring the point because of minute details that don't change the facts. The maximum hours a serf or migrant could work is sun up to sun down, from the survey we know that migrants do not work those hours all the time, for every 80 hour week there are 3 30 hour weeks. Serfs worked sun up to sun down except Sundays and religious holidays, half tending "their" land and the other half working the landowners land.

Please tell me how having fewer producers and a larger population would not indicate an increase in efficiency?
Either way, neither of these three facts contradicts my claim that workers have not seen the full benefit of these huge increases in efficiency because their productive output must have increased for them to have maintained a constant quality of life.

I never disputed that workers have not seen the full benefits of technology. I even told you why. The workers don't own the technology so they are not going to see the full benefits of it. You even went into a socialists revolutionary rant "That's my point. Rational or not, justifiable or not, inequitable distribution of wealth breeds unrest. That's a fact, and the wealthy among us would do well to keep that in mind".

"Packed like Mexicans" is racists stereotype, being an immigrant that lived in cramped quarters does not make that statement any less racists.
Again you refuse to say how a serfs life was better then a migrant workers, other then "they are packed like Mexicans".

I wouldn't say that, you are just so focused on contradicting irrelevant details, I would assume it's because you can't contradict the actual point. For instance the exact number of hours a migrant works when a serf works considerably more then your highest estimate. Or being pedantic about the wording of my claim that we have fewer farmers and a larger population which could only happen with huge increases in efficiency, none of which you disputed.

The bottom line is no reasonable person would believe for one second serfs had it better then migrant workers. You have not provided a single source except a racist joke to back any of your outlandish claims.

I know you are trying real hard to negate the study because it disproves all of your unsubstantiated claims, but use some critical thinking. If they only surveyed during off season then there would not be any seasonal workers to survey. Yes the number could be diluted but that really doesn't make a difference as a surf worked sun up to sun down Monday through Saturday every week. In the summer they are working over 80 hours a week and in the winter over 50.

There is no evidence to indicate that statement is remotely correct, your racists joke doesn't count as a source.

You might want to get your facts straight. This was from 2002-2003 so the number may not be a perfect illustration of today but it's fairly obvious that migrant workers don't have it as bad as serfs by a large margine
Hours and pay
"In 2001-2002, the average was 42 hours, compared to 38 in 1993-1994. In 2001-2002, approximately one quarter each worked less than 35 hours, between 35 and 40, 41 and 49, and 50 hours or more."
Housing
Only 5% were in a dormitory, barracks, or multi-family structure.
80% live off farm.

So are you disagreeing that there are fewer farmers or that the population has not grown in 600 years. The were 40 million farmers in Europe in the middle ages with a population of 50 million. Today there are 13 million farmers and a population of 740 million.

People no longer have to farm for a living they do one of a million other things because of technology. If technology was not there they would have to farm. I'd like to see your proof that those other jobs did not replace farming jobs, you are missing a few rungs in your logic chain.

They would have to work harder to fix broken technology. They would need to continue their current effort PLUS fix the technology. I don't know where you are getting this. If you use technology to do the bare minimum you will run into an issue when it breaks. You won't have any money to get replacement parts and fix it yourself or pay someone to fix it. You will need to do more then just meet your current needs.

This I do agree with, that the French Revolution was just a 20 year riot. Your point pretty well illustrates that migrant workers have it better, they are not rioting and killing innocent people so they must be receiving better treatment then farmers 200 years ago. Over half of the migrant workers in the US are committing a crime just to work there.

Do migrant workers live in drafty one room houses with leaky roofs no windows and dirt floors? Serfs did. Do migrant workers diet consist of onion, potatoes and bread? Serfs did. Migrant workers work 40-50 hours a weeks while serfs worked 60-80 hours a week.

Any wages a person with no legal right to work makes are illegal wages. They choose to enter the country illegally and work illegally why should anyone be shocked if they are paid illegally.

There are many assumptions you make that lead to this wrong conclusion, or maybe it's just your way of convincing yourself it's ok to be lazy.
-There are fewer people farming then there was 600 years ago, this means fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population
-You seem to think society has not gotten any more complex, there is not just a carpenter, blacksmith, and farmer any more. All the people that would be farming are doing something else, thousands of job fields that have to serve the whole population.
-Now if people use technology to do just enough to get by they are setting themselves up for failure, when their technology breaks they will have to work harder to fix it or pay to have it fixed and thus will now have to work harder to maintain their same lifestyle.

Gains in efficiency are pocked by the by the people paying for the technology, if migrant workers are not paying for the technology then they won't see as much of the benefit. Why should the person risking their capital forfeit the benefits?

Are you familiar at all with serfdom? A serf in the middle ages did not have it better then modern migrant workers.

Could you be specific about what migrant workers you are talking about. I doubt there is any place in this world where migrant workers are taking advantage technology to improve their efficiency and do not have modern amenities like cell phones.