So, is there a contradiction with his current stance? Please explain - non-American here.

He is still definitely in favor of collective bargaining. He's just not out there picketing in person. I'm not sure how much that would accomplish, anyway, other than making more of a spectacle out of it.

>> ^doogle:

So, is there a contradiction with his current stance? Please explain - non-American here.


There's a nationwide ruckus going on about Republicans in Wisconsin trying to strip public sector unions of their right to collectively bargain. Early on Obama made a comment about it being an "assault on unions", but since then he has mostly avoided saying anything at all about the issue.

Like ShakyJake said, he's still in favor of collective bargaining, but he's not been as pro-union as he intimated he would be.

@ShakyJake, I'm sure it'd mostly just add to the spectacle, but I think it'd be a signal to everyone just how important an issue this is, and how dedicated to the cause Obama is.

I sorta understand why he's keeping quiet -- he risks elevating Walker by getting directly involved, as well as changing the political dynamics (Walker's standing up against Obama, not against school teachers) but I think the benefit of him being seen to take a hard stance on this far outweighs the risks.

If Obama's standing amidst a sea of people holding a sign, people won't forget what's really going on, and people will remember that image far longer than anyone will remember Walker's name.

I don't know the details of what's going on in Wisconsin, but why would anyone disturb a people's right to peacefully assemble and bargain for better working situations and pay?

As long as the unions aren't applying pressure to legislators to create laws in their favor, then who cares, right? Or is that what's really going on here?

>> ^blankfist:

I don't know the details of what's going on in Wisconsin, but why would anyone disturb a people's right to peacefully assemble and bargain for better working situations and pay?

I don't know. He says he's doing it for fiscal reasons, but that doesn't really hold water since they've agreed to all the wage & benefit cuts he asked for.
>> ^blankfist:
As long as the unions aren't applying pressure to legislators to create laws in their favors, then who cares, right? Or is that what's really going on here?


Define "pressure". Certainly you don't object to people exercising their 1st amendment rights, do you? You know, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and all that?

>> ^NetRunner:

Define "pressure". Certainly you don't object to people exercising their 1st amendment rights, do you? You know, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and all that?


Pressure [presh-er] –verb (used with object)
to force (someone) toward a particular end; influence:

That's from dictionary.com, though I'm not sure why you couldn't look it up yourself. Why would I have a problem with people exercising a right to free speech or assembly?

I don't want people (singular or in a collective) using the violent apparatus of government to satisfy their own selfish ends. If they want to assemble and try to apply pressure to their employer through nonviolent persuasion, that's one thing. But when people use government to restrict industries, it always results in protectionism which is bad.

>> ^blankfist:

Pressure [presh-er] –verb (used with object)
to force (someone) toward a particular end; influence:
That's from dictionary.com, though I'm not sure why you couldn't look it up yourself. Why would I have a problem with people exercising a right to free speech or assembly?

Well, it's that dual meaning that made me ask you to define what you meant by pressure. Exercising your right to free speech and assembly can rightfully be called "applying pressure to legislators to create laws in their favor".

You made it sound like unions are okay with you...unless they exercise their rights to free speech or assembly.
>> ^blankfist:
I don't want people (singular or in a collective) using the violent apparatus of government to satisfy their own selfish ends.

Now we're getting somewhere. So what does the right to freedom of speech entitle unions to? The ability to say whatever they want to their government, or is it somehow confined only to some subset of things you approve of?

>> ^NetRunner:

Now we're getting somewhere. So what does the right to freedom of speech entitle unions to? The ability to say whatever they want to their government, or is it somehow confined only to some subset of things you approve of?


Remember, I'm coming from a position of voluntary interactions instead of coercive force. Before you take us down a hypothetical rabbit hole, let me add to that statement and say, I believe force is justifiable when seeking protection from an imminent injurious action or redressing the victim of an injurious action*. Fair enough?

I don't think force is justified when manipulating industries. That is to say, I do not agree with using the violent apparatus of government to tip the playing field in any one group's favor whether that be unions or corporations or individuals.

If the unions wish to organize and be persuasive, that's one thing. They can easily make compelling arguments if they're worth what they're asking for. But if they wish to have government set rules in an industry, that's protectionism. And that's unfair.

Government intervention is wrong because it unfairly tips the playing field. And when a group or individual uses the government in that way, I can safely condemn them for being self-interested scumbags just as I condemn the legislators for being coercive and violent scumbags. It has zero to do with their right to free speech.

*modification of language: Force is justified when redressing injurious actions or violation of rights (property rights, freedom of speech, etc.) or violation of voluntary tort/contract.

>> ^blankfist:

If the unions wish to organize and be persuasive, that's one thing. They can easily make compelling arguments if they're worth what they're asking for. But if they wish to have government set rules in an industry, that's protectionism. And that's unfair.

So you believe it's unfair.

What does that mean as far as their rights are concerned? Are you opposed to letting them have the right to engage in political speech and assembly, because you don't think what they advocate is fair?

Are you opposed to letting them have the right to collectively bargain, because you disagree with their politics?

>> ^blankfist:
Government intervention is wrong because it unfairly tips the playing field. And when a group or individual uses the government in that way, I can safely condemn them for being self-interested scumbags just as I condemn the legislators for being coercive and violent scumbags. It has zero to do with their right to free speech.


But it does. I'm allowed to lobby congress to pass a law that requires pastafarians to be shot on sight. I'm allowed to lobby congress to nuke France. I'm definitely allowed to lobby congress to tighten worker safety laws, or pass comprehensive health care reform.

You're allowed to lobby against me on that if you like, or write a blog post about how my "Pastafarian Elimination Act" is blatantly unconstitutional.

What you're not allowed to do, as a libertarian (or liberal), is support the government taking away my other rights because you don't like what I'm saying politically. You shouldn't be advocating that the state revoke liberals' rights to own a gun, their right to not incriminate themselves, their right to habeas corpus, or their right to engage in collective bargaining agreements, no matter what they say or do.

So here's my point, straight up: you shouldn't be supporting the government taking away unions' collective bargaining rights as punishment for them exercising their right to free speech in ways you disagree with. At least, not as long as you hold yourself to be someone who believes that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are fundamental human rights.

@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.

That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together. The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Just in case you require examples of protectionism that stifles competition, I have a great many. The recent banking coup is a good place to start. A lot of small and midlevel banks closed after the bailouts (WaMu! Fucking WaMu closed!), so now the big banks no longer have to compete against hundreds of banks. This was by design.

After prohibition the government forced a three tiered system onto the alcohol industry which keeps the two major beer manufacturers on top while the smaller brewers are being edged out. On even smaller levels, a lot of small businesses use government to keep new competitors out by pushing licensing and other expensive requirements onto new businesses. This happens often for hair salons, florists, casket manufacturing, and just about every small business industry in America. NY public transit union recently sought legal injunctions against local businessmen who offer cheap minivan rides throughout the city for much less than what the Metro can offer.

Lastly, look at the film industry. It's a mess. The unions and corporations have made it extremely difficult for independent filmmakers to shoot a film and have it distributed (though the internet is changing things a bit). And the cost of production in Los Angeles is through the roof, because of union fees, permit costs, etc. If you choose to use union actors for a non-union film you could face a pricey lawsuit. And not to mention how difficult it is for those who want to join the unions, with catch 22 rules like, "You must work 200 hours on a union film set to be admitted into the union, but you can't work on a union film shoot unless you're in the union." Funny how people still manage to get in.

@NetRunner, it has nothing to do with free speech or the right to assemble! I'm not arguing they can't lobby their politicians. Or that you can't lobby yours to shoot pastafarians. You can do and say whatever you wish. My biggest problem in this scenario is government coercion. Can't you see that? Have I not been clear for the past four years on VideoSift? Do we need to make a public service announcement that blankfist has an issue with government?

The problem in this scenario is government. In case that wasn't clear, I'll repeat it. The problem is government.

But I can also condemn those in the union for using government to do bad things. Just like how we both condemn George W. Bush for using government to do bad things when he was president (remember that?). Are we saying we don't think Bush has the right to free speech? No. Are we saying him, Cheney and Rumsfield don't have the right to free assembly? No.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

That is true about almost every argument you and I have.

>> ^blankfist:
Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.
That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together.

I agree with all of that.

>> ^blankfist:
The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

I'm not so sure they'll always prevail. We'll never have a perfectly egalitarian society, where no man ever rises above another, and I don't think we should. But monarchy and oligarchy should be able to be killed off, or at least sent into long periods of remission. To quote that guy who ran for President in 2008, and then disappeared, no one can stop millions of people calling for change. Just ask Ben Ali, and Hosni Mubarak, maybe even King George III.

My cure for creeping oligarchism is to push for changes in social norms to promote egalitarianism. I want people to realize that nobody's intrinsically superior or inferior to anyone else, that they are their brother's keeper, that we're all in this life together, we're only really different on the outside, etc., etc., etc.

I push for increased deference to basic human dignity and fairness for everyone. When I think I can get away with it, I say we should all love one another, and make sure to forgive people as often as possible.

In terms of politics, this translates into social justice. Not because I have any particular desire to compel people to do things they don't want to, but to at least put forward the notion that it's as wrong to let a homeless man starve as it is to kill someone in cold blood, and that if government can do things to stop the latter, it should also do things to stop the former.

If people would treat people who act purely on self-interest as being morally wrong instead of morally neutral (or even morally virtuous!), then things, big things, would change.

Anyways, I agree with you on protectionism being bad, and I agree all your examples are things that shouldn't be happening. I still don't think eliminating unions does anyone any kind of good, and I think it's antithetical to both of our belief systems, for the reasons I said.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, it has nothing to do with free speech or the right to assemble! I'm not arguing they can't lobby their politicians. Or that you can't lobby yours to shoot pastafarians. You can do and say whatever you wish. My biggest problem in this scenario is government coercion. Can't you see that? Have I not been clear for the past four years on VideoSift? Do we need to make a public service announcement that blankfist has an issue with government?
The problem in this scenario is government. In case that wasn't clear, I'll repeat it. The problem is government.
But I can also condemn those in the union for using government to do bad things. Just like how we both condemn George W. Bush for using government to do bad things when he was president (remember that?). Are we saying we don't think Bush has the right to free speech? No. Are we saying him, Cheney and Rumsfield don't have the right to free assembly? No.


So you are ready to join the protesters who're opposing these bills that remove collective bargaining rights from public sector unions? Or at least, voice support for their cause?

I hear that you don't see eye to eye with unions in all things, but that's not the question today. The question today is whether those unions get to exist at all.

@NetRunner, of course I agree unions should exist. I agree that all of us, the good and the bad, have a right to do what they will as long as they don't hurt others or steal from them. I do think unions tend to be protectionists, which makes me dubious of them. Don't mistake my regard for unions, or any group for that matter, to mean I'd be in favor of legislating them out of existence.

I feel I have to be extra clear with you.

In terms of politics, this translates into social justice. Not because I have any particular desire to compel people to do things they don't want to, but to at least put forward the notion that it's as wrong to let a homeless man starve as it is to kill someone in cold blood, and that if government can do things to stop the latter, it should also do things to stop the former.

>> ^blankfist:

Don't mistake my regard for unions, or any group for that matter, to mean I'd be in favor of legislating them out of existence.

Then lend your voice in support of them fighting for their right to exist now, rather than mostly talking about your dislike for them.

>> ^blankfist:
I agree we have a moral duty as humans to take care of one another.

I believe you. That's why I keep thinking you and I have common ground upon which we should be able to build some sort of broad agreement on policy.

I just think you're almost universally focused on defending the right for people to resolutely and violently reject that moral duty to take care of others, rather than trying to persuade people to do more to live up to it.

@NetRunner, I have no desire to support them or fight for their right to exist, for three reasons. 1. I don't know enough about what's happening in Wisconsin and why. 2. In the end, I'd be supporting a group that uses legislation to support protectionism. 3. Their salary is paid by theft.

I just think you're almost universally focused on defending the right for people to resolutely and violently reject that moral duty to take care of others, rather than trying to persuade people to do more to live up to it.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, I have no desire to support them or fight for their right to exist, for three reasons. 1. I don't know enough about what's happening in Wisconsin and why. 2. In the end, I'd be supporting a group that uses legislation to support protectionism. 3. Their salary is paid by theft.

Ahh, so your commitment to basic human rights only extends to a) things you care about enough to read about (and apparently you don't care enough about human rights to read up on a major news story that happens to be centered on human rights), b) groups of people who share your political philosophy, and c) don't work on Wall Street.

>> ^blankfist:
If it's by forcing them to give under threat of violence (threat of police intervention, threat of imprisonment, etc.), then I'm afraid I will never support that.
You cannot legislate morality. Because your morality may not be my own, and coercing me into funding something I disagree with morally is universally evil.


Fine then. I plan on helping myself to your car here in a few minutes. I assume you'll defend me against the people who've "legislated morality" and are threatening police intervention and the threat of imprisonment against my doing so, seeing how that's universally evil.

Oh wait, I already forgot that first half -- I only get my rights defended by blankfist if I don't support a group whose politics you disagree with. Guess my rights are forfeit!

Man, you're being obtuse. And just when I thought we were turning a corner, too.