Labor Unions starting a third party

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
Well, let's see; in the case of, say, Walmart; gain unfair business advantage by lobbying local, state and national governments for tax perks and special favors.

Take advantage of superior financial leverage by building a huge store in town.

Deliberately undercut all the local merchants, forcing them out of business.

Then tell everyone who lost their jobs working for those other businesses, 'you have a choice'. Yeah, work for us for shit wages- or starve.

I'd ask if you're fucking stupid, but years of your posts have pounded that point home with a pile driver.

Ignoring your impoliteness and getting to the point... Yes, I understand the relationship between government and business. I'm not defending cronyism, nor do I need a lesson in why it's bad.

Why are you thinking that the thing which allows or enables a coercive monopoly to exist can somehow be the thing which ends it ?

No, I'm not stupid, but people who think the answer to the question above is to somehow polish the coercion turd until it's a happy turd might be experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
Loaded with empty calories and lacking in nutritional substance, just like all the rest of your posts.

Have you put in your vote for Roy Moore yet? He represents your interests...

Very sophomoric retort, but lacks any real meat.

I wish you understood what a real free market was, rather than trying to present me as some kind of defender of cronyism.

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
How the fuck would you know? You don't even know what one is.

Show us an actual free market. Just one. Anywhere.

You imply because you think something doesn't exist that it doesn't, hasn't or never could. "You'll never get that flying thing off the ground Wilbur and Orville."

A free market in the macro is disallowed by your god, the Federal government, and it's minion subsidiaries, states and municipalities etc.

However it still exists on a micro level, despite governments attempts to extinguish it.

You should learn to Strike root causes, rather than flailing around in the branches.

ttystikk · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
Ignoring your impoliteness and getting to the point... Yes, I understand the relationship between government and business. I'm not defending cronyism, nor do I need a lesson in why it's bad.

Why are you thinking that the thing which allows or enables a coercive monopoly to exist can somehow be the thing which ends it ?

No, I'm not stupid, but people who think the answer to the question above is to somehow polish the coercion turd until it's a happy turd might be experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Leveling the playing field with labor Unions is the classic remedy- which is why Republicans are so bent on enacting right to work laws across the country.

Your notions of coercion are wrong headed but I don't expect you to suddenly develop any enlightenment after all this time.

Maybe if you actually studied economics? But stupid is as stupid does.

ttystikk · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
You imply because you think something doesn't exist that it doesn't, hasn't or never could. "You'll never get that flying thing off the ground Wilbur and Orville."

A free market in the macro is disallowed by your god, the Federal government, and it's minion subsidiaries, states and municipalities etc.

However it still exists on a micro level, despite governments attempts to extinguish it.

You should learn to Strike root causes, rather than flailing around in the branches.

Ah, so no examples, just excuses.

ttystikk · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
Very sophomoric retort, but lacks any real meat.

I wish you understood what a real free market was, rather than trying to present me as some kind of defender of cronyism.

Your defense of a free market ideal encourages cronyism and monopolism. For someone who hates coercion, you sure seem to support the conditions that lead to it.

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
Leveling the playing field with labor Unions is the classic remedy- which is why Republicans are so bent on enacting right to work laws across the country.

Your notions of coercion are wrong headed but I don't expect you to suddenly develop any enlightenment after all this time.

Maybe if you actually studied economics? But stupid is as stupid does.

You are caught up in a conundrum. You think by one party, the employer or the employee having the gun, that somehow equality will result.

That is impossible. The only thing that will bring equality is both parties have the ability to engage or not on terms they mutually agreed to. Further, any person who wishes to go into business, should not be prevented from doing so due to bureaucratic constraints.

You're doing it wrong if equality of opportunity is your goal. If equality of outcome is your goal, you are advocating for force.

If you understood what I was saying, you wouldn't be able to refute it.

Studied Economics? Do you mean in academia land or in a reality based study which doesn't ignore some aspects of what occurs?

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
Ah, so no examples, just excuses.

Example of free market activity.

You have a stick of gum and want my baseball card of Jesus Alou. We mutually agree to the trade unimpeded by an external party. We have just completed a free market interaction. You're welcome.

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
Your defense of a free market ideal encourages cronyism and monopolism. For someone who hates coercion, you sure seem to support the conditions that lead to it.

This is an amazingly vapid response, given that you support "mandatory this" and "mandatory that" from the Nanny State.

I wish you understood what a real free market interaction was, you might even be okay then, but you are hung up in a mental cage of dissonance.

ttystikk · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
You are caught up in a conundrum. You think by one party, the employer or the employee having the gun, that somehow equality will result.

That is impossible. The only thing that will bring equality is both parties have the ability to engage or not on terms they mutually agreed to. Further, any person who wishes to go into business, should not be prevented from doing so due to bureaucratic constraints.

You're doing it wrong if equality of opportunity is your goal. If equality of outcome is your goal, you are advocating for force.

If you understood what I was saying, you wouldn't be able to refute it.

Studied Economics? Do you mean in academia land or in a reality based study which doesn't ignore some aspects of what occurs?

Not my conjunction, yours.

Bureaucratic constraints are what create a level playing field and protect all parties, including the consumer.

You advocate a gangster economy.

You've presented zero evidence your ideas will work and the rest of the world is doing it wrong? Give us a break!

I understand; you're just wrong.

Ah, so you dismiss economics study- which uses real world case studies- in favor of what?

Turn off Fix News and get an education.

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
Not my conjunction, yours.

Bureaucratic constraints are what create a level playing field and protect all parties, including the consumer.

You advocate a gangster economy.

You've presented zero evidence your ideas will work and the rest of the world is doing it wrong? Give us a break!

I understand; you're just wrong.

Ah, so you dismiss economics study- which uses real world case studies- in favor of what?

Turn off Fix News and get an education.

No, I dismiss the idea that a third party forcibly imposing between two other parties who wish to interact / trade is any kind of way to equality.

If you could tear your eyes of your Bernie poster for a minute, Comrade,
and ask yourself if voluntary and peaceful interactions are better than forcibly imposed ones, you might see the chinks in your flawed thinking.

I don't watch television news much, unless I'm looking for a laugh.

ttystikk · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
Example of free market activity.

You have a stick of gum and want my baseball card of Jesus Alou. We mutually agree to the trade unimpeded by an external party. We have just completed a free market interaction. You're welcome.

Wildly incomplete. Who made the gum? The card? Were these activities taxed to compensate society for the use of lend, infrastructure and workforce development? How did the two items arrive in the same room? How was the capital supporting those activities allocated? Workers compensated? Road use taxes? Fossil fuel use?

You have a terminal case of myopia and magical thinking.

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
Wildly incomplete. Who made the gum? The card? Were these activities taxed to compensate society for the use of lend, infrastructure and workforce development? How did the two items arrive in the same room? How was the capital supporting those activities allocated? Workers compensated? Road use taxes? Fossil fuel use?

You have a terminal case of myopia and magical thinking.

Probably Topps playing card made both the gum and the baseball card.

Is your goal equal opportunity or equal outcome Nanny ?

ttystikk · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
No, I dismiss the idea that a third party forcibly imposing between two other parties who wish to interact / trade is any kind of way to equality.

If you could tear your eyes of your Bernie poster for a minute, Comrade,
and ask yourself if voluntary and peaceful interactions are better than forcibly imposed ones, you might see the chinks in your flawed thinking.

I don't watch television news much, unless I'm looking for a laugh.

Your definitions of voluntary vs forced are wildly misapplied.

I'm not a Communist. That involves state ownership of means of production. But nice try.

Giving labor Unions, a form of collective aggregation of the bargaining power of individuals, an equal footiing in negotiations with enormously powerful corporations is anything but coercion.

Walmart could say 'no'- and then would deal with the unpleasant consequences. You seem to think that Walmart vs an individual employee is a level playing field- which is hysterical unless you happen to be that employee.

ttystikk · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
Probably Topps playing card made both the gum and the baseball card.

Is your goal equal opportunity or equal outcome Nanny ?

Nanny? What does that have to do with anything?

So you're going to seriously propose we ignore all the other factors of the transaction besides the tiny slice that 'proves' your point?!

You live in a fantasy.

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
Your definitions of voluntary vs forced are wildly misapplied.

I'm not a Communist. That involves state ownership of means of production. But nice try.

Giving labor Unions, a form of collective aggregation of the bargaining power of individuals, an equal footiing in negotiations with enormously powerful corporations is anything but coercion.

Walmart could say 'no'- and then would deal with the unpleasant consequences. You seem to think that Walmart vs an individual employee is a level playing field- which is hysterical unless you happen to be that employee.

No, I do not think Walmart vs an individual employee is a level playing field, under the present set up.

If you think more government is the solution and then also claim not to be a Communist....I want my Jesus Alou card back.

Rob Roy · Nov 13, 2017

ttystikk said:
Nanny? What does that have to do with anything?

So you're going to seriously propose we ignore all the other factors of the transaction besides the tiny slice that 'proves' your point?!

You live in a fantasy.

Fantasy?

Do you mean the kind where people advocate having a coercion based central authority who will extort from them in order to ensure that those same people are "protected" from people who might extort from them?

ttystikk · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
No, I do not think Walmart vs an individual employee is a level playing field, under the present set up.

If you think more government is the solution and then also claim not to be a Communist....I want my Jesus Alou card back.

I hate baseball.

Since when is the formation of labor Unions 'more government'? The current legal obstacles against labor organization is in fact the influence of government regulation. As usual, you're backwards.

How would you propose to level the playing field between Walmart and its employees?

ttystikk · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
Fantasy?

Do you mean the kind where people advocate having a coercion based central authority who will extort from them in order to ensure that those same people are "protected" from people who might extort from them?

Yes. Your fantasy, outlined above. It simply doesn't describe the reality of the current legal it Economic climate.

whitebb2727 · Nov 13, 2017

Rob Roy said:
How do you take advantage of a person if they have an opportunity to say yes or not to what you are offering ?

Seems ttystick asked the question I was.

One if Wal-Mart comes in and runs the smaller match a ts out of business and tells everyone else to take it or leave it with their shitty wages. Some don't have a choice.

When people are desperate and work for cheaper wages 8t will actually drive wages down. Not up.

Two. Show a free market anywhere.

Labor Unions starting a third party

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads