Comments on: Delusional Liberal Post of the Day http://www.marktalk.com/2012/01/19/delusional-liberal-post-of-the-day/ Proud to be a Tea Party "Terrorist"... er, "Hobbit!"... um, "Barbarian!" Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:40:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Mark Williams http://www.marktalk.com/2012/01/19/delusional-liberal-post-of-the-day/#comment-1077 Mark Williams Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:38:12 +0000 http://www.marktalk.com/?p=14968#comment-1077 BINGO! Give that man a cigar! BINGO! Give that man a cigar!

]]> By: Furlong http://www.marktalk.com/2012/01/19/delusional-liberal-post-of-the-day/#comment-1076 Furlong Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:35:13 +0000 http://www.marktalk.com/?p=14968#comment-1076 I think the problem lies primarily in the case where someone is already employed, and the other workers vote to start a union. Then, it does seem to undermine personal freedom to have to join the union, at least at first. I think if someone wants to give up their worker's rights, that should be fine, as long as there's no way to exploit that choice to the detriment of others. I think the problem lies primarily in the case where someone is already employed, and the other workers vote to start a union. Then, it does seem to undermine personal freedom to have to join the union, at least at first. I think if someone wants to give up their worker’s rights, that should be fine, as long as there’s no way to exploit that choice to the detriment of others.

]]> By: meh http://www.marktalk.com/2012/01/19/delusional-liberal-post-of-the-day/#comment-1074 meh Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:49:42 +0000 http://www.marktalk.com/?p=14968#comment-1074 I think that Thom was being a little disingenuous, and that he completely missed an opportunity to really make a cogent case for importance of unions. Obviously Mark wasn't saying that workers shouldn't have the right to organize, just that if you are in the work place, you shouldn't be forced to join a union. It was especially weak sauce for him to say that the person could go work somewhere else if they didn't want to do it. Employment is not a commodity, especially these days. Majority rule shouldn't always be the governing principal in politics. Rather, the governing principal should be a balance between the degree to which the policy contributes to the common good, and the welfare of the individual. Take Global Warming for example. The experts on environmental science, undoubtedly a minority in terms of the electorate, argue that the climate is warming due to human influence. Obviously, their opinion is much more important than the rest of ours. At any rate, Thom could have taken the higher ground and acknowledged that while it does, at first glance, seem to undermine personal freedom to have to join a union in order to work somewhere, its benefit to the common good outweighs the benefit of being able to choose whether to avoid a union. If a person can opt out of joining a union, then there are plenty of ways for the employer to exploit that ability, which would essentially compromise the right to unionize in the first place. For example, the employer could offer benefits for not joining the union. That might then lead to weakening the worker's rights, which would end up lowering the quality of life for all workers, including the one who opted not to join the union. I see no reason to fold my arms and feel smug about an argument where my side's main strategy is to bully and distort words. I think that Thom was being a little disingenuous, and that he completely missed an opportunity to really make a cogent case for importance of unions. Obviously Mark wasn’t saying that workers shouldn’t have the right to organize, just that if you are in the work place, you shouldn’t be forced to join a union. It was especially weak sauce for him to say that the person could go work somewhere else if they didn’t want to do it. Employment is not a commodity, especially these days.

Majority rule shouldn’t always be the governing principal in politics. Rather, the governing principal should be a balance between the degree to which the policy contributes to the common good, and the welfare of the individual. Take Global Warming for example. The experts on environmental science, undoubtedly a minority in terms of the electorate, argue that the climate is warming due to human influence. Obviously, their opinion is much more important than the rest of ours.

At any rate, Thom could have taken the higher ground and acknowledged that while it does, at first glance, seem to undermine personal freedom to have to join a union in order to work somewhere, its benefit to the common good outweighs the benefit of being able to choose whether to avoid a union. If a person can opt out of joining a union, then there are plenty of ways for the employer to exploit that ability, which would essentially compromise the right to unionize in the first place. For example, the employer could offer benefits for not joining the union. That might then lead to weakening the worker’s rights, which would end up lowering the quality of life for all workers, including the one who opted not to join the union.

I see no reason to fold my arms and feel smug about an argument where my side’s main strategy is to bully and distort words.

]]>