In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Hey, thanks for the response, it was good to dialogue with you. I understand why you threw in the McCarthy thing, I hope I didn't come across as attacking you, and yes, Venona and Amerasia are online! I have a student who has been investigating this non-stop for a year. He is even ahead of me. In fact, there are books coming out all the time on this and I can probably give you a list of articles and sources that cover the McCarthy charges and truth in detail.
As for Lockheed, yes, I did choose to work there. But, I was interviewed, investigated by (drug, ploygraph, NIS and others) by Lockheed not the union. The union had nothing to do with me getting the job, did not create nor maintain the defense industry, and I should have also been free to choose whether or not to join!
Now, for you Union and not so Union types, I did work in a place that had a compromise in place. You did not have to join a union, but, everytime the Union negotiated a pay raise you had to pay collective bargaining costs the same as Union members. This was a city and I can guarantee that the money us-non-Union types paid went only to collective bargaining. Did I have a problem with this? No, in fact, I later joined that Union as it was concerned only with issues like pay and treatment not politics. For me, the biggest benefit to that union was protecting us from arbitray treatment by supervisors and bosses. I understand why people join for those reasons.
Now I am a teacher. Am I a member of any teacher's union? No, those unions are heavily involved in politics and promoting the leftwing agenda. I will not join.
Now, as far as minimum wage and all that goes, well, I hate to tell you this but this is unconstitutional. There is no grant of authority in the enumerated powers for the national government to regualte work hours, conditions, or pay. That is a state function. To do so, of course, is a violation of the free market nothing but socialism...socialism using the power of government to reward one special interest group over others.
Public financing, welfare for encumbents, is also not constitutional. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled. It would work in favor of incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans.
The answer to corruption in politics is easier than most think. If we were to return to Constitutional government, and adhere only to the expressed powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, why, there wouldn't be many reasons to try and bribe me because there wouldn't be much I could do for you! In fact, that is one of the reasons why the Founders created the enumerated powers!
Again, what I don't think most Union members realize, and I don't mean to imply they are bad folks at all, most I know are a hardworking lot, is that coercion when it comes to economics violates the basis of the free market and free exchange, distorts market signals, raises the price of labor and or products above the equilibrium level, and in the long run sends businesses and manufacturing elsewhere. In other words, pricing yourself out of a market.
There is one other facet of this I never comprehended. When I was growing up on the East Coast, union guys seemed to be the patriotic red blooded Americans who wore the "America, love it or leave it" stickers while the commie-pinko-fag antiwar crowd was burning the American flag and waving the Communist North Vietnamese flag. Now why, if that perception was reality, do these red blooded Americans vote for limp-wristed anti-gun commie lib Democrats!?
I need to get you and Turbo in my class to teach about the free market versus socialism. A lot of people just don't get it. You can't have socialism without a loss in freedom. Once the government begins to regulate, it also begins to pick winners and losers. Each loser will say "that's not fair" and organize in order to gain control of some aspect of government in order to become a winner. Other losers do the same. Who benefits? Why, politicians of course. Elections, as Mencken once pointed out, become advance auctions of stolen goods, the people's money and their freedom. If we returned to the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, then there would be little reason to try and bribe a national politician. Constrained by the enumerated powers, there would be little a national politician could do worth bribing them over.
P.S. Did anyone cover violent aspect of unions? Human Events, the
nation's conservative weekly, did a series of stories that
revealed that some unions, especially in times of strikes not
only engage in violence against their non-supporting members
that borders on terrorism, but the government routinely does
not work too hard to identify, apprehend, and prosecute these
thugs! I'm not talking about ancient history, I am talking
about now! This probably stems to some degree to FDR's creation
of the illegal National Relations Labor Board, NLRB, a so-called
federal agency created to pay off unions for their support of
the socialist Democrat Party...
If it takes a mob backing you up to keep your job, then it,s a good bet that you are not worthy of your hire. Except for the guys that have to belong in order to have a job at a particular company,no one voluntaryly joins a union. Who in their right mind is going to pay dues for nothing more than a promise to try to help. Long before a lot of you guys walked this earth, and before the advent of the orientals, I have witnessed the mob hitting the bricks for as little as 8 cents per hour, and walk the p-line for 3 weeks in order to get it. 8 cents and 3 weeks getting it, a guy would have to live to be 300 years and work 200 of that in order for that 3 week 8 cents to ever strike a ballance. wise men that have a choice don,t join unions.
On the other hand if you have trouble with simple math go at it.
NOTPARS- Your article 1, section 8 observations are spot on!
It is interesting to see how Socialist dismiss accusations of Socialism. They do nt do it by showing how the topic being argued is NOT socialism-they do it by arguing what they are defending is a GOOD thing, or IT IS NECESSARY. They feel that because they think it is positive, or needed,or fair, it is not Socialism. They have no understanding of the Constitution, or of Marxism for that matter, and do not realize that their proposals are MARXIST, and totally anti-constitutional(witness above comments about the necessity of infringing 1st amendment rights, and forcing business to provide goods to the government for free through campaign finance reguulation.It is necessary, and "fair", therefore it cannot be Marxist, and cannot be anti-constitutional.). "It cant be Marxist, because MARXISM is bad, and these are good things that we need." Remember that Marx thought his proposed Socialism was "good", "fair", and necessary. Even if he thought that, it was still Socialism.
I suggest you check out the book "HOLLYWOOD PARTY"- how the communist seduced hollywood in the 30s and 40s". The Authors name is Billingsly. It is one of the few bits of historical writing that shows McCarthy was right, and these Hollywood folk were not only Communist in thought, but aided the Soviet communist cause, and put our country in immediate danger. Lots of good Roosevelt information-I know you are a big fan of Roosevelt
Comments
Hey, thanks for the response, it was good to dialogue with you. I understand why you threw in the McCarthy thing, I hope I didn't come across as attacking you, and yes, Venona and Amerasia are online! I have a student who has been investigating this non-stop for a year. He is even ahead of me. In fact, there are books coming out all the time on this and I can probably give you a list of articles and sources that cover the McCarthy charges and truth in detail.
As for Lockheed, yes, I did choose to work there. But, I was interviewed, investigated by (drug, ploygraph, NIS and others) by Lockheed not the union. The union had nothing to do with me getting the job, did not create nor maintain the defense industry, and I should have also been free to choose whether or not to join!
Now, for you Union and not so Union types, I did work in a place that had a compromise in place. You did not have to join a union, but, everytime the Union negotiated a pay raise you had to pay collective bargaining costs the same as Union members. This was a city and I can guarantee that the money us-non-Union types paid went only to collective bargaining. Did I have a problem with this? No, in fact, I later joined that Union as it was concerned only with issues like pay and treatment not politics. For me, the biggest benefit to that union was protecting us from arbitray treatment by supervisors and bosses. I understand why people join for those reasons.
Now I am a teacher. Am I a member of any teacher's union? No, those unions are heavily involved in politics and promoting the leftwing agenda. I will not join.
Now, as far as minimum wage and all that goes, well, I hate to tell you this but this is unconstitutional. There is no grant of authority in the enumerated powers for the national government to regualte work hours, conditions, or pay. That is a state function. To do so, of course, is a violation of the free market nothing but socialism...socialism using the power of government to reward one special interest group over others.
Public financing, welfare for encumbents, is also not constitutional. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled. It would work in favor of incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans.
The answer to corruption in politics is easier than most think. If we were to return to Constitutional government, and adhere only to the expressed powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, why, there wouldn't be many reasons to try and bribe me because there wouldn't be much I could do for you! In fact, that is one of the reasons why the Founders created the enumerated powers!
Again, what I don't think most Union members realize, and I don't mean to imply they are bad folks at all, most I know are a hardworking lot, is that coercion when it comes to economics violates the basis of the free market and free exchange, distorts market signals, raises the price of labor and or products above the equilibrium level, and in the long run sends businesses and manufacturing elsewhere. In other words, pricing yourself out of a market.
There is one other facet of this I never comprehended. When I was growing up on the East Coast, union guys seemed to be the patriotic red blooded Americans who wore the "America, love it or leave it" stickers while the commie-pinko-fag antiwar crowd was burning the American flag and waving the Communist North Vietnamese flag. Now why, if that perception was reality, do these red blooded Americans vote for limp-wristed anti-gun commie lib Democrats!?
I need to get you and Turbo in my class to teach about the free market versus socialism. A lot of people just don't get it. You can't have socialism without a loss in freedom. Once the government begins to regulate, it also begins to pick winners and losers. Each loser will say "that's not fair" and organize in order to gain control of some aspect of government in order to become a winner. Other losers do the same. Who benefits? Why, politicians of course. Elections, as Mencken once pointed out, become advance auctions of stolen goods, the people's money and their freedom. If we returned to the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, then there would be little reason to try and bribe a national politician. Constrained by the enumerated powers, there would be little a national politician could do worth bribing them over.
P.S. Did anyone cover violent aspect of unions? Human Events, the
nation's conservative weekly, did a series of stories that
revealed that some unions, especially in times of strikes not
only engage in violence against their non-supporting members
that borders on terrorism, but the government routinely does
not work too hard to identify, apprehend, and prosecute these
thugs! I'm not talking about ancient history, I am talking
about now! This probably stems to some degree to FDR's creation
of the illegal National Relations Labor Board, NLRB, a so-called
federal agency created to pay off unions for their support of
the socialist Democrat Party...
On the other hand if you have trouble with simple math go at it.
It is interesting to see how Socialist dismiss accusations of Socialism. They do nt do it by showing how the topic being argued is NOT socialism-they do it by arguing what they are defending is a GOOD thing, or IT IS NECESSARY. They feel that because they think it is positive, or needed,or fair, it is not Socialism. They have no understanding of the Constitution, or of Marxism for that matter, and do not realize that their proposals are MARXIST, and totally anti-constitutional(witness above comments about the necessity of infringing 1st amendment rights, and forcing business to provide goods to the government for free through campaign finance reguulation.It is necessary, and "fair", therefore it cannot be Marxist, and cannot be anti-constitutional.). "It cant be Marxist, because MARXISM is bad, and these are good things that we need." Remember that Marx thought his proposed Socialism was "good", "fair", and necessary. Even if he thought that, it was still Socialism.
I suggest you check out the book "HOLLYWOOD PARTY"- how the communist seduced hollywood in the 30s and 40s". The Authors name is Billingsly. It is one of the few bits of historical writing that shows McCarthy was right, and these Hollywood folk were not only Communist in thought, but aided the Soviet communist cause, and put our country in immediate danger. Lots of good Roosevelt information-I know you are a big fan of Roosevelt
Happiness is a warm gun