"Unions are Evil"

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in the meantime, he's justified in pillaging as much as he can?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course,unless you can prosecute or impeach.

You are aware that actions have consequences. You voted him in, now live with him till you vote him out.

[/ QUOTE ]

But *I* didn't vote him in. I'm oppressed because YOU (or whoever) voted him in. Maybe I should take it out on voters.

If 50%+1 of the voters say all redheads should be drawn and quartered, are you OK with it? Hey, the redheads should have come up with more votes, right? What a bunch of losers, they deserve it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Same scenario, but now I'm employing thugs to break kneecaps of people that try to bring hotdogs into my market. People still buy my $3 hot dogs. They obviously find value in my $3 hotdogs, so my thuggery must be justifiable, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well in my world you end up in a government jail, awaiting a government trial, prosecuted by government attorneys. In your world there is no government, so you end up charging $3 I guess and a lot of people go to the hospital with broken knee caps.

See, I like my world a lot better. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just showing how dense you are. Of the three scenarios I presented, the one you highlight is the only one in which people are being coerced, and hence, a crime is being comitted. You seem to grasp this, but assume in "my" world that it would be allowed to go unpunished.

The point is that *if* unions use force (usually in the form of government protection) then they're comitting a crime. You suggested that I would allow corporations to get away with the same crime that I condemn unions for, which is 100% NOT true. I do NOT advocate a system with no checks on corporate power. Suggesting that I do indicates that you are either too lazy to read my posts, too dense to understand them, or just dishonest.

The other point I've been making which seems to have gone right over your head is that it's possible to violate people's rights but do it in such a way that it's not obvious. In the example with the Ferrari fund, stealing one cent per gallon is not enough to make people go elsewhere to get gas, but IT'S STILL STEALING, which you explicitly excuse, because "people are still finding value" in the higher gas prices.

You can't seem to tell the difference between high prices due to coercive force and high prices due to market forces.