3 ms·

I don't have to set a standard to make an observation that making TAs financially invested in the success of unions could bias their teaching. You're imposing

I don't have to set a standard to make an observation that making TAs financially invested in the success of unions could bias their teaching. You're imposing unreasonable standards on me to try to shut down debate. It's disingenuous. >>As I have demonstrated multiple times, you do not have a good understanding of unions and economics. You support Marxism! That doesn't suggest an empirically grounded understanding of economics. As for what you've demonstrated, it's just been deflections from my points about the history of unions, and the main tools they utilized to gain leverage. I see no instance of you showing that I don't understand economics or unions.

eesmith 9y ago
Yes, you are right. Boringly so. Remember my original comment? No matter what choice the TAs, they can be accused of having a bias that can affect their views as a teaching assistant. That's why I didn't think your comment added anything useful. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims. Now you say I'm trying to "shut down debate". I've given you a series of questions to continue the debate and resolve differences, but all you do is make irrelevant accusations. I'll again speak to one of those irrelevant accusations. I most certainly AM NOT SUPPORTING MARXISM. You keep repeating it, but as far as I can tell it's because you don't know much about economics. I agree. I certainly don't know much about economics. I'm not saying I do. Instead, I am suggesting you know less about it than I do. You said "I see no instance of you showing that I don't understand economics or unions." 1) You don't know that Marxian economics is not the same thing as Marxism and that Marxian economics, and you conflate Marxian economics with Marx's original labor theory of value. 2) You seem to combine "profit seeking" when it comes to unions with "rent seeking", when they are different terms. 3) You say that unions could not exist in a free market, and only exist now because of government laws; despite my pointing out that unions existed before there were any laws protecting them. 4) You say that unions only have power because of threats of violence by union members and supporters against other people and property; despite my pointing out that the threat to walk out en mass is part of the power of collective action, is not a threat of violence, and was the essential power of the union in Commonwealth v. Hunt. While if your view were true, Commonwealth v. Hunt would have been decided against the unions, not for. I have mentioned these before, but rather than address them you felt it was better to make unfounded assertions that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil" and that I "[accuse] opponents of Marxism of being proponents of "scientific racism". You know what shuts down debate? Lies like that.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  >Remember my original comment? No matter what choice the TAs, they can be accused of having a bias that can affect their views as a teaching assistant. That's why I didn't think your comment added anything useful. Remember my response to your comment? I explained it's a matter of probabilities. I'll refresh your memory: >>They're rent-seeking organizations where the benefits concentrate to their members, while their costs diffuse widely across the general population. >>For these reasons, I suspect being a part of a union is a significantly larger source of bias than not being part of one, and that's roughly what Public Choice Theory on special interests would predict. I don't have the time to engage in a debate where I need to tediously repeat myself because you choose to debate in bad faith.

eesmith 9y ago

Yes, you are right. Boringly so. Remember my original comment? No matter what choice the TAs, they can be accused of having a bias that can affect their views as a teaching assistant. That's why I didn't think your comment added anything useful. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims. Now you say I'm trying to "shut down debate". I've given you a series of questions to continue the debate and resolve differences, but all you do is make irrelevant accusations. I'll again speak to one of those irrelevant accusations. I most certainly AM NOT SUPPORTING MARXISM. You keep repeating it, but as far as I can tell it's because you don't know much about economics. I agree. I certainly don't know much about economics. I'm not saying I do. Instead, I am suggesting you know less about it than I do. You said "I see no instance of you showing that I don't understand economics or unions." 1) You don't know that Marxian economics is not the same thing as Marxism and that Marxian economics, and you conflate Marxian economics with Marx's original labor theory of value. 2) You seem to combine "profit seeking" when it comes to unions with "rent seeking", when they are different terms. 3) You say that unions could not exist in a free market, and only exist now because of government laws; despite my pointing out that unions existed before there were any laws protecting them. 4) You say that unions only have power because of threats of violence by union members and supporters against other people and property; despite my pointing out that the threat to walk out en mass is part of the power of collective action, is not a threat of violence, and was the essential power of the union in Commonwealth v. Hunt. While if your view were true, Commonwealth v. Hunt would have been decided against the unions, not for. I have mentioned these before, but rather than address them you felt it was better to make unfounded assertions that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil" and that I "[accuse] opponents of Marxism of being proponents of "scientific racism". You know what shuts down debate? Lies like that.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
>Remember my original comment? No matter what choice the TAs, they can be accused of having a bias that can affect their views as a teaching assistant. That's why I didn't think your comment added anything useful. Remember my response to your comment? I explained it's a matter of probabilities. I'll refresh your memory: >>They're rent-seeking organizations where the benefits concentrate to their members, while their costs diffuse widely across the general population. >>For these reasons, I suspect being a part of a union is a significantly larger source of bias than not being part of one, and that's roughly what Public Choice Theory on special interests would predict. I don't have the time to engage in a debate where I need to tediously repeat myself because you choose to debate in bad faith.