PDA

View Full Version : need more help with these trekkies about Paul




Gradient
11-03-2007, 04:39 AM
I cant find my old thread but I neeed your help to respond to this post. I'll quote the last two points, and from context you'll figure it out.

Darkwing Duck 1:

I think the product of the free market is also a product of the times. Not to drag too distant history into this discussion, but serfdom existed in Europe when labor was undervalued. After the plague, labor was harder to get and thus more valueable, and helped to bring about a revolution in business.

Much could be said to be similar between late 19th century America and today. Unemployment is around 4.5%, and people are flooding over the border for jobs in this country. With the recognition that labor unions are valid (if not always the most honorable organizations) and legal, the general recognition of the public of human and civil rights, and general opinions on pollution and other side effects, today's workplace is a far cry from that of the 1800s. Maybe now is the time to try some more free market and see how the economy, corporations, and people react.



The only reason those institutions became "accepted" by industry was because they were FORCED to accept them by gov't regulations such as the National Labor Relations Act. Prior to that, workers who aggitated for change were routinely fired en masse, subjected to physical threat up to and including actual acts of violence against strikers. The struggle to unionize the coal industry is an instructive example. Several times, the gov't actually sent in troops to HELP mine owners put down union activity.

History just doesn't support your thesis, I'm afraid...left to it's own devices, business ALWAYS acts to exploit workers to the maximum extent possible.

The workplace aside, consider all the OTHER consequences of implimenting Paul's "original structure and intent" philosophy. 13 southern states would be due an immediate release from and reparations from the rest of the country. Civil rights? Up to the states...if they want to be bigots its THEIR right...move to another state if you don't like it. Oh, and toss out universal sufferage while you're at it. This would be just the beginning...

You REALLY want to go there?




... so thats the argunment aagainst what paul is doing. please help ive been awake too long

Corydoras
11-03-2007, 07:04 AM
I hope you haven't been trying to claim that Paul opposes labor unions. He doesn't. He does oppose some things they want.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=56

angelatc
11-03-2007, 07:43 AM
Those wonderful unions were also very active and violent when it came to shutting down small, independent, non-union mines.

I'll bet if you dig you can find lots of instances where state regulation of certain industries should be, or even is, actually more stringent than federal law calls for.

I don't know much about the history of the labor unions. BUt if the government actually sent in forces to keep the union from organizing, then I'll bet that it was actually government intervention that kept the union from performing properly. I'll also bet the issues were eventually decided in court. The only thing that would change is that it wouldn't take so long because the courts would be on a state level.

There's no reason that mine regulations that serve the workers in Utah should be the same as they are in West Virginia. The compostion of the land is much different and different architecture is employed. That right there means that the federal inspector is probably lacking knowledge on both types of mines. It would be much better to have local inspectors, because they would be familiar with the actual mines. People wouldn't have to wait for years for Washington to notice them and their plight. They could drive to the capitol of their state every day until their greivances were addressed.

Coal mines are a great example of where unions are indeed necessary, because quite often they're the only "real" employer in town, with retailers being dependent on the mine workers.

The miners would often find that they could sue in their own state and get much faster results.

The bottom line is that there's no reason that the states can't and won't develop their own sets of safety criteria. But the solutions to mines that violate the laws would be found locally.

We were supposed to be more like 50 small countries. We don't go around making Canada or South Africa adhere to our mining regulations, nor should Utah make West Virginia adhere to theirs.

Corydoras
11-03-2007, 07:50 AM
consider all the OTHER consequences of implimenting Paul's "original structure and intent" philosophy. 13 southern states would be due an immediate release from and reparations from the rest of the country. Civil rights? Up to the states...if they want to be bigots its THEIR right...move to another state if you don't like it. Oh, and toss out universal sufferage while you're at it. This would be just the beginning...

The error this person is making, and it's a huge one, is thinking that a Paul Administration is going to be imperial like the Bush and Clinton gangs. These things are not going to happen. The South does not want to secede anyway. And civil rights law is not going to be voted out. We're voting for a president, not a supreme leader.

scbissler
11-03-2007, 08:10 AM
What people need to understand is that just because a state (or an individual) has the right to be bigoted, that does not mean that they will be. Any state that somehow voted to take away universal suffrage, or return to a discriminatory society would be shunned by the market! Any act so far out of the mainstream would be economically punished by the rest of America and the world.