Wayne Root Editorial: “It’s Time for a REAGAN Moment: Wisconsin Teachers– “YOU’RE FIRED!””

By Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee and Best-Selling Author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian” 

Ronald Reagan stood up to the Air Traffic Controllers and in response to the threat of a strike simply fired them all. Can you imagine? Air Traffic Controllers- unique individuals with rare and valuable skills, thought irreplaceable, fired en masse.And we never noticed. Supervisors filled their shoes for months, while new ones were trained. Not a single accident.  What happened to those Air Traffic Controllers who lost today’s equivalent of $100,000 per year jobs? Few ever found a job with that kind of pay again. 

It’s time for a Reagan moment in Wisconsin. The average Milwaukee teacher compensation at retirement age is about $100,000 per year. Yes, I said $100,000. That’s not being reported on the nightly news, now is it? And, what good is all that bloated compensation doing? Milwaukee has a depressing 68% graduation rate. Two-thirds of Wisconsin 8th graders read below grade level.  

That $100K annual teacher’s compensation is the highest in the Midwest. Yet, during a ten-year period, while Wisconsin teacher salaries rose dramatically, students saw no improvement. None. Proving once again, taxpayers, students and parents get nothing in return for higher teacher pay. Who spends the most on teacher pay? California and Washington D.C. — all for dismal results.  

Government employee unions, teacher unions in particular, have to be the only business (or should I say “racket”) that asks for raises for horrible performance. The worse they do, the more they ask for. It’s always “the money.” The teacher unions never mention that private and Catholic school teachers make far less, with far superior results. 

What drove GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy was not the bloated salaries for blue collar union workers. It was the gold-plated pensions and free lifetime healthcare that killed the automakers. Wisconsin (and every other state in the USA) faces the same problem with their public employee unions. 

Today, a teacher reported retiring at age 55, after working part-time for 5 short years. She gets “only” about $250 per month for life from the taxpayers of Wisconsin. Receiving $250 per month doesn’t sound like much, until you do the math. If this teacher lives to the average age of 78, she’ll be paid over $65,000 in pension. With cost of living increases it probably goes to $75K. Perhaps that doesn’t sound like much. But, when you realize her entire 5-year working salary was $35,000, taxpayers will pay her twice that much in retirement. But what if she lives to 100? Perhaps triple or quadruple her working pay. 

Now, think about all the full-time teachers in Wisconsin making $100,000 (or more) who have not paid a penny toward their retirement, but will get handed multi-MILLION dollar pensions for 25 to 40 years of not working. 

But, it gets worse. Wisconsin taxpayers also pay all their post-retirement health care costs, and pay for new teachers to replace them. Ever wonder why America is broke, busted and insolvent? That is why. 

Here’s the irony. While these government employees get gold-plated pensions and free lifetime healthcare, the taxpayers who are paying their bills struggle to survive.  

Why should taxpayers work their fingers to the bone until the day they die to support teacher and other public employee bloated wages and pensions? It’s time for anger and revolt alright. It is taxpayers who need to go on strike!  

It’s time for Governor Walker and other Governors across America to invoke Ronald Reagan. The message is simple: “Accept these modest cuts and end abusive collective bargaining by public employees or “YOU’RE FIRED.” And be sure to charge the teachers at the protests who hold fake doctor notes with fraud. 

Good luck finding any job in the private sector paying $100,000 (or even $50,000), to work 8 to 3 with weekends, holidays, sick days and two months off in the summer, then retire young with a bloated pension and healthcare for life.

 It’s time to stop being polite and politically correct. Rome is burning. The national debt and unfunded liabilities now totals $100 trillion. The clock on America’s survival is ticking. It’s time to invoke Reagan.

 Guess what? If Air Traffic Controllers can be replaced, so can teachers, at far lower salaries and drastically reduced pensions. Look at the test scores. It can’t get worse. I bet we can get the same results for 30% less. Heck, bringing in fresh blood with new, creative ideas might improve the results. How can we find out if we don’t give it a try?

 Oh, did I mention my daughter, Dakota, was home-schooled and is now a freshman at Harvard? Where’s my pension?

Where’s The Donald when we need him? Wisconsin teachers union — “YOU’RE FIRED!”

 That’s a good start. Next week, let’s have this same conversation with the all the rest of our government employees.

 Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

144 thoughts on “Wayne Root Editorial: “It’s Time for a REAGAN Moment: Wisconsin Teachers– “YOU’RE FIRED!””

  1. Jesse Bush

    I agree 100%.

    Not a big Reagan fan like Wayne Root is for a variety of other reasons, but Reagan got this one right.

    Government employee pensions and benefits are out of control.

  2. Bruce Cohen Post author

    Darryl, how did he miss that?
    Don’t be stupid.

    He even makes a point about home-schooling his daughter.

    He gets it, clearly, but he can’t put everyone’s pet issue to the forefront of every article.

    Let’s be real.

  3. Darryl W. Perry

    @Bruce – he did mention his daughter was home-schooled.
    You ask “how did he miss that?”
    Please, show me where he called for repealing compulsory education laws and/or abolishing government funded schools.

  4. paulie

    Darryl, I don’t think every article has to include the “kitchen sink.” He’s addressing a current situation for a general audience.

  5. paulie

    Root also forgets that the federal debt INCREASED during Reagan’s 8 years as President.

    I think his point with bringing up Reagan was that Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and that this could be a model for Governor Walker and others to follow.

    It’s certainly true that debt increased under Reagan. Furthermore, Reagan’s proposed budgets were higher in some years than what Congress passed, and in the other years only slightly lower.

    But I think that the article was about the current debt faced by state and local governments, and that it ties in Reagan firing air traffic controllers for that reason, not the whole Reagan record or even the Reagan era federal debt.

  6. Robert Capozzi

    What Paulie said. Plus, he’s making a narrow analogy between Reagan’s handling of the ATCs and the Walker and the WI public employee unions.

  7. paulie

    he’s making a narrow analogy between Reagan’s handling of the ATCs and the Walker and the WI public employee unions.

    That’s what I was trying to say. Thank you for being more clear.

  8. Darryl W. Perry

    I agree with Root that the striking teachers should be fired, and I understand his analogy to Reagan firing the ATC.

    Then he says things like: “The national debt and unfunded liabilities now totals $100 trillion. The clock on America’s survival is ticking. It’s time to invoke Reagan.”
    Hence my comment @4

  9. paulie

    That makes sense.

    I do think Wayne only meant to bring up Reagan in the context of air traffic controllers.

    Nevertheless, you are correct.

  10. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, yes, the spending as a % of GDP trajectory is accelerating, like it was in 1980. The Reagan years were ones of deceleration; the 1990s saw some actual declines. Spending fuels debt accumulation.

    Reagan’s handling of the ATC situation was a signal that he was willing to “get tough” on tax consumers. For my money, he should have been tougher.

  11. Robert Capozzi

    P, note that “deceleration” is the rate of change. The curve started downward around 83.

  12. paulie

    http://www.truthandpolitics.org/comp-fed-outlays.php

    1962: 18.8% of GDP
    1963: 18.6%
    1964: 18.5%
    1965: 17.2%
    1966: 17.8%
    1967: 19.4%
    1968: 20.5%
    1969: 19.4%
    1970: 19.3%
    1971: 19.5%
    1972: 19.6%
    1973: 18.7%
    1974: 18.7%
    1975: 21.3%
    1976: 21.4%
    1977: 20.7%
    1978: 20.7%
    1979: 20.1%
    1980: 21.7%
    1981: 22.2%
    1982: 23.1%
    1983: 23.5%
    1984: 22.1%
    1985: 22.8%
    1986: 22.5%
    1987: 21.6%
    1988: 21.2%
    1989: 21.2%

    So, it jumped above 20% during the recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s, stayed above 20% all through the 1980s economic recovery/boom, and (if you go to the link) stayed above 20% until 1997.

  13. paulie

    “deceleration” is the rate of change. The curve started downward around 83

    Thanks, I know what deceleration means 🙂

    There was an economic recovery that year, but all in all, looking at the slightly longer term trends, spending as a percentage of GDP went slightly up and then slightly down during the Reagan years, with the overall change being from 22.2% in 1981 to 21.2% in 1989.

    Taking 8 year increments, it was 18.7% in 1973 and 17.2% in 1965. The 1970s had a lot of recessionary years, so the percentage was slightly higher.

    I just don’t see anything out of the ordinary about the Reagan years.

    If we count the Carter years as 1977-80, it went from 20.7 to 21.7%, the latter during a recession.

    If we combine the Nixon and Ford years, it went from 19.4% to 21.4% in 8 years.

    This Reagan deceleration seems rather minor.

    Consider three other things:

    1) Since there is interest on debt, the taxes imposed by the Reagan era spending increases actually mean higher taxes in the long run than that same amount of spending financed by taxes would have cost at the time. And in turn those higher future taxes mean slower economic growth and more debt down the line.

    2) It’s very hard to cut actually cut spending (rather than rate of growth). During 8 years of Reagan, actual spending – not as percentage of GDP – went up 157%. During 8 years of Clinton, 127%. So, to the extent that we accumulate subsequent debt, a lot of that has to do with Reagan era budget increases.

    3) The massive Reagan era deficits made massive deficits in future administrations more acceptable, since there was a precedent.

  14. Robert Capozzi

    p, yes, that’s the definition of “deceleration.” Spending as a GDP% peaked in 83. And the Reagan years set up the Clinton years, when it fell back below 20%.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    P, Actually, spending declined as a GDP% from 83-90. I agree it was minor.

    Interest on debt could be PVed back to the date it was incurred. Or you could look at the blended carrying costs (yield) and compare that with GDP growth to get a better picture.

    I’m not a “Reagan L.” Or even a Reagan apologist. Spending is largely a function of specific benefits and diffused costs, and the structural, programmatic nature of the fed budget takes a lot of creativity to unwind.

    The march of federal spending as a GDP% was up. I do give Reagan some credit for bending the curve…some. I wish he’d done more in that regard. Of course, the federal budget is a collaborative process, so credit/blame goes to both Reagan and the D Congress. Neither party suits me, though, that’s why I’m a L.

  16. paulie

    yes, that’s the definition of “deceleration.” Spending as a GDP% peaked in 83. And the Reagan years set up the Clinton years, when it fell back below 20%.

    I don’t know, seems insignificant to me. Between 1962 and 2003 It stayed within 3% above or below 20%, except for 1982 and 1983, when it went a fraction above 23%. There were many ups and downs in between, which did not always correlate with which party was in power.

    I think the massive increase in deficits and debt during the Reagan, Bush, Bush and Obama years, versus the years before Reagan as well as the Clinton years, is a bigger “story” than the small fluctuations in federal outlays as a percent of GDP during the time frame in question.

  17. paulie

    Interest on debt could be PVed back to the date it was incurred. Or you could look at the blended carrying costs (yield) and compare that with GDP growth to get a better picture.

    That would be interesting. Know any good charts/graphs on that?

  18. Robert Capozzi

    p, not off hand. It careens into the weeds, as in the here and now, the focus should be on reducing spending, IMO.

    Note, too, Reagan and Clinton had to deal with SS, Medicare and Medicaid explosion in the “base” of federal spending. Those have been growing at a fast clip, faster than the rest of the budget by far. That’s the ticking time bomb. In that environment, the “fixed” part of the budget — non-entitlements and interest — makes the variable parts the only viable areas to cut. This makes people’s eyes glaze over, as the numbers become unfathomable.

    Waving our 15K hands about real cuts is difficult even for serious Ls. It’s a dirty job but someone’s gotta do it!

  19. paulie

    @26 Agreed with everything you say here.

    Bringing this back to Wayne’s article, the same thing is happening at the state and local level, in no small part due to the government employee unions.

    Government workers are almost all unionized, as opposed to 6% of the non-government workforce. Over 50% of union members in the USA now work for the government at some level.

    Sooner or later this has to be dealt with. Sooner is better than later.

    Wayne is absolutely correct when he says in the article…

    The average Milwaukee teacher compensation at retirement age is about $100,000 per year. Yes, I said $100,000. That’s not being reported on the nightly news, now is it? And, what good is all that bloated compensation doing? Milwaukee has a depressing 68% graduation rate. Two-thirds of Wisconsin 8th graders read below grade level.

    That $100K annual teacher’s compensation is the highest in the Midwest. Yet, during a ten-year period, while Wisconsin teacher salaries rose dramatically, students saw no improvement. None. Proving once again, taxpayers, students and parents get nothing in return for higher teacher pay. Who spends the most on teacher pay? California and Washington D.C. — all for dismal results.

    Government employee unions, teacher unions in particular, have to be the only business (or should I say “racket”) that asks for raises for horrible performance. The worse they do, the more they ask for. It’s always “the money.” The teacher unions never mention that private and Catholic school teachers make far less, with far superior results.

    What drove GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy was not the bloated salaries for blue collar union workers. It was the gold-plated pensions and free lifetime healthcare that killed the automakers. Wisconsin (and every other state in the USA) faces the same problem with their public employee unions.

    Today, a teacher reported retiring at age 55, after working part-time for 5 short years. She gets “only” about $250 per month for life from the taxpayers of Wisconsin. Receiving $250 per month doesn’t sound like much, until you do the math. If this teacher lives to the average age of 78, she’ll be paid over $65,000 in pension. With cost of living increases it probably goes to $75K. Perhaps that doesn’t sound like much. But, when you realize her entire 5-year working salary was $35,000, taxpayers will pay her twice that much in retirement. But what if she lives to 100? Perhaps triple or quadruple her working pay.

    Now, think about all the full-time teachers in Wisconsin making $100,000 (or more) who have not paid a penny toward their retirement, but will get handed multi-MILLION dollar pensions for 25 to 40 years of not working.

    But, it gets worse. Wisconsin taxpayers also pay all their post-retirement health care costs, and pay for new teachers to replace them. Ever wonder why America is broke, busted and insolvent? That is why.

  20. Robert Capozzi

    p, dunno. That they are unionized doesn’t per se concern me. There are too many of them, and yes they are probably overpaid and over-benefited.

    I’m neutral on unions, in concept.

  21. paulie

    I’m not against unions. I am against government unions, though. It’s a terrible conflict of interest.

    There are too many of them, and yes they are probably overpaid and over-benefited.

    Why is that? It’s in large part because of their unions. That’s what unions exist for, after all.

  22. Bryan

    WAR needs to move to SC or NC…”right to work states”.

    We are Tight! A rookie police officer with a 4 year CJ degree may make as much as 5k less than a 20 year old security guard with a GED.

    We have “civil servants” who qualify for food stamps and subsidized housing.

    Yep, this Wisconsin beginner has nothing on us!!!

  23. paulie

    Regarding unions in general; I agree with this quote relayed in http://www.amconmag.com/blog/libertarian-left/

    “build worker solidarity. On the one hand, this means formal organization, including unionization—but I’m not talking about the prevailing model of ‘business unions’ … but real unions, the old-fashioned kind, committed to the working class and not just union members, and interested in worker autonomy, not government patronage.”

    The last point is key in my mind.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    Unions also serve the function of establishing work and safety rules.

    It’s not obvious to me that government-worker unionization is a conflict of interest. How so?

  25. paulie

    It’s not obvious to me that government-worker unionization is a conflict of interest. How so?

    Unions work to get a better deal vis a vis their employers. “Public servants” are supposed to be serving the public. A “public servants union” sets up an adversarial relationship between the employers (public) and their servants in negotiating pay and benefits. What’s more, since all the money for their salaries comes from the public, all the money to argue for more money from the public comes from the public.

    And who are they negotiating with? In a private setting, the people on the other side of the table in union/management negotiations are representatives of the owners/management. In government union negotiations, the public – those whose money is being used to advocate that they be taxed even more – is usually not represented. In most cases, people on both sides of the negotiating table get government paychecks.

    It seems to me that it is a conflict of interest on many levels.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    The problematic part of “government worker union” is “government,” not “worker” or “union.”

    Any enterprise which is operated by government is going to be decided by politics.

    Like businesses, unions are market institutions that become corrupt when they resort to political power instead of economic power to achieve their goals.

    When businesses become corrupt in this manner, “right-libertarians” don’t suggest sanctioning the businesses, they suggest getting government out of the equation.

    For some reason, though, when it’s the exact same situation with unionized workers, “right-libertarians” demand that the government crack down on the unions, not that it get out of areas it had no business being in in the first place.

  27. paulie

    @ 34 I agree completely.

    I think this is salient: Like businesses, unions are market institutions that become corrupt when they resort to political power instead of economic power to achieve their goals.

    When the very nature of their employment is determined by politics, even their economic power is political.

    For some reason, though, when it’s the exact same situation with unionized workers, “right-libertarians” demand that the government crack down on the unions, not that it get out of areas it had no business being in in the first place.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to government workers unions, the two are the same thing.

    Government workers unions are dead set against any form of privatization. They are the first to fight any hint of it.

  28. Jesse Bush

    In private industry, unions negotiate to get a larger cut of the profits on behalf of the workers.

    In government, there are no profits, and they get 100% – the negotiation is always to expand that by making government bigger and oppose any cuts or decelerations of government growth, every time.

  29. Pingback: Independent legislator has key vote in Wisconsin union showdown | Independent Political Report

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 35, Jesse @ 36,

    Yes, you are pointing out a conflict of interest that’s inherent to government employment.

    Yes, the teachers’ unions will oppose privatization, just like “defense” contractors’ lobbyists will oppose ending — or even reducing/minimizing — government provision of defense services, etc.

    “Have the government crack down on them, but by all means keep the system intact” isn’t a solution to that inherent problem.

  31. paulie

    I’m against keeping the system intact.

    And I’m not sure what you mean by “have the government crack down on them.”

    I’m against unionization of government employees. Public service should involve some sacrifice, and some notion of actually serving the public.

    If our aim is not to strengthen the government system and not to keep it intact, why empower an institution whose mission is to expand government?

  32. paulie

    Yes, the teachers’ unions will oppose privatization, just like “defense” contractors’ lobbyists will oppose ending — or even reducing/minimizing — government provision of defense services, etc.

    A union of workers at a military contractor would fight for better pay and working conditions, with the tradeoff possibly being a lower profit margin for the owners.

    Since there is no profit margin in government, 100% of the concessions have to come from the taxpayers, who are not actually present at the negotiating table in most cases.

    Unions =/= industry lobbyists…except for government workers unions.

    You were right at 34…The problematic part of “government worker union” is “government,” not “worker” or “union.”

    Any enterprise which is operated by government is going to be decided by politics.

    And:

    Like businesses, unions are market institutions that become corrupt when they resort to political power instead of economic power to achieve their goals.

    Me: When the very nature of their employment is determined by politics, even their economic power is political.

  33. George Phillies

    The teachers do not work for Walker. They are not on strike, most of them across Wisconsin. The notion that Walker can fire them appears to be a few loads full of a few bale.

    I see Root is repeating the nonsense about unionized labor costs killing the car companies. That was a small component of total car company costs.

    Whipping up class hatred against people because they make more money is an odd position for a Libertarian.

  34. NewFederalist

    Sounds to me like George Phillies is a liberal Democrat and Wayne Root is a conservative Republican. What ever happened to Libertarians? I guess they went out of fashion with Ed Clark.

  35. paulie

    Sounds to me like George Phillies is a liberal Democrat and Wayne Root is a conservative Republican. What ever happened to Libertarians? I guess they went out of fashion with Ed Clark.

    I’m pretty sure both Wayne and George are far more libertarian than not, despite any lean. Ed Clark and other types of libertarians are still around, too. We don’t agree all the time, but we agree more than disagree when compared with the general public.

    Since the range of debate in these threads is not as wide as in “real life,” it may appear otherwise from reading IPR comments.

  36. Ayn R. Key

    Wayne @ 13

    Libertarians aren’t anti-union. The “Government Employees Union” is bad due to the first word, not the third. We oppose it when the Unions ask the government for special favors, but we also oppose it when the Corporations ask the government for special favors.

    Are you trying to leave out those who are in unions when you say libertarianism appeals to those who aren’t in unions?

  37. Robert Capozzi

    p, I admit we’re a little bit at sea when it comes to whether govt ees can unionize. For me, the ability to freely associate and in this case negotiate trumps the inherent set up of govt workers being tax consumers. Voters elect representatives to monitor what State we have, and to hire and fire as necessary. My main focus is on firing, as I believe there are too many govt ees.

    jb, I don’t think unions try to get a “cut” of the profits. They instead try to maximize their income irrespective of profits. Management’s job is to maximize profits, and sometimes that might mean offering higher wages to attract more productive ees. A business is not a static pie.

  38. Steven Wilson

    The government model is built for safety. The teachers have decided that the word safety is a reference to job safety. That now has nothing to do with the parent or politics. You are never going to compare teaching in a public school to the private market, because the objective of each structure is different.

    Parents place their children in private schools or home school for many reasons, but their is only one reason to place a child in a public school. The void of choice.

    You might argue that the parent does not want to be a parent and would like the child to be raised by the school. That is a parent problem, not a school problem or a political problem.

    No structure can withstand multiple objectives and survive. When the parent decides the child has value and educates per that aim, then school and government model will disappear.

    Workers Unite!!!

  39. paulie

    Libertarians aren’t anti-union. The “Government Employees Union” is bad due to the first word, not the third. We oppose it when the Unions ask the government for special favors, but we also oppose it when the Corporations ask the government for special favors.

    Agreed.

  40. paulie

    My main focus is on firing, as I believe there are too many govt ees.

    And a huge part of what government employees unions do is make sure it is next to impossible to ever fire a government employee.

    I know you dislike Lew Rockwell intensely, but I hope you won’t hold it against Will Grigg where his article is published and read http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w196.html

  41. Robert Capozzi

    Sorry, Paulie, I absolutely LOVE Lew, as I do all brothers and sisters. Many of his opinions I could do without, though.

  42. Dennis

    Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Reagan have a good relationship with this union back in the day?

  43. Robert Capozzi

    P, read Grigg. This: “These are typical examples of the kind of “public service” made possible through “collective bargaining.” is the sort of wild overstatement that indicates a writer who’s read WAY too much Rothbard. Anecdotes don’t make for proof.

    I’ll be sticking with my freedom of association perspective…

  44. paulie

    I support freedom of association. I don’t support the right to take from others by force except in retaliation.

    Even if I did support it in a minimal way as a “necessary” evil, I would not support having that “right” be unlimited. Government employee unions exist so they can maximize government as much as they possibly can. That is their purpose. They do it with money paid to their (automatically enrolled) members which is automatically deducted from their pay.

  45. Robert Capozzi

    p56: Government employee unions exist so they can maximize government as much as they possibly can. That is their purpose.

    me: Potential RICO case!

  46. Robert Capozzi

    p, OK, so if 2 government ees decide to negotiate for higher wages together, you would _____.

  47. Jesse Bush

    How would getting government out of the way of labor/management disputes work in the case of government unions?

  48. Fun K. Chicken

    RC so if 2 members of a house robbers union in your area decide to negotiate for higher wages together, you would _____.

  49. paulie

    How would getting government out of the way of labor/management disputes work in the case of government unions?

    I don’t think that’s possible, by definition.

  50. Gains

    Jesse @61:

    Ideally government unions would not be legal as they are a monopoly. Also ideally, there would be far less government and the issue would then just not be relevant.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jesse @ 61:

    “How would getting government out of the way of labor/management disputes work in the case of government unions?”

    By getting government out of the business in question.

  52. paulie

    I think Grigg’s essay used anecdotal evidence to help make a case, not to assert that anecdotes are proof. Have you read it?

  53. Mike B.

    Hey, I wanna know how I can channel my
    Inner Gipper ?

    The Reagan Libertarian Conservative Version.

    Should I use the Vulcan Mind Meld on myself?

    Cause… you know I’m a Mike Huckabee Libertarian.

  54. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 68,

    You write:

    “What about in the meantime?”

    What do you mean, what about in the meantime?

    I’ve told you how to solve the problem.

    Until you solve the problem, the problem remains unsolved.

    Why should libertarians be in the business of helping statists escape or minimize the consequences of their fucked-up ideas?

  55. paulie

    So, in other words, you would agree that so long as government employment exists, it is by definition impossible to get government out of the way of labor/management disputes in the case of government unions…correct?

    Your solution means there would be no (monopoly) government and thus no government employee unions. That’s my ultimate solution too.

    In the meantime, while government employment does exist, there is no way to apply getting government out of the way of labor/management disputes. In this case government is both management and labor, and it’s impossible to get it out of the way so long as the jobs remain as government jobs.

    Thus, my view that government employees should not have any unions be recognized and negotiated with.

  56. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    You write:

    “So, in other words, you would agree that so long as government employment exists, it is by definition impossible to get government out of the way of labor/management disputes in the case of government unions…correct?”

    It’s impossible to get government out of the way of labor/management disputes in the case of government employees, unionized or not.

    More importantly, it’s impossible to get political power out of such disputes.

    “Your solution means there would be no (monopoly) government and thus no government employee unions. That’s my ultimate solution too.”

    Yes, that’s my solution, because I’m an anarchist.

    But for minarchists, the solution in this particular case could be just to get government out of the education business.

    “In the meantime, while government employment does exist, there is no way to apply getting government out of the way of labor/management disputes. In this case government is both management and labor, and it’s impossible to get it out of the way so long as the jobs remain as government jobs.”

    Right.

    “Thus, my view that government employees should not have any unions be recognized and negotiated with.”

    And it’s my view that we should all have unicorns who piss whiskey and poop ice cream for us.

    Our two views have one thing in common: They’re never going to happen.

    As long as government is involved, political power is going to be involved — and that means that government employees are going to get together to pool their political power to get themselves the best deal.

    Even if the government refuses to “recognize and negotiate with the NEA,” the people they DO recognize and negotiate with will be wearing NEA t-shirts under their suits and carrying NEA membership cards in their wallets.

  57. Tom Blanton

    Republicans are against public employee unions because they overwhelmingly support Democrats. Republicans don’t like unions because they all generally support Democrats.

    The deal is that any employee, unionized or not, can ask for anything. If the management gives it to him, blame management. In the case of Wisconsin’s teachers, Wisconsin’s politicians are the management. Whatever contracts the teachers have were negotiated by politicians. The evil unions didn’t not negotiate with the general public. They did not hold innocent people hostage. They didn’t break kneecaps or blow up buildings. They asked for a package of benefits and the politicians gave it to them.

    The anger towards people who only sought to receive as much as possible for their labor as possible seems bizarre – even if you believe they aren’t worth it. Why not blame the management (politicians) that gave it to them.

    Once again, libertarians let Republicans suck them into bullshit debates that have nothing to do with reality. What the teachers and other public employees earn in Wisconsin is up to Wisconsin voters who elect the politicians that decide such things.

    That idiot voters don’t care to hold the assholes they vote for accountable surely isn’t my problem. That Republicans don’t like unions because union dues are used to bankroll Democrats isn’t my concern. I could give a rat’s ass whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected – either way I lose.

    It’s a sad day when libertarians will let these rabble-rousing right-wing hucksters push their buttons to get all upset about what is really a non-issue.

    If the public employees make too much, hold the fucking politicians that signed their contracts accountable – send their corrupt asses packing. If the idiot voters won’t do that – and they won’t – it just goes to show you why a stateless society is a better idea than what exists.

    I guess after beating up a few teachers for making too much, it’ll be time to go beat up some Mexicans for not making enough.

    Reminder to you punk ass mother f–kers: when you give your consent to be ruled, you get what you deserve. Walk like an Egyptian if you don’t like the government you’ve got.

  58. paulie

    Even if the government refuses to “recognize and negotiate with the NEA,” the people they DO recognize and negotiate with will be wearing NEA t-shirts under their suits and carrying NEA membership cards in their wallets.

    Not a problem. At least then, they would have to ask people to join the union and give them money, rather than having anyone who works, say, in a government school (most schools at present) automatically enrolled in their union and automatically have money taken out of their taxpayer provided checks for union dues and union political funds.

    Just end that practice, and I’ll be a whole lot happier.

  59. paulie

    The anger towards people who only sought to receive as much as possible for their labor as possible seems bizarre – even if you believe they aren’t worth it. Why not blame the management (politicians) that gave it to them.

    Naturally, I do blame the politicians.

    Of course, the politicians also want as much money and other value (campaign contributions, campaign volunteers, junkets, trips, gifts, illegal cash bribes, blow and blowjobs) as they can get (away with). So naturally, having a chunk of the work force have money automatically deducted for their checks to fund that gives them quite a bit of pull with the politicians.

  60. paulie

    What the teachers and other public employees earn in Wisconsin is up to Wisconsin voters who elect the politicians that decide such things.

    That idiot voters don’t care to hold the assholes they vote for accountable surely isn’t my problem.

    Naturally, who gets elected is in large part a function of who has the money and the campaign workers. Refer to comment #80 about that.

    I could give a rat’s ass whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected – either way I lose.

    I don’t care either. Of course, in this case Democrat is just a polite way of saying “wholly owned subsidiary of the teachers union” or in less politically correct terms, “the teacher union’s bitch.”

    I guess after beating up a few teachers for making too much, it’ll be time to go beat up some Mexicans for not making enough.

    Yes, but what would a Mike Huckabee Libertarian do about Mexican school teachers?
    Is the universe about to explode yet again?

    Walk like an Egyptian if you don’t like the government you’ve got.

    Amen!

  61. Tom Blanton

    Yes, but what would a Mike Huckabee Libertarian do about Mexican school teachers?

    Have anal sex with him while a Reagan Libertarian watches and a LBJ Libertarian advocates a higher salary?

  62. paulie

    Who’s bringing the whips, whipped cream, batteries and video camera…the Hillary Clinton Libertarian or the Sarah Palin Libertarian?

  63. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 79,

    “At least then, they would have to ask people to join the union and give them money, rather than having anyone who works, say, in a government school (most schools at present) automatically enrolled in their union and automatically have money taken out of their taxpayer provided checks for union dues and union political funds.”

    They already do have to ask people to join the union.

    Union membership is not compulsory — if you don’t want the benefits of union membership (including a shot at jobs with employers who have exclusivity contracts with that union), you’re completely free not to join.

  64. WAR is ROTTen, WAR is EVIL, WAR is the ROOT of all EVIL

    As Thoreau said, stop striking at the branches, STRIKE THE ROOT!

    When the ROOT is ROTTen the Tree of Liberty WEAKENS FROM WITHIN.

    Money is not the ROOT of all evil
    WAR is!

    Stop striking at the branches, STRIKE THE ROOT!

    WAR is the ROTTen ROOT of all EVIL that ROTs the Tree of Liberty.

    Stop striking at the branches, STRIKE THE ROOT!

  65. Bryan

    Paulie @83….
    “Who’s bringing the whips, whipped cream, batteries and video camera…the Hillary Clinton Libertarian or the Sarah Palin Libertarian?”

    If sister Sarah is bringing the whips, whipped cream, and vid camera she has got a new supporter….Yeah! Oh…and she can feel free to bring Bristol along too…might teach her a few things 😉

  66. Brian

    What is wrong with you people? Replace teachers at a drastically reduced salary will improve results? In what world? This is something you free market fundamentalists should actually understand. Today, teachers make a lot less than other professions requiring a college degree. Because of this, smart people with the potential to make more in private business make the rational economic decision and avoid public education as a career.

  67. Brian

    Conservatives whine about being able to fire bad teachers all the time. Drastically reducing the salaries of teachers will drive good teachers away faster than any of you can say “school vouchers.” This is basic rational choice theory.

  68. Steven Wilson

    Card check would speed up enrollment and formation, but it wouldn’t improve the internal power structure of the union, because you would have people who don’t understand the full benefit of the brotherhood.

    Modern unions have one purpose. To help us remember the color of October.

    I have read Root several times, and I don’t know or care to know the nature of the love for Goldwater or Reagan. Is what happened in the Middle east during his time completely forgotten by Root? How is escalation of combat libertarian?

    If Root wants to be a presidential candidate, he should join Fox news and be a republican.

    Palin Root for 2012…From Exxon to exodus, there is always room for fetish in Vegas baby.

  69. Matt Cholko

    Contrary to what some of the previous commenters have stated, in many states, you ARE required to join (and pay dues to) a union if you wish to work in many fields.

    Thankfully, Virginia, my home, is not one of those states.

    In other cases though, you are de facto forced to join unions if you don’t want to be harassed and/or ridiculed at work. Right to work states are not immune to this disease. On the other hand, I think this is becoming less of a problem, as (most) unions have been in decline for the last couple of decades.

    Regarding the BS in Wisconsin, I’m having trouble forming an opinion on it. On one hand, I don’t want government employees to exist at all (in virtually all cases), much less make lots of money. However, I support the right of ALL people to organize for ANY reason they want, so long as they don’t initiate force against any person or organization. I have trouble seeing a strike as an initiation of force.

    Here is my solution to the teacher problem – fire them all, close all the public schools, and tell the parents to figure out some other option to educate their children. Then, sell off the school buildings (the money can be used to fill in gaps in the budget elsewhere) and sit back and watch as private education takes over.

  70. Thomas L. Knapp

    DWP@89,

    While “closed shop” laws are wrong — the evil flip side of the evil “right to work” laws — no, they do not from opting out of a union.

    In EVERY state of the union, you are 100%, totally, completely free to opt out of a union.

    You may be opting out of a job by opting out of a union, and that’s certainly something you may want to consider in making the decision, but you’re also opting out of a loaf of bread when you opt out of paying for it at the register.

  71. Robert Capozzi

    Tb78: Once again, libertarians let Republicans suck them into bullshit debates that have nothing to do with reality. What the teachers and other public employees earn in Wisconsin is up to Wisconsin voters who elect the politicians that decide such things.

    Me: Yes, SOME Ls do, but this may be a case where Brother Blanton and I largely agree! Paulie has not convinced me, mostly because I don’t know how a govt-ee union could be prohibited by law. I do think a government could refuse to negotiate with a union. I do also think that the right-to-work position could be used to allow a govt ee to not join a union.

    I do, however, agree with Paulie that the dynamic of a govt-ee union differs from a private union. If a L candidate held Root’s apparent position, I’d likely still vote for him or her…it’s not a show stopper for me. I would prefer a L candidate to not be reflexively and harshly anti-union in general, if only because unions still seem to represent the “little guy.” In truth, many unions are anti-freedom, so I do remain skeptical of their broader agenda. Their narrow agenda – representing workers – seems appropriate, just as a film or sports figure is represented by an agent.

  72. Robert Capozzi

    clarifying…

    …the right-to-work position modified, whereby the employer can choose to require union membership from its ees…my understanding is that right to work states don’t allow mgt to choose an exclusive arrangement.

  73. Steven Wilson

    To have a utopia within a utopia is redundant. Every day union members prove that people don’t need a government, because one person does the work, while one controls the reward of work done.

    If the primary utopia shuts down, then by natural law, the consequent utopia will replace objective and allow the people to function.

    Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ohio are in the brotherhood belt.

  74. paulie

    Again, I’m not against unions.

    I’m against government employees unions enrolling all government workers automatically and deducting money from their paychecks automatically unless they jump through near-impossible hoops to jump out. I’m against government unions making it extremely difficult to fire police officers, prison guards, teachers, and other government employees that abuse members of the general public, their fellow employees, or just generally do a terrible job that would get them fired anywhere else.

    If government employees go on strike, I don’t see any reason why they can’t be fired. If a government employee does things that would get them fired at pretty much any non-government job, they should be fired as well.

    So, given those facts, I agree that they have the right to free speech and free association. If they want to form a voluntary union unofficially, that’s their business. They shouldn’t get an official negotiating position or a more or less guaranteed job.

    Wear T-shirts under their suits and carry cards in their wallets? Not a problem.

  75. Robert Capozzi

    sw100: Every day union members prove that people don’t need a government, because one person does the work, while one controls the reward of work done.

    me: Huh? Proves? The only “proof” I can think of would be the absence of government in a populated territory for a significant amount of time and see how it goes. Somalia seems to be the closest thing to a stateless society, and I can’t say it functioning too well.

    It appears you confuse “government of each and every human relation” with “government as institution to maintain a serviceable domestic tranquility.” No one I know of supports or wants the first. I know of almost* no one who doesn’t support or want the second.

    * Full disclosure: A few exceptions post here.

  76. paulie

    Replace teachers at a drastically reduced salary will improve results? In what world?

    Private schools today in the USA pay less and get better results. Of course, they can fire people, too. And they don’t have all the administrative bureaucracy (a lot of it foisted and promoted by government unions) that government schools do. They also have to compete in the market and will go out of business if they do a bad job, rather than get handed more money.

    This is something you free market fundamentalists should actually understand. Today, teachers make a lot less than other professions requiring a college degree. Because of this, smart people with the potential to make more in private business make the rational economic decision and avoid public education as a career.

    Some do, yes, whereas others are drawn to teaching. Making the most money possible is not what matters the most to everyone. Of course, job security and benefits do play a role.

    Drastically reducing the salaries of teachers will drive good teachers away

    The good ones generally are the ones who love what they do, and would still do it even if it paid less and didn’t have all the pension benefits and job security. There are even many that can afford to, and would, do it if it didn’t pay at all, whereas others would quit very reluctantly only if they couldn’t pay their bills. But as for the deadwood…they will cling on and wait for their pension come hell or high water, no matter how much they hate their job.

  77. Brian

    @103 I would argue that private schools’ successes don’t come entirely from the ability to hire/fire teachers more freely than public schools. And it certainly doesn’t come from the lower salaries paid.

    Paulie, what you are talking about is changing the nature of the public school system in this country. It’s a good idea that should be discussed. I think that this is what Root had in mind when he wrote what he did, but he stopped short saying it.

    I don’t really buy the oft-repeated argument that good teachers love what they do and will do it for less. Many good teachers also have families to raise and cannot afford to do it for less. I know many public school teachers that work in the highest paying school district in my state (and also the best performing) and I don’t know a single one of them that goes home at 3 pm. Many work after school programs, sports, or second jobs to make ends meet for their families. We can argue all we want about teachers’ salaries but I have a hunch that people wouldn’t mind paying teachers more if they were getting results. If this is the case, then the debate isn’t about whether to pay teachers 55k or 40k, but rather how to ensure that they are doing their job.

  78. paulie

    I would argue that private schools’ successes don’t come entirely from the ability to hire/fire teachers more freely than public schools. And it certainly doesn’t come from the lower salaries paid.

    What do you attribute it to, then?

    If this is the case, then the debate isn’t about whether to pay teachers 55k or 40k, but rather how to ensure that they are doing their job.

    What do you propose?

  79. paulie

    You mean Wayne’s article? Dunno. You can probably use search engines to find out as well as I can. I know LP.org and Newsmax generally publish Wayne’s articles, in addition to IPR. Others too, I’m sure.

  80. Darryl W. Perry

    I worked with a man that was awarded Teacher of the Year in Birmingham, AL – he was then fired just before getting tenure; the school didn’t want one good teacher and many bad ones in a poorly performing school.

  81. NewFederalist

    “BTW, this article was posted to IPR by Bruce Cohen, not by me, so shouldn’t you be asking him?”

    Yes, I should have. Sorry.

  82. Radical Wacko

    “I worked with a man that was awarded Teacher of the Year in Birmingham, AL – he was then fired just before getting tenure; the school didn’t want one good teacher and many bad ones in a poorly performing school.’

    Why am I not surprised?

  83. Radical Wacko

    Brian “I would argue that private schools’ successes don’t come entirely from the ability to hire/fire teachers more freely than public schools.”

    No one has argued that it comes *entirely* from the ability to hire and fire more freely. Although, doesn’t it make sense that this is at least part of the reason?

    Paulie said: “And they don’t have all the administrative bureaucracy (a lot of it foisted and promoted by government unions) that government schools do. They also have to compete in the market and will go out of business if they do a bad job, rather than get handed more money.”

  84. paulie

    Comments on this article from the Daily Caller:

    1.
    notalone

    Fire everyone of the clowns. They obviously care nothing about teaching our kids. It is all about “me” – reminds me of someone else in the news all the time – barry boy!

    10:10 PM 02/23/2011 – 10:10 PM Log in to Reply | Report Comment
    2.
    Tess_Comments

    Walker should NOT fire striking Wisconsin teachers.
    He should FINE each striking teacher and Union Leaders.
    Walker, if possible, should FINE each striking teacher two days pay for every day they stay out of work.
    Walker and the Medical Board of Ethics should investigate the doctors that wrote sick notes for striking teachers.

    Hey Teachers, I thought you were concerned about your students. You striking during school days does not show concern for anyone except yourself.

    7:45 PM 02/23/2011 – 7:45 PM Log in to Reply | Report Comment
    *
    Drahcir

    Tess,

    You forgot,’to make a national appology for disrupting normal class sessions.And also teach the good, bad, and ugly of the union’s history. Air this on national tv.One by one!!

    6:33 AM 02/24/2011 – 6:33 AM Log in to Reply | Report Comment
    3.
    russ311

    Gov. Walker and the Wisconsin legislature needs to stop fooling around now with the deserter Democrats and take the action in the assembly that can be done today with a simple Republican majority and that is to immediately pass a separate resolution that will end ALL Public Union collective bargaining rights and state responsibility for collection of public union dues and fees (the non-union taxpayer pays for the costs of that accounting and collection service). With the passage of such a resolution, the issue that has been the cause celebre’ for the deserter Democrat senators becomes moot. They then will no longer have a supposed “justified” reason to abandon their responsibilities to save the state from looming fiscal collapse nor any reason to demand, in the idiotic words of Bill O’Reilly, a “face saving compromise” from the Republicans on the issue of collective bargaining. The deserter Democrats will have no grounds for continued absenteeism and can return to their duties to pass the the remaining issues of pension and healthcare payments by public union members.

    And I mean ALL public unions. “Public Safety” unions should not have any collective bargaining rights nor should the state have to be the collection agency of union dues and fees for fire or police or medical unions, etc. any more than should other public unions have a means to extort non-union taxpayers into subsidizing any union’s political power or the costs of its existence.

    End it NOW!

  85. Be Rational

    For $8,000 per student per year it’s quite easy to establish year round schools, a maximum class size of 12, better education, and a far better graduation rate – and make a profit.

    Time to close the government schools and repeal all government regulation of education.

  86. Michael H. Wilson

    Let’s put the teachers in charge; please note that a somewhat different version of this is on my website. Please ignore it for now.

    The standoff between the Republicans and the Democrats in Wisconsin over the unions has managed to capture a significant portion of the news and now is spreading to Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere. Teachers are a large portion of the government employees involved. Caught in the middle of all of this are the students whose schools have been closed in some cases and the taxpayers who have to foot the bill. So far not much effort has been spent on asking why the government is still involved in the education business and since it is what are the results and what are the alternatives. Why after some twenty years of activism do we still have government run schools? Can’t we break this log jam somehow?

    Separating education from the state should be our main focus. How we get there is another matter, one that is worth discussion. Simply put in my mind is that the freedom to teach is inherent in the idea of freedom of speech. Teachers should not be told by the government what to teach or how to teach. When schools are run by the government they are subject to public and political pressure, which is seldom in the best interests of the students.

    Students and their parent should be able to chose from a variety of schools that fit the needs of the student regardless of whether that need is for a specific subject area or a nationwide system that allows a child from a family that frequently moves to leave a school in San Diego on Friday and pick up on the next page in a school in Rhode Island the next Monday. Some parents may wish to be involved in their child education while others may find that difficult for any number of reasons. We need to keep in mind the fact that people learn through different ways and at different speeds. No one way fits all, which is a significant problem with today’s education system.

    I am not especially fond of vouchers but vouchers seem to work and if Sweden can do it so can we. In the 1990s Sweden introduced the voucher system for the nation and today is seems to be very popular. Some states have tried vouchers, but the effort to expand them seems to be stalled. It may not be the exact best libertarian solution, but it seems to be a step in the right direction and if they work in Sweden why not support them in Wisconsin with its large Scandinavian heritage? We might find we can sell this one.

    By 2004 there were roughly 3000 charter schools nationwide with a variety of results. Charter schools are another alternative that have been successful in some places while elsewhere they have not worked as well as the state run system, and in some cases they seem to have been developed for the money the government was handing out and to hell with the students. As in with any other service it is buyer beware.

    The Libertarian Party needs to become more vocal on this issue. We need to remember that separating education from the state is just as important as separating religion from the state. In the long run that is the goal. Now how are we going to get there? This issue is passing us by. Let’s get on it!

  87. Steven Wilson

    @RC

    The formation of a union was a reaction to the formation of the government model. All structures must defend their objective.

    A union is only present when there is the slight possibility of slavery per the business cycle. Modern unions do not operate like the one my father help build.

    My father help build a local for operators of heavy equipment. The reason was wage and quality of life like all arguments. But in time, the union formed it’s own pharmacy, sub contracted legal arm, financial arm, and now also has widow benefits which my mother now enjoys.

    The operators in Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin have medical, dental, vision, for themselves, spouse, and children up to college. They have christmas bonus, vacation checks, life insurance, and access to lawyers and accountants. That is the brotherhood. All of these things were done with hard work and devotion to the worker. Not the confirmation that you need a government, but the proof you must react to a government.

    The government took 25 to 60 percent of the contracted fees for “finder fees” or “public safety fees”. These fees were paid to elected official per construction project, and was paid out before the companies doing the work were paid. No operator would build a poor road because their wife or mother might drive on it. The fees were a control and a gift of corruption.

    The union members during my father’s time, from ww2 through vietnam, were different americans. My father never graduated high school. He served during Korea and came home to find indifference about Korea because it was not deemed a war, and he got no welcome glory.

    If there had been no government fees to pay, the operators would have been paid their fair share. Force needs return force. Fair is Fair. My father and those men had to draw blood because there was an enemy present.

  88. Porn Again Christian

    Wayne Root’s article makes sense, despite the somewhat irrational Reagan-worship that he tries to invoke in numerous of his pieces. I can see where it may be somewhat more on point here than usually, however.

  89. paulie

    Also worth reading

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/power_free_association

    I’VE repeatedly argued that private- and public-sector unions operate in different institutional settings, raise fundamentally different moral and political questions, and that it is altogether reasonable to support private-sector unions while rejecting public-sector unions on account of the nature of their differences. A common response I’ve heard from the left is that I’m slyly seeking to sow discord by disingenuously arguing that the larger union movement is not in fact one, but is instead a coalition of fundamentally distinct organisations of unequal moral standing. A common response I’ve heard from the right is basically the same: “you don’t really support private-sector unionism, do you”?

    Well, I do. Sort of. It’s complicated because American labour law is complicated.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/power_free_association
    Read more:

  90. Pingback: Wisconsin and Unions: You Can’t Get the Right Answer if You’re Asking the Wrong Question

  91. Pingback: Tom Knapp: ‘Wisconsin and Unions: You Can’t Get the Right Answer if You’re Asking the Wrong Question’ | Independent Political Report

  92. Marc Montoni

    I come at this from a slightly different perspective:

    I think it should be made as difficult, annoying, enraging, and insufferable as it can be to be a public employee. If that means banning bureaucrats from joining unions, so be it. If it means closing all employee bathrooms on public property, fine. If it means they are to be required to hang upside down from a tree branch while they do their job, perfect. Perhaps then the rapacious and unproductive theif sector will finally decide that government work just ain’t worth it.

    Government employee unions should be broken and broken permanently, and with extreme prejudice.

    I wish all those Tea Party ralliers would get on the stick and start protesting the government thug rallies in Wisconsin and elsewhere. These “protests” are pure, unmitigated, evil covetousness on display and these people should be fired with no chance of ever getting on the public-sector gravy train ever again.

  93. Thomas M. Sipos

    Some government workers are Libertarian Party members.

    Last year, a longtime LP member announced at one of the supper clubs that he’d just retired from his civil service job (working for the city of Los Angeles), so he’d have more time to devote to LP activism. He retired early, but his looks, and he admitted that he gets a nice pension.

    I also know of some local LP officers who’ve worked for defense contractors.

  94. paulie

    Some government workers are Libertarian Party members.

    This is true. And, they are in a great position to know the details of at least some of the things that are wrong with the way monopoly government does things.

    Of course, the fact that some LP members are, say, government employees or welfare recipients does not mean those systems are moral or should continue. It just means that they are imperfect human beings making their way in a flawed system as best they can.

    Similarly, Marxists sell newspapers, and otherwise work for a living within the (quasi) capitalist system they oppose.

    Holding up an ideal does not mean you necessarily live by it. We all still have to live in the real world that exists now, regardless of what world we would like to envision as ideal.

  95. Robert Capozzi

    p, yes, I’d venture to say that most if not all Ls drive on public roads. And collect SS benefits. Even went to public schools.

  96. Marc Montoni

    From an article by Tibor Machan:

    Bona fide labor unions work within a free-market system, where firms compete for customers. Public works are noncompetitive, however. Workers who belong to public-sector unions conduct their labor negotiations without their employers facing any competitors. The U.S. Postal Service, for example, has a monopoly over first-class mail delivery; teachers at public schools work for monopolistic employers — student attendance is required, and funds are confiscated through taxation. … [T]here are no alternatives, and, in most cases, one cannot refuse to deal with these workers. So public-sector unions are not genuine free-market agents.

  97. Marc Montoni

    From an article by Thomas J. DiLorenzo:

    The main reason why so many state and local governments are bankrupt, or on the verge of bankruptcy, is the combination of government-run monopolies and government-employee unions. Government-employee unions have vastly more power than do private-sector unions because the entities they work for are typically monopolies.

  98. Marc Montoni

    And the non-sequituer of the year award goes to:

    …I’d venture to say that most if not all Ls drive on public roads. And collect SS benefits. Even went to public schools.

    I don’t get it. Are you suggesting that your “factoid” (see definition) justifies the continued commission of state-sponsored criminal activity?

    After all…

    “Most if not all Ls” who smoke pot get beaten up by the royalty’s police, then get slammed into the royalty’s prison cell.

    “Most if not all Ls” who collect SS have been left destitute by the roughly 63.41 percent of their lifetime earnings (about $1.6 million for the average American) that the government has sucked away from them.

    “Most if not all Ls” didn’t have much of a choice about attending a Government Indoctrination Lockup facility.

    Sure — we could have run away, but would have been subject to getting caught and held in an even worse government prison cell.

    So what’s your point?

    Should L’s have to throw the wealth of a lifetime — about a million dollars — into the gaping maw of the beast, and then refuse to accept even a partial ‘refund’ of any of it?

    Let’s say Libertarian Dad advocates replacing royal cops with neighborhood security guards and insurance. Suddenly, one day — before his advocacy ever bears any fruit — a bunch of gang-bangers (created by your government’s war on drugs) break into his house, beat him to a pulp, break both his arms and legs so badly all he can move is a couple of fingers, and gang rape his wife and daughter while he’s forced to watch. So, out of ‘principle’, must he eschew dialing 911 with those two unbroken fingers, even though he’s been forced at gunpoint for years to pay for it, and even though his choice of protection institutions has been prevented from evolving by government?

    Like I said: what’s your point?

  99. Robert Capozzi

    mm137: So what’s your point?

    me: The point is that Ls use government services. Some make a living from government, as their chosen professions are so controlled by government that they have few options. DiLorenzo I’m sure has had a government job, not sure about Machan.

    I attended government schools, and I feel no guilt about that. It was my parents’ choice, and they essentially had no choice. I drive on government roads, and I don’t feel that’s a corrupt behavior. If it’s still working, I expect to draw on my SS benefits, even though I know that it’s a transfer payment.

    I was responding to Sipos’s point. That’s all.

    Railing against government unions is not something I engage it, even though I agree with P that they are playing a rigged game. I’d say we all are, and I’m dealing with it.

  100. paulie

    I was responding to Sipos’s point. That’s all.

    Sorry, I thought you were responding to me. Not sure you understood Sipos correctly either, but he can speak for himself.

  101. paulie

    Railing against government unions is not something I engage it, even though I agree with P that they are playing a rigged game. I’d say we all are, and I’m dealing with it.

    Dealing with it does not mean that you don’t work to bring the rigging to an end, to the extent you can.

    Granted, that extent is small, but I do what I can.

  102. Thomas M. Sipos

    My point was that not all government union workers, much less all private sector union workers, are Evil.

    Yet some (usually “rightist”) libertarians talk as if all (non-military) union or government workers are Evil. At least that’s the impression they convey.

  103. paulie

    They are not all evil, but the system they work in is.

    There were good people in the Nazi Wehrmacht and the Soviet Red Army too…but those systems needed to be defeated. So does this one.

  104. Pingback: Darryl W. Perry: The Missing Question in Wisconsin | Independent Political Report

  105. Pingback: The Missing Question in Wisconsin · Hammer of Truth

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *