A prime example of why I think libertarianism is a farce is Ron Paul and his spawn. Ron Paul has run on the Libertarian ticket and is a doctor, an obstetrician, who is anti-abortion. That for me is a deal breaker. You can't call yourself a libertarian and be anti-abortion. To me libertarianism means being for individual rights. You can do whatever as long as it doesn't affect me or other people. Some woman having an abortion is none of my business as long as I wasn't the one that knocked her up!!! Then there's Ron Paul's spawn, a board certified eye doctor, certified by a board he made up, could it be he couldn't pass the requirements of existing boards for ophthalmologists?? Anywho, MSM calls him a libertarian and he also is anti-abortion.
Recently I shared something on facebook.
Then I shared something else on facebook.
There is already an "equal pay" law on the books. If another such law were passed, do you think Obama would pay his women staffers as much as he pays the males? Of course, he has "his pen" and could even change that law to suit himself.
The Old Lady jumped in and explained how in the White House there are more women working in jobs like secretaries that tend to be lower pay grades and fewer women working at the higher pay grade specialities (analysts, attorneys) and that's why the female average salary is less than the male average. Within the same pay grade men and women are paid the same. She also did a snide remark about how maybe they didn't teach civics when he was in high school because the President can't change laws, only Congress can do that. He came back saying he didn't like the snide remark about his school. Then he tried saying that federal workers in the civil service system don't receive equal pay at the pay grades because there are different levels of pay in different parts of the country. The Old Lady replied by saying the sarcasm must have been too subtle, she wasn't dissing his school, she dissing him, that maybe he slept thru the civics class.
I commented that if he has to distort the facts, his argument is pretty weak. I found an article at InTheseTimes.com about how the Paycheck Fairness Act would help men and women. One thing it would do is strengthen workers rights. I copied it and pasted the following. And did a link to the full article.
[The problem is that employees’ labor rights, as articulated in the NLRA, have notoriously weak penalties. Labor and employment attorney Vincent Mersich explains to In These Times that an employee who is retaliated against by being demoted, suspended, or anything short of fired for discussing her wages can anticipate little response under the NLRA. The employee must first hope that the Labor Board takes her case; if they do and the employee is successful before a judge, he says, “the best [the employee] could hope for is a notice and posting requirement.” If an employee is fired, for that matter, the strongest remedy she can expect from the Labor Board is lost wages.
Under the Paycheck Fairness Act, an employee would not have to rely on having the Labor Board take her case. Instead, she would be able to go straight to federal court and seek real remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages.
This prospect scares Republicans. As much as they complain about the Labor Board and its “pro-union bias,” they much prefer its regulatory structure to one where workers could take their cases directly to court, have their cases heard before a jury of their peers, and be awarded damages that actually compensate workers for their losses, while punishing and deterring employers. Right now, Republicans can rein in and control the Labor Board by blocking nominees—thereby denying the Board a quorum—or halting funding; although the Senate does have to approve federal judge appointments, the same level of interference is not possible in the court system. Conservatives complain about the Labor Board, but they fear the courts.]