Jeez. I read this article and could have been reading about my own family. My sister and I have observed the same phenomenon in our parents! Glad we're not alone at least.

Jeez, Had alot, if only we all had your wisdom and insight. You should not run for President, but for God. And considering how many boobs voted for Bush, you're a shoe-in.

Sorry, I meant "Had_enough" not "had alot."

@IngSoc

Unionism did not come out of Marxism; the seeds of unionism, in fact, pre-date Marx. See, for example, Chartism and Syndicalism. Unions evolved from medieval guilds, which certainly pre-date Marx.

Labor Unions certainly were not a Marxist or "communist" concept and did in fact have their roots in medieval history. While a very few modern day (i.e., early 20th century) Union advocates and leaders in this country may have been correctly labeled as "communists" (although any advocated alternative to the rampant capitalism of the time was unfailingly labeled as such), the commonly accepted idea that Marx spawned Unionism is simply an indication that conservative propaganda works.

@ kdwmson

The existence of community (and the acknowledgement of its importance) does not necessitate the adoption of "collectivist" political forms such as socialism or fascism (variations on the same theme). I expect that, as we become a more liberal society (which we are doing and will continue to do) things like church and family and other forms of community will actually increase in importance rather than recede.

Interesting. While I agree that the "existence of community (and the acknowledgement of its importance) does not necessitate the adoption of "collectivist" political forms such as socialism or fascism," it does often eventually result in them, yes?

And, I wonder if "as we become a more liberal society (which we are doing and will continue to do) things like church and family and other forms of community will actually increase in importance rather than recede" you don't mean that people are becoming more "fundamentalist" in their beliefs? Is this your point? That does seem to be the trend, no?

Writes Paul: "One way or another, the libertarian philosophy is based on what works best for those in privileged positions in privileged societies--or those who strongly identify with same, whether through wish-fulfillment fantasy, or other psychological mechanisms."

kdwmson: Paul's comment above so perfectly describes (and, consequently, eviserates) any possible rational response defending "libertarianism" (with or without a capital "L"), that I think you really ought to retire from the field. In fact, your latest comments reflect a sort of desperation. Give it up, sir, before you're completely naked.

@kdwmson

@jvoelzow

So you concur, then, that this is not an argument but an attempt to pre-empt argument?

No sir. An "argument" is "a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal."

I believe that you have adequately "argued" your position; but I submit that you are now, in the face of overwhelming argument to the contrary, engaged in a (somewhat desperate) pronouncement of opinion. That's all.

But hell, I'm hardly an expert. I'm just watching the ebb and flow.

John Paul II stated unequivocally that labor unions are “indispensable” for workplace justice, and collective bargaining is just another name for workplace democracy. Unions are seen by John Paul II as the democratic institutions that form a bulwark against the abuse of workers at the hands of either the employer or the state.

Sorry, guy, but as an Irish Catholic (don't let my name fool you), your take on labor unions and the Catholic church seems to be at odds.

@kdwmson

I don't have any beef with unions per se or with collective bargaining. I dislike laws that give unions exclusive privilege to represent people or that force others to do business with them.

Then you either don't understand the law, sir, or you do have a beef with unions per se.

I suggest you read the National Labor Relations Act, and once you understand its provisions and understand how it is administered and enforced, you come back and we'll talk some more.

Or is it that you simply believe the National Labor Relations Act itself is unnecessary? That employers would welcome collective bargaining in the absence of a mandate that they do so after a majority of their employees indicate through a secret ballot election that they wish to negotiate wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions of their employment?

Perhaps you should read some history too before we talk again. Your "libertarian" attitude was a major historical factor in assuring the eventual passage of the laws you so hate. You have only yourselves to blame, so deal with it.

Why won't these people just surrender?

Damned Americans, you'd think they would have chucked national pride by now. But no, their stubborn refusal to capitulate is causing all sorts of problems for the rest of us. Drat.

-- shooter242

National pride! Is that what Iraq is all about to you? 3000+ American kids dead, untold thousands of Iraqis, and you're worried about your national pride!?

You're a sick fuck.

"It is my considered opinion that Obama is a world class hypocrite."

In the interest of education, since I'm inclined to support the guy, what is the basis for your opinion?

Articles like yours create the problem, not examine or explain it.

Please, move on.

Is this the only "news" you can come up with, Joan? Aren't there more important topics out there you can focus on? Good lord.

You need to get educated sport. Card checks will not put anyone "out of business." They will simply eliminate the Rovian style (and worse) tactics utilized by employers for the last 60 years to manipulate and defeat Union elections.