Canada's Supreme Court Penalizes Walmart for Closing Store After Workers Unionized
Canada's Supreme Court ruled Friday that Wal-Mart must compensate former workers at a Quebec store that was closed after they voted to become the first Wal-Mart store in North America to unionize.
It isn't
No, I'm not going to point you in the right direction to find out.
You keep talking about Saul Alinsky's philosophy, but I have to ask, have you ever read his books?
Is dignity an individual right? Meaning, it exists for all individuals without any services required from other individuals. And, you are not to violate that right against any individual, not just the ones you are currently working with. And, any violation of this right is morally wrong and may be punishable.
If dignity is not an individual right, does dignity supersede individual rights?
I'll continue this on a new topic if you so choose to create it.
"Not everything is about rights."
Here is a simple "mind exercise":
If there were only two people on an island, which of these two basic philosophies would be more ethical?
Respect each others individual rights? You can do anything else you want.
Or
Respect each others dignity? You can do anything else you want.
Should both individual rights and "dignity of the individual," be respected by everyone?
How would have Saul Alinsky answered these?
If you respect the dignity of the individual you are working with, then his desires, not yours; his values, not yours; his ways of working and fighting, not yours; his choice of leadership, not yours; his programs, not yours, are important and must be followed; except if his programs violate the high values of a free and open society. For example, take the question, "What if the program of the local people offends the rights of other groups, for reasons of color, religion, economic status, or politics? Should this program be accepted just because it is their program?" The answer is categorically no. Always remember that "the guiding star is 'the dignity of the individual.'" This is the purpose of the program. Obviously any program that opposes people because of race, religion, creed, or economic status, is the antithesis of the fundamental dignity of the individual.
It is difficult for people to believe that you really respect their dignity. After all, they know very few people, including their own neighbors, who do. But it is equally difficult for you to surrender that little image of God created in our own likeness, which lurks in all of us and tells us that we secretly believe that we know what's best for the people. A successful organizer has learned emotionally as well as intellectually to respect the dignity of the people with whom he is working. Thus an effective organizational experience is as much an educational process for the organizer as it is for the people with whom he is working. They both must learn to respect the dignity of the individual, and they both must learn that in the last analysis this is the basic purpose of organization, for participation is the heartbeat of the democratic way of life. We learn, when we respect the dignity of the people, that they cannot be denied the elementary right to participate fully in the solutions to their own problems. Self-respect arises only out of people who play an active role in solving their own crises and who are not helpless, passive, puppet-like recipients of private or public services. To give people help, while denying them a significant part in the action, contributes nothing to the development of the individual. In the deepest sense it is not giving but taking—taking their dignity. Denial of the opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy. It will not work."
~ Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals," In The Begining, pages 122-123
I don't know. Maybe an Objectivist here will answer that question. What I know is that they only need government force for three fundamental purposes. I'm sure you can Google it.
People can claim the sky is green. That doesn't make it true.
You ask, “Don't you want freedom?”
Packaging the two together as if they should or must be packaged that way.
Agreeing that a person wants freedom does not in any way mean the person would automatically agree to Saul Alinsky's idea of freedom or methods required to obtain it.
Saul Alinsky may say he was for freedom but he was not for the type of freedom most individuals would voluntarily choose to have or in the way they would voluntarily choose to have it.. He and now his followers condone and justify seriously questionable morals to arrive at their ends.
A simple, yes or no question:
When working torward his goals for a free society, would Saul Alinsky tell all his followers to respect everyone individual or natural rights?
For the 3rd, ONE of the issues is about whether we have too much/too little regulation. There is no way a country can possibly have the number of regulations we do, and have them be "right."
There's a documentary called "The End of Poverty?" which you can watch for free on YouTube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktOXJr1...
Skip ahead to 1:12:00 for the part where they talk about the dam being built and destroying the farmland of the local population.
Load more comments...