Thread: Anti-Union Bill Set to Pass In Wisconsin; Massive Protests Move Into Day 3

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Government is definitely part of the problem, but as far as our debts go, the private sector is heavily responsible as well.

Is that a fact? Exactly how much of our national debt do you think was created by private industry? I'll give you a hint....zero would be a good starting point.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

To make sure the haves are empowered to keep the have-nots flattened down, which would be harder in a democracy?

I don't think he missed that point, no.

Democracy is a fallacy that leads to Communism and/or Fascism. There were damn good reasons why our founders stayed the hell away from that broken form of governance.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Is that a fact? Exactly how much of our national debt do you think was created by private industry? I'll give you a hint....zero would be a good starting point.

God I hate to agree with the liberals on this one but you would be factually wrong.

Private industry unfortunately receives grants and subsidies all the time, that may not be something that should happen, but it is something that does happen.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Is that a fact? Exactly how much of our national debt do you think was created by private industry? I'll give you a hint....zero would be a good starting point.

With the bailouts some like the Auto makers have some responsibility in the debt. we should have let them fail. We would have been better for it.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Democracy is a fallacy that leads to Communism and/or Fascism.

Really? So you consider the government of Tsar Nicholas II, which was deposed leading to a Communist regime, democratic? Or that of Chiang Kai-Shek, which also was replaced by a Communist regime? Are you saying that the Weimar Republic, which was replaced by the Nazi regime, was misnamed?

What a novel concept! :rolleyes:

There were damn good reasons why our founders stayed the hell away from that broken form of governance.

Well, reasons they considered good, anyway. Reasons why they restricted the vote to white male property owners, and did not allow a popular vote for Senators or the President even with that restriction.

Generally speaking, though, when someone advances the "republic vs. democracy" idea, it's to refute the idea of popular sovereignty and defend restricting the franchise, or at least effective control of the government, to the rich and privileged. A republic may also be a democracy; that's known as a "democratic republic," which is what we have at least on paper. But a republic does not have to be democratic. The Roman Republic was not, and for that matter the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin fulfilled the conditions for being called a republic: it was a non-monarchical, non-dictatorial government by a fairly large class of people, in this case Communist Party members. (Whether one can have a republic that is also a dictatorship is a good question. I would say the answer is no, and that the Soviet Union under Stalin, like the Roman Republic under Julius Caesar, had the forms of republicanism without the reality.)

The argument, in short, is all about privilege, or, as I said above, the ability of the haves to smack down the have-nots.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

With the bailouts some like the Auto makers have some responsibility in the debt. we should have let them fail. We would have been better for it.

Why do you believe America would be better off without an auto industry? Why would America be better served by doing to the auto industry what we did to our electronic and textile industries?

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

To make sure the haves are empowered to keep the have-nots flattened down, which would be harder in a democracy?

I don't think he missed that point, no.

I personally don't think the govt should have a role in whether a person becomes a have or have not. Some people think if you are a have not, the govt should intervene using the money of the haves and straighten that shit right out. I'm not one of those people.

Originally Posted by lutherf

What amazes me is that after all this people still don't recognize a difference between public and private service.

What is the difference? Isn't a job pretty much a job?

Originally Posted by chassisman

I personally don't think the govt should have a role in whether a person becomes a have or have not.

So you don't think the government should set trade policy with other countries? Or pass labor legislation? Or levy taxes, which always have a leveling effect or the opposite? Or regulate immigration at all?

Because as long as the government is doing these things it WILL have a role in the distribution of wealth in this country.

wow this thread got way off topic. there is nothing wrong with being a government employee. There was a time in this country that public sector employment was something to be honored. Also, just like in the private sector, employees need to be protected from unfair treatment. At a time like now where public sector employees are looked down upon, collective bargaining can ensure that political waves don't play havok with the working conditions of public sector employees. Besides without these employees governments would not be able to function. Public sector workers deserve as much respect as private sector workers.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

So you don't think the government should set trade policy with other countries? Or pass labor legislation? Or levy taxes, which always have a leveling effect or the opposite? Or regulate immigration at all?

Because as long as the government is doing these things it WILL have a role in the distribution of wealth in this country.

Look DT, you can cling on to that government holdin people back shit if you want to, I ain't buyin'. I'd rather spend time working within the parameters that we ALL have and WORK to make all I can.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Democracy is a fallacy that leads to Communism and/or Fascism. There were damn good reasons why our founders stayed the hell away from that broken form of governance.

You do realize elections are a democratic process, right?....

Originally Posted by chassisman

Look DT, you can cling on to that government holdin people back shit if you want to, I ain't buyin'. I'd rather spend time working within the parameters that we ALL have and WORK to make all I can.

So you have no answer to my questions? Or do you? Do you deny that when the government sets trade policy it impacts whether and to what extent jobs can be outsourced, and that affects wages? Do you deny that when the government sets immigration policy, it affects how many immigrants come here (legally or otherwise) and that also affects wages? Do you deny that government policy towards labor rights affects how easy or difficult it is to form a union, and that affects wages? Do you deny that how progressive or regressive the tax system is affects people's take home pay, and how wide or narrow income gaps can be? Are you saying that the government has the option to NOT make decisions in any of these areas?

"Working within the parameters we all have" is fine, but we also have a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and what those parameters are at any given moment aren't fixed. Government policy sets them in large part. And so government DOES have a role to play in haves/have nots -- whether you like it or not. It's unavoidable. Nor is there any conflict between taking collective action to ensure the government serves the people instead of the privileged, and also working on one's own behalf. The first of those is called, standing up for your rights instead of bending over and taking it in the ass without protest.