Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Northalbertan]

Perhaps extortion would be a better word than thuggery.  Redeye I am not sure how you could possibly support what is a borderline criminal act.  The unions are losing their power and are peeved and threatened so they are lashing out in this way to look for support?  Not a rational act.  And if they were so good for the worker why are so many of them opting out once they are given the option?

 

[Redeye]

Perhaps extortion would be a better word than thuggery.  Redeye I am not sure how you could possibly support what is a borderline criminal act. 

What, exactly, is criminal about informing an organization that if they choose not to support any particular cause, those supporting that cause won't do business with them?  Any business is free to make such choices.  Such boycotts aren't rare, they're done by any number of organizations of any number of political orientations.

The unions are losing their power and are peeved and threatened so they are lashing out in this way to look for support?  Not a rational act.  And if they were so good for the worker why are so many of them opting out once they are given the option?

There are several dimensions to the issue in Wisconsin in particular.  The first was the claim that the attack on public sector unions was somehow financially necessary.  That was pretty much debunked by the fact that Governor Scott Walker passed about $3.8bn in tax cuts, most of which benefit his wealthiest constituents.  Beyond that, those public sector unions had already made significant concessions and signalled clearly they were willing to make more to help the budget position.  Walker wasn't willing to negotiate - not with those unions nor with Democrats.  The financial necessity bit was also laid bare when his government removed the financial part (removing the need for a larger majority) to shoehorn the pure union busting effort through.

The fact is, unionization is basically a right.  Free association, free assembly, the freedom to supply or withhold labour, all those are rights fought for for a long time that unions won't give up too easily.  As my wife put it, I hate being forced to side with unions (I'm broadly no fan of them), but frankly, the contrast of unions willing to be reasonable versus what amounts to jackboot thuggery by government puts me on the side of the unions. 

The real reason for the attack on unions is that they're really the only force with the organization and fundraising ability to compete with the corporate interests which own the Republican Party.  You cripple the Democrats' ability to raise money, combine that with the insanity of the Citizens United decision, and the GOP because essentially unstoppable.  That has ominous implications for democracy, and that's why I find myself with no option but to defend the unions.

 

[Northalbertan]

I suppose it comes down to the manor in which the union suggests that the business owner should change his views or be seen as an opponent.  There is no neutral ground, you are with us or against us.  Smells too much like brown shirt tactics to me.  It just gets my hackles up right away.  I fail to understand why they (the union) can't see that some folks either don't care enough about the issue to have a point of view on it, or don't in fact support the union view.  These kind of tactics aren't going to garner support, in fact it may have the opposite effect as most people will likely see it for what it is.  A high handed attempt at extortion. 

Redeye we are obviously going to continue to disagree on this subject.  I however am not going to boycott your posts on this forum unless you present a nice large banner expressing your support for my point of view at the bottom of your posts.  I think you are entitled to your opinion, and are free to express it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The bits of "rights" that lay the foundation of collective bargaining and unions are civil rights.  If the rights are abused, then in effect - easy come, easy go.  It is ridiculous to have organized labour-supporting political parties controlling one side of a bargaining table and organized labour controlling the other, when public funds are at stake and the public fund-giver and the giver's interests are not fairly represented.  The Democratic Party in the US and the NDP in Canada are vocal, open, and proud of their support for organized labour.  Since my interests as an employee were in my recent ignored and attacked by my contemporary MP and his political colleagues and labour associates at various levels - in favour of organized (private sector) labour - there was not even any suggestion of a neutral stance - this is not a hypothetical problem.  I tolerate it in the private sector because I must - I can always change jobs, and if organized labour effectively controls both sides of the table they are at liberty to fly the company into the ground - but in the public sector I have no alternatives.  I must pay taxes to support whatever agreements are reached between public employees and their employers, even when the latter freely acknowledge and honour political debts and markers owed to the former.

The point of rolling back the gains of government employee unions is not to address current budget shortfalls; it is to mitigate against repetition of the problem.  Kill the roots of the weed; don't just cut off this week's above-ground growth.

If labour-serving political parties will be "crippled" by the loss of their entirely too cozy quid-pro-quo relationship with public sector unions, they are casting their appeals for funding too narrowly.  They should work harder to gain broader public support to prove they deserve existence as a political party.

 

[Redeye]

I suppose it comes down to the manor in which the union suggests that the business owner should change his views or be seen as an opponent.  There is no neutral ground, you are with us or against us.  Smells too much like brown shirt tactics to me.  It just gets my hackles up right away.  I fail to understand why they (the union) can't see that some folks either don't care enough about the issue to have a point of view on it, or don't in fact support the union view.  These kind of tactics aren't going to garner support, in fact it may have the opposite effect as most people will likely see it for what it is.  A high handed attempt at extortion. 

The claim of "extortion" is extreme, and completely unfounded I'd say.  That said, I'm not really in favour of such "tactics" either, and for the reasons you state.  That said, their whole point is to try to get people to care about the issue, that's generally speaking what is most important in politics - lately, it seems, apathy has taken over, and that's what allows a lot of things to happen when it comes to politics - there's no opposition to any particular issue because no one can be bothered to be informed.  There's an old adage, if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention...

Redeye we are obviously going to continue to disagree on this subject.  I however am not going to boycott your posts on this forum unless you present a nice large banner expressing your support for my point of view at the bottom of your posts.  I think you are entitled to your opinion, and are free to express it.

Nor would I.  Again, I don't necessarily agree with the tactic in question here, but I also don't consider it thuggery, much less extortion (actually, blackmail would be the term, but still).

 

[Redeye]

The point of rolling back the gains of government employee unions is not to address current budget shortfalls; it is to mitigate against repetition of the problem.  Kill the roots of the weed; don't just cut off this week's above-ground growth.

While that seems to be the ideological position of parties in the right in general, why then do they lie about it, constantly?  In the case of Wisconsin, the Governor presented it as a budget issue only, it was only when the opposition but an effective blocking strategy in place that the real agenda became clearer, it was then laid totally bare when Governor Walker was stupid enough to fall for a prank call from someone posing as David Koch.

If labour-serving political parties will be "crippled" by the loss of their entirely too cozy quid-pro-quo relationship with public sector unions, they are casting their appeals for funding too narrowly.  They should work harder to gain broader public support to prove they deserve existence as a political party.

They have public support, but they don't have access to the millions in corporate donations that flow almost exclusively into the pockets of the GOP since the Citizens United decision.

My preference, as I think I've stated, is that parties and candidates only be funded by individuals, not corporations, unions, or any other lobby groups, and that such donations be capped at a reasonably low level.

 

[Kirkhill]

.... The first was the claim that the attack on public sector unions was somehow financially necessary.  That was pretty much debunked by the fact that Governor Scott Walker passed about $3.8bn in tax cuts, side of the unions. 

There is much in your post I find debatable but this line stands out for me because it is often trotted out as a defence of the status quo.

Restated it says that I can afford to continue living the way I am because my employer pays me a steady wage.  It ignores the fact that the employer may not be able to continue paying that wage and is faced with the stark prospect of laying me off, cutting my hours/wages or going out of business.

Yes last year's budget had sufficient funds to support last year's expenditures (- but wait - weren't they in deficit anyway?  and having to borrow money?  despite a very high tax regime?) but revenues were declining as the economy contracted.  This seems to me to be an indicator that the society (the employer) could no longer afford the government (the employee).

The concurrent question to the one about what can we afford is: how do you increase revenues to generate the government services that we want.  And that is where the philosophy enters the discussion and which results in some people saying "attract more entrepreneurs who will circulate more external funds through our economy" while others argue that those with stores of gold should be relieved of their treasure.

And wrt the Citizens United decision - that was only this past year - the  Union-Democrat alliance predates Jimmy Hoffa and Jack Kennedy.  You need a better argument.


Curiously the Left loves to beat up on the Kochs as exemplars of the evil right but say nothing about their own sugar daddies like Soros, Gates and Buffet, not to mention the PR wing of Spielberg and Oprah.  Not to mention the fat multimillionaire union buster known as Michael Moore.

One of ERCampbells posts on fundraising in Canada points to a similar tendency - the people-friendly Liberal Party of Canada continues to get most of its support from well-heeled donors that can afford the big bucks.  Meanwhile the people are sending what bucks they can afford to the Conservatives, NDP and Greens - in that order.  On that basis popular support is with the Conservatives while the Liberals (and the Democrats) are reliant on institutional support.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>They have public support, but they don't have access to the millions in corporate donations that flow almost exclusively into the pockets of the GOP since the Citizens United decision.

Really?

OpenSecrets.org: Top Donors by Political Alignment

OpenSecrets.org: Top Donors by Organization

OpenSecrets.org: by Industry

OpenSecrets.org: by Sector

OpenSecrets.org: Business/Labour Ideology Split

 

[Redeye]

There is much in your post I find debatable but this line stands out for me because it is often trotted out as a defence of the status quo.

Sorry, but none of this argument makes sense.  The cuts made by Walker won't improve the financial position of the state, and are largely aimed at the wealthy (things like cuts to estate taxes, etc).  To suggest that this effort is somehow essential to the financial viability of the state seems an exaggeration at best.  Further, those unions made clear that they were prepared to make even more concessions than they already had.

As for the "union-democratic alliance", yes, it's old.  And?  Citizens United allows more flooding of money into the system - hence my opinion that only individual actors should contribute to funding political parties.

The concurrent question to the one about what can we afford is: how do you increase revenues to generate the government services that we want.  And that is where the philosophy enters the discussion and which results in some people saying "attract more entrepreneurs who will circulate more external funds through our economy" while others argue that those with stores of gold should be relieved of their treasure.

This is the perennial question.  The answer on the surface is pretty simple: encourage more economic activity in order to grow the tax base.  However, the answer constantly trotted out by the right "cut taxes" doesn't seem to do that, and makes the budget situation worse.  Walker cutting estate taxes sure isn't likely to spur economic growth in the state, but it sure will put a hole in the budget, for example.

Curiously the Left loves to beat up on the Kochs as exemplars of the evil right but say nothing about their own sugar daddies like Soros, Gates and Buffet, not to mention the PR wing of Spielberg and Oprah.  Not to mention the fat multimillionaire union buster known as Michael Moore.

There's a reason for that.  I'm okay with living in the kind of world the likes of George Soros, or Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett would like to help create.  By contrast, the world dreamed of by the likes of the Kochs, where monied interests control government and set policy, where things like environmental protection and sustainability take a back seat to profits, a corporatist world - I don't want that, the very thought of it is frankly disgusting to me.  That's what to me the Kochs and their stooges are evil and the enemy of everything I believe in.

One of ERCampbells posts on fundraising in Canada points to a similar tendency - the people-friendly Liberal Party of Canada continues to get most of its support from well-heeled donors that can afford the big bucks.  Meanwhile the people are sending what bucks they can afford to the Conservatives, NDP and Greens - in that order.  On that basis popular support is with the Conservatives while the Liberals (and the Democrats) are reliant on institutional support.

I have to wonder how changing funding models will change that, though.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

Quote from: Kirkhill on Today at 11:50:50
One of ERCampbells posts on fundraising in Canada points to a similar tendency - the people-friendly Liberal Party of Canada continues to get most of its support from well-heeled donors that can afford the big bucks.  Meanwhile the people are sending what bucks they can afford to the Conservatives, NDP and Greens - in that order.  On that basis popular support is with the Conservatives while the Liberals (and the Democrats) are reliant on institutional support.

I have to wonder how changing funding models will change that, though.

In the particular case of the Liberal Party of Toronto Canada it will not. It will remain the party of big money, big business and big labour because they (the leaders of the "bigs") know that the Liberals can be bought - they will campaign as far "left" as necessary but they will govern to suit Paul Desmarais et al. The Conservatives have too many "wild cards" - prairie populists and the like - for the tastes of Bay Street and Victoria Square, plus their roots have, traditionally, been in the small towns and in the small business community.

But, eventually, making it impossible for big business and big labour to fund political parties and making less and less and less direct government support available and, simultaneously, making it more beneficial (tax breaks/indirect government support) for individual to make substantial ($500.00+ per year to, say, no more than $1,500.00 per year) will, eventually, force the Liberals to appeal, more and more, to more individual Canadians.

 

[Kirkhill]

.....
There's a reason for that.  I'm okay with living in the kind of world the likes of George Soros, or Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett would like to help create.  By contrast, the world dreamed of by the likes of the Kochs, where monied interests control government and set policy, where things like environmental protection and sustainability take a back seat to profits, a corporatist world - I don't want that, the very thought of it is frankly disgusting to me.  That's what to me the Kochs and their stooges are evil and the enemy of everything I believe in. .............

And I think there you have it.  The difference between you and me is that Koch, Soros, Gates and Buffet are all birds of a feather.  I see no distinction between a Democrat corporatist using money to influence the universe to the greatest extent they can and a Republican corporatist using money to influence the universe to the greatest extent they can.  They are both playing the game.  Unfortunately I can't afford to play and don't want to be played, which puts me squarely in the Libertarian camp.  Leave me alone to get on with my life and stop telling me how to live it.

 

[Redeye]

That'd be wonderful, except that Libertarianism strikes me as completely impractical.  The reason we created things like governments was to improve resource allocation and get things done that free markets and laissez faire couldn't accomplish.  It was also to address the fact that one's choices about how to live one's life may have an impact - a strong one - on others, and therefore systems to regulate some behaviours are necessary, even if they might be opined by some to be necessary evils.

Since that option is impractical, I'll take the Gates/Soros/Buffett view of sustainable capitalism over the Kochs' devil-may-care approach.

And I think there you have it.  The difference between you and me is that Koch, Soros, Gates and Buffet are all birds of a feather.  I see no distinction between a Democrat corporatist using money to influence the universe to the greatest extent they can and a Republican corporatist using money to influence the universe to the greatest extent they can.  They are both playing the game.  Unfortunately I can't afford to play and don't want to be played, which puts me squarely in the Libertarian camp.  Leave me alone to get on with my life and stop telling me how to live it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

That'd be wonderful, except that Libertarianism strikes me as completely impractical.  The reason we created things like governments was to improve resource allocation and get things done that free markets and laissez faire couldn't accomplish.  It was also to address the fact that one's choices about how to live one's life may have an impact - a strong one - on others, and therefore systems to regulate some behaviours are necessary, even if they might be opined by some to be necessary evils.

Since that option is impractical, I'll take the Gates/Soros/Buffett view of sustainable capitalism over the Kochs' devil-may-care approach.

Governments ae the worst possible agencies to manage resource allocation - better the barbarian horsemen from the North or the Mafia than any government.

Governments are inept or corrupt, very often both - see the Tragedy of the commons for a peek at the inevitable result when government is allowed to expand beyond a very, very limited range of duties and responsibilities that include, inter alia: defending the realm and, to a lesser degree, monopolizing the legal use of force in the society; preventing the creation of improper monopolies - those that required trickery or subterfuge to grow from normal business into into monopolies; controlling the currency - and not debasing it; managing foreign affairs; collecting taxes and tariffs; managing the radio frequency spectrum; and several other similar functions.

There are some things that governments can sometimes, often maybe even usually, do more efficiently than the private sector: building and maintaining roads and sewers, for example - if only because governments have the power to expropriate land (often too much power over private property).

Elected governments can be good (effective and efficient) at balancing competing rights and priorities, but well established law courts in a law abiding society can do at least as good a job, albeit with less visible public input.

But, resource allocation? No; the less governments have to do with resource allocation, in fact the less resources governments have to allocate to anything, then the better for the citizens.

 

[Dissident]

ER Campbell is spot on as usual. (Although I would add to the list of things the government should do: garbage collection).

I still don't understand where the idea that Libertarianism equate anarchy/anarchism.

 

[a_majoor]

ER Campbell is spot on as usual. (Although I would add to the list of things the government should do: garbage collection).

I still don't understand where the idea that Libertarianism equate anarchy/anarchism.

Mostly by people who are creating strawmen to shut down debate. There is an entire thread on Libertarianism

Governments exist for one purpose only; to protect their citizens. Western Civilization has settled on providing two sets of forces to deal with internal and external threats (the Police and the Military), Courts of Law to provide impartial mediation in disputes between two or more parties and various rights (of which the most important are Free Speech and unfettered ownership of property). An entire thread about Libertarian thought exists on this site here

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mostly by people who are creating strawmen to shut down debate. There is an entire thread on Libertarianism

Governments exist for one purpose only; to protect their citizens. Western Civilization has settled on providing two sets of forces to deal with internal and external threats (the Police and the Military), Courts of Law to provide impartial mediation in disputes between two or more parties and various rights (of which the most important are Free Speech and unfettered ownership of property). An entire thread about Libertarian thought exists on this site here

I disagree. There are three fundamental "natural" rights: life, liberty (by which John Locke et al really meant security of the person from the power of the sovereign and the state) and property. Freedom of expression might be a subset of liberty in some, mainly Western, societies but it cannot, in my opinion rank with life and liberty. It is possible that "free expression" might be a cultural artifact - something which has helped us to create and maintain a liberal democracy but which is not essential to the business.

Consider what a libertarian hero, Alfred Jay Nock, had to say:

http://mises.org/daily/2412

Life, Liberty, and ...

Mises Daily: Saturday, December 30, 2006 by Albert Jay Nock

Introduction

[This article originally appeared in Scribner's in March 1935; it is now the introduction to Our Enemy, The State.]

For almost a full century before the Revolution of 1776, the classic enumeration of human rights was "life, liberty, and property." The American Whigs took over this formula from the English Whigs, who had constructed it out of the theories of their seventeenth-century political thinkers, notably John Locke. It appears in the Declaration of Rights, which was written by John Dickinson and set forth by the Stamp Act Congress. In drafting the Constitution of Massachusetts in 1779 Samuel and John Adams used the same formula. But when the Declaration of Independence was drafted Mt Jefferson wrote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and although his colleagues on the committee, Franklin, Livingston, Sherman, and Adams, were pretty well tinctured with Whig philosophy, they let the alteration stand.

It was a revolutionary change. "The pursuit of happiness" is of course an inclusive term. It covers property rights, because obviously if a person's property is molested, his pursuit of happiness is interfered with. But there are many interferences which are not aimed at specific property rights; and in so wording the Declaration as to cover all these interferences, Mr. Jefferson immensely broadened the scope of political theory — he broadened the idea of what government is for. The British and American Whigs thought the sociological concern of government stopped with abstract property rights. Mt Jefferson thought it went further; he thought that government ought to concern itself with the larger and inclusive right to pursue happiness ...

Now, I don;t agree, fully with Nock any more than I agree with you, Thucydides, but I think he is closer to the mark. Closer still is Locke.

 

[Redeye]

Governments ae the worst possible agencies to manage resource allocation - better the barbarian horsemen from the North or the Mafia than any government.

I think I didn't make clear what I meant by resource allocation - and perhaps chose an inadequate term.  Of course, governments don't provide allocative efficiency, a look at any command economy will illustrate that.  By contrast, however, "free markets" don't do the job perfectly either, which is why mixed economies are what are found in the largest economies in the world.

Governments are inept or corrupt, very often both - see the Tragedy of the commons for a peek at the inevitable result when government is allowed to expand beyond a very, very limited range of duties and responsibilities that include, inter alia: defending the realm and, to a lesser degree, monopolizing the legal use of force in the society; preventing the creation of improper monopolies - those that required trickery or subterfuge to grow from normal business into into monopolies; controlling the currency - and not debasing it; managing foreign affairs; collecting taxes and tariffs; managing the radio frequency spectrum; and several other similar functions.

There are some things that governments can sometimes, often maybe even usually, do more efficiently than the private sector: building and maintaining roads and sewers, for example - if only because governments have the power to expropriate land (often too much power over private property).

I'd argue it's not just the power to expropriate.  A lot of things like roads and sewers simply wouldn't come about through free markets, or wouldn't come about with any sort of efficiency.  In the case of things like policing, for example, there's a free rider problem, which would limit the interest of any private sector actors in providing the service (or, insofar as they might be interested, the effects might be quite perverse - look at what happens with private sector prisons!)

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd argue it's not just the power to expropriate.  A lot of things like roads and sewers simply wouldn't come about through free markets, or wouldn't come about with any sort of efficiency.  In the case of things like policing, for example, there's a free rider problem, which would limit the interest of any private sector actors in providing the service (or, insofar as they might be interested, the effects might be quite perverse - look at what happens with private sector prisons!)

With respect, I believe that you may be overly influenced by Canadian history where Canada developed as a daughter of late Victorian Britain.  The late Victorians were much of the same "improving" mindset as yourself - and I am sure that the promise of toll free turnpikes probably converted a few newly minted voters to the support of the government of the day.  However, much of the infrastructure developed during the early industrial revolution, the Georgian and Pre Reform era (pre 1832), turnpikes, canals and railways, were actually entirely developed with private funds.  Even in Canada there were  private toll roads and privately funded railways. 

Government funded infrastructure was very late to the game.

 

[Nemo888]

I think rescinding the last thirty years of catering to plutocrats and going back to representational Democracy would be nice. Does wanting to tax the rich and corporations at previous rates make me a progressive? I am pretty much a centrist with libertarian leanings and I think the moneyed elite has corrupted our system. It serves them not me. I see our golden age between 1950 to the late 70's. Now we are going backwards IMO. Corporations are not our saviors. Their amoral rapaciousness will be our undoing. Laissez faire was a mistake and Regan was wrong IMO. The attitude of "business is business" makes no sense to me. Why is business magically exempt from moral behavior? Checks and balances are needed obviously. Not the dismantling of all government institutions and leaving it all to the mythical "invisible hands".

 

[Journeyman]

I think rescinding the last thirty years of catering to plutocrats and going back to representational Democracy would be nice.

Nemo, how many more posts are you going to make in the various political threads, decrying "plutocracy" and "Reaganomics," based on having seen a Bill Moyers YouTube video? Take a breath.