There are quite a few types ofBackground checks that can be done on a job applicant. These include credit checks, criminal record checks, driving records, and past employer checks. Even though it may be difficult to find candidates to fill all positions within an organization, cautious business practices require a person to conduct certain essential checks on potential employees. This is undertaken for the sake of restraining probable liabilities that can occur from neglectful hiring practices.

Why, they went to Vegas, Bill. Surely a concept you can follow ….

Yeah, I wonder what possible set of legal principles would permit restriction of unsafe products but protect Sean Hannity’s right to free speech. It’s as if there were some fundamental document giving Congress the power to regulate commerce, while also guaranteeing freedom of expression.

Fuck me runnin’. There’s a law prohibiting them? Why? As a danger to the children? Mm-hmm. But isn’t it interesting that there seems to be no law against a child turning on a tv and watching Sean Hannity…

Ding, ding, ding — we have a winner. Large, large lawn darts with a weighted sharp metal tip that you throw underhand across a yard where they land in a ring – or your neighbor’s foot – or a child’s head. Fun for all ages.

You kids today with your intertubes, who never knew what it was like to have to steal porn from your local 7-11, you just wouldn’t understand the rough and tumble world we grew up in. On the other hand, the next generation of Americans, IQs dulled by the lead paint on their Chinese toys, will probably be very into Jarts.

Surely not this: “Jarts, if you are unaware, are giant lawn darts that you toss underhand in hopes to make them land in a ring.”

Thanks for the compliment. The Chairman of the Politics Dept. where I went to college used to always refer to himself as “a budding young Marxist who had never read Marx.” I was always a budding young Rawlsian who never read Rawls. I still haven’t, but the first time I read a synopsis of a Theory of Justice, I thought, this is what I’ve been trying to articulate all my life — a gut feeling about how you should think about the world, but never quite so eloquently expressed.

Hi, John O. You bring up an interesting issue which is relevant to political views wider than libertarianism, and relevant to what Mikey’s been saying. That is, political thought is not confined along a single, one-dimensional spectrum, left to right. There are many aspects of social/political/economic/juridical/whatever organisation on which we can have views, and that just doesn’t fit into one dimension.

To save me wiffling further, I’ll just say that the political compass takes a step in the appropriate direction.

And I’ve just spent 45 minutes browsing slack-jawed and covetous through the political recommendations (and others) they offered after taking the test (admittedly I already own almost half of their recommendations). Oh, lordy, if only I had flippin’ great wodges of cash to fritter on books…

“It is not unusual in health plans for 80% of the expenditures to be made on behalf of 20% of the people. What you don’t know is whether or not the bell tolls for thee. …But of course our glibertarian friends all think that they are lucky and that life will just be ponies and riches for them and screw the rest of us. A philosophy for 13 year olds.”

This is John Rawls, you know. A Theory of Justice. http://books.google.com/books?id=b7GZr5Btp30C&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=D0yks1Mwe8&sig=2CPjAs6_YcpsWfNGCY3XXFODxfc&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Drawls%2Bjustice%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPP1,M1
What rules do you make for a society before you know where in that society you’re going to be plunked down to live your life? I don’t claim to be an expert on this theory or on the heavyweight discussions about it. I do know, given that he’s fundamentally right, whom I have to read before wasting an hour on Hayek.

There are no right wing libertarians anymore, as a matter of political reality.

And, just for the record, when I get accused of being “libertarian,” it usually refers to my LEFT wing side, as in the politics of the “politically correct,” or sexual politics in general, or the aforementined right to die or do evil harmful substances like MJ (Drink up!, says the government) or train my kids to be world-class tennis players in spite of the damage it does.

OK, need to find some food…

The only sort of libertarianism or libertarian thought that an ordinary person is likely to encounter is going to be of the ‘git yer gubmit hands off mah propty’ types.

The positive aspect of all this is that a lot of people are fairly inherently attracted to philosophies which appear to claim they are highly concerned with expanding human liberty and choice.

The negative aspect is that the non-propertarian side of the libertarian argument is pretty much gone from popular existence, and you have to somehow bounce your way into discussions of early 20th century anarcho-socialism or get to Z-magazine and Parecon or something similar.

Thank you, Simba. That was very nice.

I never call myself “Libertarian.” The furthest I go is libertarian-lite.

Honest to God, I just want to be able to keep up with whether I’m breaking the law or not. I’ll make my choices from there, like everyone else.

It shouldn’t be so hard.

It’s like I’ve seen Bigfoot!

Welcome, John O.

* Debates about the terminology notwithstanding.

Slightly not shorter, but more understandable: “Those who believe the human existence is too infinitely variable to try to legislate too much.”

Simple, elegant, and morons still won’t understand! Perfect!

Thank you, RB!

How can we form a movement that isn’t compared to “bowel?”

Great minds think alike.

No, but we had such similar things to say that I thought it best to wave hello.

I can understand that, but as an Infinitarian I reject the notion that bifurcation represents reality in any way, except in terms of computers.

Nothing “human,” IOW.