Additional Pages

Thursday, February 24, 2011

A Reason To Fight

There is a reason I met the union thugs on the steps of the State Capitol in Denver the other day. There is a reason I have been engaged in this struggle since the beginning. It is not because I like to protest, far from it. I don't like to put myself out there in the streets, it is unseemly. But, I also recognize that I have a personal responsibility to take action where that action is obviously needed. To expect someone else to tend to my liberty, or my rights is as unseemly as anything I could do, moreso than protesting.

The situation is clear: we either fight for our liberty, or we lose it. We stand up for fiscal responsibility or we might as well just toss our credit cards to the looters and moochers. Why protect our identity from thieves if we are going to invite the thieves in to write the laws?

Here's the difference between private sector unions and public sector unions, since that seems to be an intellectual stumbling block for most defenders of the debacle in Wisconsin. When a private sector union delegation sits down with a corporation, it is dealing with the owners of the company: the CEO, the CFO, or the COO, all of whom own stock, all of whom have a stake in the success of the company. They cannot arbitrarily increase the price of their stock to cover an increase in wages and benefits. They can increase the cost of their goods, but that puts them at a disadvantage in the marketplace and starts a downward spiral leading to the loss of all jobs and all pensions. They can sacrifice some profits for the agreement, but once those profits are gone the company will have to take on debt to open new plants, or start new lines of goods. It all comes out of the bottom line.

When a public sector union sits down with the staff of a governor, or mayor, there is no genuine conflict. On one hand you have an organization who in many respects has helped to get the governor or mayor elected, or could pose significant opposition to the governor or mayor in future elections. The governor or mayor has many more reasons to facilitate the union rather than incur its wrath. The governor is not going to have his 401k devalued by his decision. He is not going to be personally liable for the wages he agrees to increase, he merely passes a bill that increases taxes and since the people, the rightful voice in this conflict, have not been in on the negotiation, they are unaware that the taxes being raised are to cover the agreement recently made.

Historically speaking, public sector unions have been around for a very short time and already they have led to the fiscal instability of every state in which they have taken root. This is because they have abnormal influence on their bosses who do not own the institution they are representing. Only the people can represent their interests in this negotiation and the only way to do that, as yet, is to protest, to throw a fit, to get in their face, to stand up to their aggression, to confront them directly, to gather and demand a voice.

Let me quote Rousseau:

“As soon as public service ceases to be the principle concern of the Citizens, and they prefer to serve with their purses instead of their persons, the State is already nearly in ruin. Is it necessary to go to combat? They pay for troops and remain at home; is it necessary to go to the Council?  They name deputies and remain at home.  By dint of laziness and money, they finally have soldiers to enslave the fatherland and representatives to sell it.”

Graciously linked and quoted at Green Mountains Homesteading.
Graciously linked and qutoed at Free North Carolina.
Graciously linked and quoted at Adrienne's Catholic Corner.
Graciously linked and quoted at Western Rifle Shooters Association.

27 comments:

  1. That's the best explanation I've read, Mr. Davis. Excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ya got it right again, T.L.

    The People had no say in these Contracts,and it was Gov.employees negotiating with Gov. that had nothing to lose and everything to gain with union support.

    Dennis
    III
    Texas

    ReplyDelete
  3. Quoted and linked at http://greenmnts.blogspot.com/2011/02/high-noon-for-republic.html

    Good thing that cop was there to save that union thug!

    Bravo TL!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bottom line...If no Government jobs existed and were all handled by the civilian sector. No problem would exist. Except, who controls the beast that is ourselves ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks brock.
    Spud, there is nothing wrong with government jobs. I do think there is cause to re-evaluate what jobs we ask government employees to do and what can be better handled differently.
    The welfare state appeals to the worst beast in ourselves in that it asks us to take from others for our individual and particular benefit, not the benefit of society. That is a huge step toward barbarism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Exactly, some jobs are better left to government.
    Such as military, so why are contractors washing the dishes and doing the KP, mowing the grass and working on the machines ? let alone providing security for military bases and patrols ie; Blackwater ?

    Seems to be a lot of savings to be had in those areas. The military I was in sure did,and for a lot less money.I fear even today's soldiers, are spoiled rotten Yuppies...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps. The trouble is when our military is used as an employment office rather than a fighting force, we reap what we sow.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Got that right !
    Start the Draft Now, bring back the old school ways. The military should never be an employment center for the poor or a place for contractors to fleece the public.

    ReplyDelete
  9. T.L I like your posts and you articulate the issues well. I was thinking along the same lines but got bogged down in trying to explain the conflict of interest involved when corrupt politicians cave in so readily to demands for more pay and benefits. But you hit it right on the head.

    Alas I am one who fears it is too late since there are so many who cannot understand the simplicity of the issue and how it has driven us to bankruptcy. Heck, even my 10 y.o. homeschooler can understand the issue. But, keep up the good work

    Rob
    Alabama

    ReplyDelete
  10. NEVER FORGET THIS:

    EVERY DIME GIVEN TO A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OR CONTRACTOR WAS TAKEN AT GUN POINT FROM A CITIZEN.

    "Public sector unions" ought to be a criminal offense; they are certainly immoral.

    "Thou shalt not steal."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Iwant to add that, many of us who worked in government jobs were given no choice at all about being a union member. When I worked for the California Highway Patrol, I was forced to belong to the union. My dues were deducted from my pay long before I got my check. And the union Board decided who it was going to spend their stolen money on - usually the Democrats, of course. The membership had no say in it at all. Believe it or not, the bylaws of the union stated that the Board's decision trumped whatever the majority of the membership wanted or voted for.

    Public unions are a cancer, and once they get a foothold, you have to pretty much "kill the patient" to get rid of them. They are even worse than unions in the private sector.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Reg, I want you especially to understand that I have a great deal of respect for those who give their lives to public service. It is a noble endeavor despite the conflicts going on now.

    It is only the unions that I find distasteful and sometimes I don't make that clear enough. Right now tempers are high. Having to listen to people who rely on my labor for their livelihood to call me names and flip me off and insult me in every way gets me amped up to engage them and deny them their tactics of fear.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Outstanding, TL!

    There are some things that cannot, must not, be delegated. Among them are self-defense, protection of one's family, and defense of one's liberty.

    That is the first passage attributed to Rousseau I've ever found agreeable.

    ReplyDelete
  14. WH, thanks, I appreciate it. As for Rousseau, even landfill can contain a diamond.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The only protest that is going to count is the protest with your pocket book.

    Withholding the fruits of your labor from the parasites that you protest, which they have absolutely no right to, which they steal from you for their subsistence, is the only thing that is going to count.

    They need the productive class. We don’t need them. Yet we allow what is rightfully ours to be take by threat of force or death, to keep them alive.

    When a large enough number of productive citizens are willing to take up an open discussion about standing up to the robber class, and righteously withholding from them what is not theirs to take, and defend one others rights to withhold the fruits of our labor from the unproductive as we see fit............................................

    Then you will have a winning strategy that is worth fighting for. A strategy to win true individual freedom.

    If you believe that protesting the takers is going to transform them into self sufficient producers you do not understand how their minds work.

    As long as they have subsistence, provided by a productive member of society, they have nothing else to do with every breath they draw other than to demand that the productive produce more so they can continue breathing. What else would they do with their time, they are not producing anything? They can’t continue to breath if they can’t force someone else to provide for them. They aren’t as stupid as some might think. They have animal instinct same as any other predator.
    Idle hands are the devils tools my friend.


    TL said,

    “The welfare state appeals to the worst beast in ourselves in that it asks us to take from others for our individual and particular benefit, not the benefit of society.”

    I’m sorry to pop your bubble but...............To take from others what is not rightfully yours to take.............weather for “individual and particular benefit”, or the “benefit of society”, is stealing, robbery, a crime, period.

    The idea that it is OK to steal from others for the “benefit of society” is...............................socialism, communism, mob rule, immoral.................doesn’t work...............enslaves productive citizens.

    Government jobs are not OK, good or moral, when created and maintained by coercion, and fraud.

    Or when the very act of performing said job is theft, coercion, or the blatant infringement or forceful taking of individual rights, freedom, property and life, all of which, government is the most efficient of any criminal element at doing.
    Not my opinion, history has proven it time and again.

    WWalker

    ReplyDelete
  16. Walker, I am a Constitutionalist, which means that I recognize that there are things the government can do that I am willing to pay for, i.e. fund a military for the protection of our borders, and rights at sea. Were we all scattered and left to defend these borders ourselves, and protect ourselves from invasion from abroad, I think we would leave ourselves open to slaughter as those forces who are able to concentrate their efforts on breaching our defenses and using the power of their collective purse to do so would win.

    I am willing to listen to any proposal that puts more power and control in the hands of the people, but I do subscribe to the idea that some government is necessary and that is what my tax dollars are paying for. Where the government fails to provide what I am paying for and uses my money to pay for things abhorrent to me, I will protest and demand a change, or vote a change. If it takes too long, or the government places the people at risk by failing to do these things, revolution is warranted as described by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Walker, I read your follow-up comment via email, but it did not show up here, you might want to repost it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The systemic failure which is creating this conflict is the disconnect between the wage & benefit negotiations and any input from the voters/taxpayers, the customers of these public employees. That disconnect lets their labor cost spiral upward with no restraint. To fix this, I suggest the contracts expire on election day, and that the union demands and the government offers be put on the ballot. We can't walk away from overpriced government services, as we can and have from overpriced UAW built cars. But the delay in having our elected officials express our wishes creates this sort of disharmony.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Interesting take Anonymous. The correct ballot question would be: Would you like to fully fund the employment agreements made by government officials with labor unions, or would you prefer to have your streets fixed?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I tried again.
    Showed up when I posted. Gone when I come back.

    Thanks for the opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry forgot to sign the Anon post @ 2:22

    WWalker

    ReplyDelete
  22. Walker, I might be able to post it from your email, would that be okay?

    ReplyDelete
  23. That is fine with me.

    WWalker

    ReplyDelete
  24. Posted for Anonymous because this site is freaking out from his comments, I guess.

    TL,
    Thank you for your response. I am very impressed that you actually
    engage in discussion with your readers.


    “but I do subscribe to the idea that some government is necessary and
    that is what my tax dollars are paying for.”

    I’m sure you have heard of The Grace Commission? Here is a teaser.

    "In a letter to President Reagan dated January 12, 1984, Grace
    encapsulated his commission’s findings. He warned the president of
    multi-trillion dollar government debts by the year 2000 should the
    federal government not act upon his commission’s recommendations.
    In this same letter, Grace told President Reagan that “one-third” of
    the tax dollars collected are wasted and another third not collected.
    “With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not
    collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by
    interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to
    transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues
    are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers
    expect from their Government.”"

    Do you suppose this has changed?

    Further, does government not collect these taxes from the unwilling
    (those who understand that their tax dollars are being used to destroy
    them rather that serve them) under threat of force, lose of liberty,
    and even death?

    Is it right to take by force from others to match what you are willing
    to give?

    “there are things the government can do that I am willing to pay for,
    i.e. fund a military for the protection of our borders, and rights at
    sea.”

    Do you believe that is what they are doing? Protecting the borders, and
    Americans at sea, from pirates?

    Invading and occupying forging countries, 100's of thousands, millions,
    murdered while defending their country from these invasions and
    occupations?

    This is protection for our borders and seas?

    “Where the government fails to provide what I am paying for”

    Haven’t they?

    “ ...............................and uses my money to pay for things
    abhorrent to me, I will protest and demand a change, or vote a change.
    If it takes too long,”..........................................

    How many hundreds of years do you have to wait, or are willing to give
    in enslavement?

    “ .............................or the government places the people at
    risk by failing to do these things,”

    Is not the greatest threat to our life, liberty and property, at
    present, government?
    Have governments throughout history not be the most egregious offenders
    when it comes to the violent murder of staggeringly large numbers of
    the very people whom the government serves / rules?

    Is this government really any different?

    Government funded murder of “our Posterity,”. How does that square with
    the Constitution?

    I believe that the intention of the Constitution was too, by rule of
    law, protect the rights of people, and to protect the people from their
    own good intentions.

    It has failed.

    If you voluntarily choose to fund a government that is fine.

    If your voluntarily funded government starts forcibly taking from me at
    your request or otherwise, for the “greater good of
    society”............................You sir have bought yourself a
    communist government, no?


    WWalker

    ReplyDelete