"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.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that they would be better off without the union. Why? Because they are skilled, non-lazy workers.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, what is the problem with my facile argument. If they are skilled then they should quit.

[/ QUOTE ]

One is in the public employees unions. That union has a stranglehold on all employees working for the state, including teachers. Realistically, you can only make a living as a teacher if you are in the union.

And yes, the other should quit and you, as a confirmed liberal nanny-stater, should realize that not everyone always knows what's best for them or acts in their own best interest. So, the union is a bad deal for my parent, but they may not realize it or may not care for other reasons.

natedogg

[natedogg]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

You just defined leftism.

natedogg

[SheetWise]

Your "Ferrari fund" example is one the government has learned too well. There will always be strong resistance to a flat tax, national sales tax, or any single source of revenue -- because then people would know how much they're paying. It's a concept that successful thieves have known for centuries -- if you want to steal a million dollars, steal $1 each from a million people, and nobody (including the governemnt) will care. Take a million dollars from one person, and now you've got an enemy.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
They broke the law in numerous ways. They didn't discover ingenious loopholes, they didn't use ethically grey areas to give them an advantage over their competitors and they didn't ignorantly break some obscure laws that had hardly any effect on how thay ran their business. They committed fraud, they co-erced and bullied their workforce and other investors not in the know to keep their value artificially high by giving false information about the state of the company, they manipulated certain energy markets to give an impression that a commodity that was in fact in abundance was scarce and more valuble than it was.

[/ QUOTE ]
But this was "common" knowledge as far back as 1998. I recall talking with a group at Deloitte who were well aware of what Andersen was doing. They were pretty open about it, wondered why Andersen would do it, and flatly told me that if I wanted those types of services I would have to go to Andersen. The information was in the financials, people simply didn't want to believe it. The government manipulation of "accounting" and tax law added a lot of "grey area" -- add to that a period when so many unsophisticated investors were in the market, and you get Enron.

[ACPlayer]

I did not say I excuse the Ferrari fund. Far from it. However, it is a consequence of a democratic form of government, in that once the person is voted in there is little redress till the next election.

Perhaps there is a better way for a society to be built than having a democracy. However, no one has come up with one.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the unions use force, specifically in the form of government protection, than it is likely not a crime (it is the govt that defines the crime). Secondly corporations that manipulate prices usually do so with government protection.

My point in this thread is simple, people have put out anecdotes about how bad unions are because they allegedly get away with price gouging among other "crimes". Some of the same people are simply happy to accept price gouging if it is not from an organization called a union. This is clearly dishonest, as they are playing to the politics of the union vs corporation rather than looking at the underlying transaction and/or negotiation that has occured.

The second point is like all organization unions become buearacratic and the base for power building for people, just like corporations do -- hence the Enron anecdote (clearly I do not conclude that becuase of Enron the entire corporate structure is bad or incompetent or criminal).

Unions serve a purpose. The members in the unions choose to stay in the union because it is to their benefit. Whether they are too lazy to find a new line of work or for whatever reason. They have accepted that to maintain the quality of life they have they should be in that union.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not say I excuse the Ferrari fund. Far from it. However, it is a consequence of a democratic form of government, in that once the person is voted in there is little redress till the next election.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the many defects of representative democracies.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there is a better way for a society to be built than having a democracy. However, no one has come up with one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So maybe people should stop trying to "build" one.

[ QUOTE ]
If the unions use force, specifically in the form of government protection, than it is likely not a crime (it is the govt that defines the crime).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not "illegal" but it's still criminal. You obviously know what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly corporations that manipulate prices usually do so with government protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep bringing this up as if someone disputes it. You won't ever find me defending corporations that co-opt government power.

[ QUOTE ]
Unions serve a purpose. The members in the unions choose to stay in the union because it is to their benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you keep ignoring the fact that something may be to your "benefit" but still cause you harm.

If jackbooted thugs bust down your door and make you choose between a bullet in the leg and a bullet in the face, which do you pick? Choosing the bullet in the leg is most likely to your benefit - given the choices you've been restricted to - but it still harms you. You don't find "value" in it.

[ACPlayer]

Well, I dont know what kindof world you want to live in. I would like to live in a world where there is some agreement (even if it based on flawed democratic principles) about the norms and functions of society.

[rusty JEDI]

Regarding teachers.

First allow me to state my bias.

I am a teacher, and grew up with 2 union parents. 1 is a carpenter and the other is a mail carrier.

1. What state is a teacher with a masters getting 105K, because I call B.S.

2. Name a career that requires 5 years of education that gets paid less than a teacher. (Not using the 105k masters example)


rJ

[rusty JEDI]

In regards to all of the anecdotal anti union junk like my dad got screwed, or i heard about this...

It is my belief that so much of this is the whole 1 bad apple thing. Its like when you hear about someone screwing unemployment or welfare you suddenly assume the whole system is corrupt. Sure there are bad unions and there are bad employees, but overall they do much more to the masses than if they were not there.

The KKK was against unionisation. Does this mean I should assume all those against it are of the same ilk?

rJ