National Guard May Deploy as Socialists, Unions Wreak Havoc in Wisconsin

[low preference guy]

I guess I probably shouldn't have aided your mildly thread-derailing post, but it really did cut to the core: Government is inherently incentivized to be wasteful, because it doesn't have to obtain its money the hard way like everyone else.

That's not logically necessary. Government could fund its services voluntarily, like Ayn Rand proposed. But there is a long way to go in education before people understand that government theft is also theft.

 

[Michael Landon]

Does no one stop and ask why the Government pays 250,000$ or 750,000$ for fences around a post office? Hello? It's quite obvious. They have no worry about going bankrupt! They can either print the money or steal more. This is endemic in all Governments because it is their inherent nature as a socialist institution! They can use the price mechanisms the market provides to make rational allocations, but there is no need for them to do that. The only restraint is a political one and as we all know too well, people are quite willing to steal from their neighbors if they perceive a benefit. Government is vile, destructive, and an evil institution. You will never fix this issue by keeping the same institution alive and believing you can magically reform it out of its inherent properties.

Us workers ask all the time, they'll treat us like shit to try and save $10-20 dollars a day from us but they'll spend like they have an endless blank check. And then when the shit hits the fan and the Postal Service starts losing $8.5B/year the first thing they say is "we could make ends meet if we could lower the union wages and cut their benefits." All the while, Postmasters continue to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses each year.

- ML

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Anyways to get back on topic, I agree with AF and Brooklyn that it is absolutely wrong to come in and use force to stop the protestors from protesting.

 

[Ninja Homer]

I don't normally like linking to Michelle Malkin, but this page is pretty informative: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/1...salary-info-big-labor-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

The gigantic list of bureaucrats that make over $100k is one of the biggest reasons that public education is so much more expensive (per student) than private education.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Us workers ask all the time, they'll treat us like shit to try and save $10-20 dollars a day from us but they'll spend like they have an endless blank check. And then when the shit hits the fan and the Postal Service starts losing $8.5B/year the first thing they say is "we could make ends meet if we could lower the union wages and cut their benefits." All the while, Postmasters continue to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses each year.

- ML

That is indeed a problem. The little man always get the short stick in any political environment, which is why it is so frustrating when you see good intentioned people being lured into the pit of socialism and collectivism in the hopeless vein that they are helping the downtrodden.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't normally like linking to Michelle Malkin, but this page is pretty informative: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/1...salary-info-big-labor-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

The gigantic list of bureaucrats that make over $100k is one of the biggest reasons that public education is so much more expensive (per student) than private education.

Ontop of the fact that the US education system is the same basic design that people used over 200 years ago. Government destroys innovation. It's like they are stuck in a time capsule -- at least we get to see what the world was like in 1750.

 

[Mini-Me]

That's not logically necessary. Government could fund its services voluntarily, like Ayn Rand proposed. But there is a long way to go in education before people understand that government theft is also theft.

It's true that the government does have other options, but why would it ever choose them when theft (extortion to be precise) is just so much easier? (You're right though; it's all about education and opening people's minds up to alternatives.)

 

[low preference guy]

It's true that the government does have other options, but why would it ever choose them when theft is just so much easier? (You're right though; it's all about education and opening people's minds up to alternatives.)

Another part of the "equation" is getting people to a level of education where they would refuse to pay taxes, a situation in which it is socially reprehensible to even suggest that.

But realistically, I think the best chance for freedom is having many small states close to each other, but each of them autonomous. Like the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Maybe we'll get to that when the dollar collapses.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Another part of the "equation" is getting people to a level of education where they would refuse to pay taxes, a situation in which it is socially reprehensible to even suggest that.

But realistically, I think the best chance for freedom is having many small states close to each other, but each of them autonomous. Like the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Maybe we'll get to that when the dollar collapses.

While my preferred system is obviously Statelessness, I could live with say, a return to City-States. Certainly more than 50 autonomous entities. I'd like to see counties and large cities becoming independent. That would require the people to understand that keeping people under a system they object to is immoral. That is why the War of Northern Aggression destroyed the Republic, at least before everyone believed that people could leave the Government and form their own.

 

[low preference guy]

While my preferred system is obviously Statelessness, I could live with say, a return to City-States. Certainly more than 50 autonomous entities. I'd like to see counties and large cities becoming independent. That would require the people to understand that keeping people under a system they object to is immoral. That is why the War of Northern Aggression destroyed the Republic, at least before everyone believed that people could leave the Government and form their own.

I think it almost destroyed it. The 17th amendment finished the job.

 

[Mini-Me]

While my preferred system is obviously Statelessness, I could live with say, a return to City-States. Certainly more than 50 autonomous entities. I'd like to see counties and large cities becoming independent. That would require the people to understand that keeping people under a system they object to is immoral. That is why the War of Northern Aggression destroyed the Republic, at least before everyone believed that people could leave the Government and form their own.

This is REALLY derailing the thread, but I've been meaning to harp on this for a while, and you gave me an opportunity: I've come to the conclusion that it's a mistake to call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggresion," because by demonizing only the North, the phrase implicitly lionizes the South. In truth, it was a devastating and atrocious war between two power-hungry/evil central governments, and it could have been avoided in SO many ways. States obviously have a right to secede from the union, but there's no getting around the fact that a large part of the reason the South wanted to secede was because they enjoyed oppressing people in a particular[ly awful] way (slavery), and the federal government was gradually cramping their style (not for moral reasons, but to favor northern states).

It's really tempting to pick a side to root for, which is what practically everyone does (and the identity politics are why people are so entrenched in their positions), but I think we have to avoid that temptation if we're going to look at it honestly and be taken seriously by anyone we try to reach on the subject. On the upside, the more honest view lets you hate on more governments.

 

[low preference guy]

South wanted to secede was because they enjoyed oppressing people in a particular way (slavery), and the federal government was gradually cramping their style (not for moral reasons, but to favor northern states).

I don't buy that argument because Lincoln also enslaved people in the North. He just used another name for it. Draft.

To clarify, it's true the South wanting to conserve slavery. But the North started enslaving new people, and many of them ended dead.

 

[Mini-Me]

I don't buy that argument because Lincoln also enslaved people in the North. He just used another name for it. Draft.

Oh, I know. The federal government had no strong ethical objections to slavery; the Northern states just didn't like the Southern states and imposed burdens on them to gain an economic and political edge for themselves. It was mostly jingoistic "us vs. them" bullshit, which partially took advantage of genuine grassroots abolition advocates. That still doesn't change the fact that the southern state governments (and the Confederate government) were evil too though.

 

[low preference guy]

Oh, I know. The federal government had no strong ethical objections to slavery; the Northern states just didn't like the Southern states and imposed burdens on them to gain an economic and political edge for themselves. That still doesn't change the fact that the southern state governments (and the Confederate government) were evil too though.

Sure.

 

[Mini-Me]

Sure.

Sure as in sarcasm, or sure as in concurrence?

 

[low preference guy]

Sure as in sarcasm, or sure as in concurrence?

probably one of my first few posts in a while that wasn't sarcasm.

 

[Mini-Me]

probably one my first few posts in a while that wasn't sarcasm.

Cool.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I do not worship the Education Genie.

People are not changed (ie. educated). People act differently because they are coerced or inspired to change (ie. learn).

Leading by example has historically been effective to inspire.

 

[Ninja Homer]

Ontop of the fact that the US education system is the same basic design that people used over 200 years ago. Government destroys innovation. It's like they are stuck in a time capsule -- at least we get to see what the world was like in 1750.

I agree completely. That's why I put my son through private Montessori school. He got twice the education, and it cost around $8k/year. I'm not sure what the real cost of public school is where I'm at, but I'm sure it's a lot more. Check this out: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432

It pisses me off every time I hear the "we need to spend more on education because the US is falling behind" argument.

 

[FrankRep]

In Wisconsin, it's the unions vs. the people

Washington Examiner
02/18/11