After Hours

Ask something
Discussion Locked

I sure hope so.

0 helpful
20 replies

by toadwiz

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
article root

20 replies

by toadwiz

No, I don't misunderstand your perspective, and I think you misunderstand mine. All I was saying is that if ANYONE can look only to themselves for a moral compass, and then use violence to establish their view, it is a BAD THING. What I was asking is, how can you say one group's use of coersion is wrong (KKK) and another's is right (Anonymous?) My father fought in WWII and I am a veteran of 4 combat zones, but neither I nor he made the decisions that lead to those conflicts. Anon cannot say that. If we allow groups, no matter how much we might agree with their basic tenets, to act as judge, jury, and executioner, will we have a society at all?

We DESERVE exactly the government we have. We don't participate in the process, we don't arm ourself with facts, we depend on demagogues to tell us what we should vote for, and we are too happy to engage in partisan bickering to no point at all. For example, the problem is NOT whether we tax the rich, or corporations, or the poor, or the man in the moon - the problem is that the government borrows 40% of EVERY dollar it spends. You couldn't possibly sustain your household with that kind of spending, but the government thinks it can. Second example, the problem isn't amnesty, or a wall aroud the country, or illegal immigration - the problem is the LACK of a reasonable guest-worker program which will allow people to work in the US legally, receive a fair wage, and without having to become citizens.

WE, you and I and the rest, are WILLINGLY ignorant of what happens in Washington. If we aren't willing to accept the responsibility of demanding accountability from our representatives, who should we be blaming? Why do we expect Anon, the FBI, or Captain Kirk to fix problems we apparently don't care about?

by seanferd

"What I was asking is, how can you say one group's use of coersion is wrong (KKK) and another's is right (Anonymous?) My father fought in WWII and I am a veteran of 4 combat zones, but neither I nor he made the decisions that lead to those conflicts. Anon cannot say that. If we allow groups, no matter how much we might agree with their basic tenets, to act as judge, jury, and executioner, will we have a society at all?"

You can add to your example list: corporations. And there are others, like abusive gov agencies.

Remember also that history is written by the winners of conflicts, at least within their own societies. If groups or individuals protesting in such a manner as Anonymous change the landscape, they will be considered to have been in the right, just as the U.S. is considered to have been in the right in the Revolutionary war (only far less bloody).

Just thoughts, I'm not really taking a position contrary to yours, as mob justice/crowds and power can easily be horribly in the wrong as they can be virtuously standing against tyrants.

by dogknees

Vigilantes are always in the wrong. Whether in the wild west or on the internet.

As for participation, again right on the money. Being of an older persuasion, I remember knowing the local reps as a kid and going to barbeques where you could meet the state premier and tell him what you thought to his (in those days they were all male) face. And, they didn't have a body guard following them about.

People were involved with politicians and would take their grievances to them directly. The politicians lived in the local community and spent most of their time there rather than in the state capital.

Not so much now. I doubt I would recognize my local rep on sight.

by hal 9000

If you post to the thread in Question and not use the Take it Off Line option which results in a unlinked post which no one understands.

If you need to reply to a post at the end of the list go up one level and click on Reply. ;)

Col

by ansugisalas

Go up to a post one level of indentation less than the post with no "reply" button.
You have to watch out for that, the "reply" button is sneakily replaced with a "Take it outside, gentlemen"-button, which dumps your response here in the water cooler... to sleep with the fishes, usually (yeah, we don't drink the water, anymore).

by toadwiz

Can't tell from your post. Let me say first that unions server an important need when they started out. Perhaps they still occasionally do the right thing now, but more often they seem like politicians, i.e. they don't give a damn about the end results as long as they get what they want.

Examples: I can't remember where, but a union recently forced the acceptance of responsibility for transgender surgery for its members. Now if thats what someone wants to do to themselves, I don't have a problem with it. I'm a Libertarian. But I'm not sure why the company or the consumer through higher-priced goods should pay for it.

How about Boeing? They built a plant in North Carolina, but workers in Washington sued to force Boeing to close it. Who is planning on eating the cost of this plant? When Boeing is forced out of business, will the union accept any of the blame? Doesn't Boeing have rights? Don't the worker in North Carolina need jobs just as much as the Washington ones do? If the union is only concerned about pay and benefits for their members, how can they possibly justify meddling in corporate decisions? I hope Boeing learns from this an builds it's next plant overseas and away from union meddling.

We hear a lot about jobs being offshored and yes, it's a bad thing. But there are economic forces at work here which are not subject to political whim. For example, the US corporate tax rate is 38%, one of the highest in the world. The corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12.5%. Is it any wonder that when a corporation seeks to build a new plant, they build it overseas? Look at the cost per hour of building a car in the US versus Japan. The Japanese cost per hour for labor is 80% of the US cost, which means the Japanese car starts out with a 20% advantage versus its US counterpart. That means the US car is more expensive than it's Japanese counterpart or the US manufacturer makes nothing or even takes a loss to compete.

If our workers expect to get these cadillac benefits and salary packages, the goods they produce are going to have to be worth it. If not, the products and the jobs are going to go away. No amount of taxation is going to make up for it, but instead will accellerate the death of the company providing the jobs.

I'm interested in hearing from any union supporter how you justify this. Is it enough that the corporation makes a profit that is large by your standards? If so, why not invest in the corporation and get some of that profit? Do you really want to live in a society where the corporations are owned by the government? Have you checked the Chinese pay scales lately? What I think is that it's pure greed - the exact same kind of greed that people hate in corporations, but even more shortsighted. It's the greed that says, "I don't give a damn what happens to the corporation or anyone else as long as I get more benefits and $1 more per hour than my counterparts." If so, you DESERVE the recession we are in.

by charliespencer

The new Boeing plant is here in North Charleston, SOUTH Carolina, not over the border in that 'Yankee' state. :-)

by ansugisalas

if'n I say that a state must maintain control of the armed forces (or at least the majority) working from its territories, does that mean I sign a blanket acceptance of whatever actions a nation may choose to undertake with such armed forces?

The unions must have a right to strike.
The unions should also have a whit of sense, as should all countries' commanders in chief.

But then, we can't have everything, can we?

by ansugisalas

Of course it made sense in the old coal mine times... as a countermove to mine operators trying to exclude union members.

We're lucky that it doesn't anymore.

by tonythetiger

I think individual liberty should trump all except another's liberty. If your idea is a good one, no force should be necessary.

Unions deny me of my right to negotiate what I think my value is to an employer. I may be able to provide more value (price per quantity or quality) to an employer and some third party shouldn't have a say in that negotiation unless I agree to it.

Protectionism, no matter how you dress it up, is wrong.

by ansugisalas

does that prevent others from using their freedom to join forces in order to strengthen their own negotiation, specifically to harden themselves against employer demands?
If they don't specifically go after you, then they're not harming you with their choice.

by toadwiz

Of course unions should retain the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining. But veto power over corporate decisions AFTER the money has already been spent? I think not. And I regard union coercion of union membership as a condition of employment also wrong. I can't figure out why a worker can't choose for himself whether the union represents his interests or not, and make his own choice. If the corporation cannot require non-membership, why should the union be able to require it?

And thanks, Palmetto, for straightening me out of the location of the Boeing plant. I always feel that concrete examples make the points better than political posturing, and I appreciate the help.

by ansugisalas

That's what I always say about non-movement. Know where the optimal point is, then go there. No striving in directions. Directions don't know their bounds.

by seanferd

I mention corporations especially because they are artificial persons with far more legal rights than real persons. But anything with a hair more power than it needs to get the job done will spend that power somehow.

by seanferd

where the Manson-Nixon line is these days, so long after the Late Unpleasantness. ;)

This discussion is closed to new replies.