4 ms·

None of your bizarre rant has anything to do with what we were discussing. As always, people like you drag out discussions on minor asides and random disputes

None of your bizarre rant has anything to do with what we were discussing. As always, people like you drag out discussions on minor asides and random disputes about word choices rather than focusing on the actual issue being discussed. If you cannot see that unions are price-fixing conspiracies then you can only be described as wilfully blind. Where you claim that it is just the same as multiple hiring managers working for the same firm.. It just boggles the mind. Maybe it needs to be spelt out really simply for you: a union is not a firm. You don't hire a union. You hire employees. Unions do not want you to hire non-union employees and would make doing so illegal if they could. Unions want to "represent" an entire industry. They do not want competition. So don't go round claiming it is just like a firm with multiple employees. That is nonsense.

eesmith 3y ago
> If you cannot see that unions are price-fixing conspiracies Of course I do not. It doesn't meet the definition of conspiracy, and back in 1842 Commonwealth v. Hunt established that unions were not a conspiracy, in the context of common law, and even addressed and dismissed your "price-fixing" argument - in text I already quoted. The courts since then have never determined that unions are a conspiracy, and that's with judges from the left and right. My "bizarre rant" contains the materials to support my answer to exactly the topic you addressed. I don't know why you willfully ignore the last 180 years of history. You are the one who eschews definitions, but that doesn't mean you can redefine well-understood terms without expecting general confusion. The claim that unions couldn't exist without active government intervention is a claim I've only heard from ill-informed libertarians who view everything through a very ideological lens. Your responses are not dissuading me that you fall into that category. You have yet to point to any external source which supports your arguments. I have pointed to primary sources demonstrating that your specific claims are invalid and your understanding suspect. You make other claims like "the left pretends it is normal" without attempting to explain why your ideologically extreme viewpoint is correct, or meaningful, much less explain how the right - start with Reagan - is any different. > So don't go round claiming it is just like a firm with multiple employees. That is nonsense. I did not. Are you referring to my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37274569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37274569 were I wrote "If it makes you feel better, think of the union as a co-op owned labor provider who made a multi-year contract with a company as the exclusive provider of a certain type of labor. Would that be "collusion"?" That was meant to show how union "collusion" could be implemented in a corporation model, leading to similar economic results for the co-op owners, but demonstrably not seen as a collusion when done by companies like Adecco. I did claim that you confused the abstract concept of "employer" with the concrete concept of "employee", leading to a failure in your analogy. It means you see a company as a distinct economic entity (created by government fiat) from the managers who make employer decisions. By analogy, a union is a distinct economic entity (yes, supported by government fiat) from the employees. A union is not a firm, and claiming so would be counter to centuries of history dating back to the medieval guild era.
dang 3y ago
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Please don't do that! If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- memefrog 3y ago
  What the hell? No warning, nothing. Never been moderated before then wham I am banned. Sad.
  - dang 3y ago
    Usually we warn people before banning them, and often many times, but sometimes an account has been breaking the site guidelines so badly and so frequently that we just ban them. When I scrolled through your comment history I saw so many cases of this that you fell into the latter category. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37210786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37210786 - you can't post like that here, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are, and even a quick glance at the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) ought to have made that clear. It doesn't have to be permanent, if you genuinely want to use HN as intended—that's what I tried to explain above.

eesmith 3y ago

> If you cannot see that unions are price-fixing conspiracies Of course I do not. It doesn't meet the definition of conspiracy, and back in 1842 Commonwealth v. Hunt established that unions were not a conspiracy, in the context of common law, and even addressed and dismissed your "price-fixing" argument - in text I already quoted. The courts since then have never determined that unions are a conspiracy, and that's with judges from the left and right. My "bizarre rant" contains the materials to support my answer to exactly the topic you addressed. I don't know why you willfully ignore the last 180 years of history. You are the one who eschews definitions, but that doesn't mean you can redefine well-understood terms without expecting general confusion. The claim that unions couldn't exist without active government intervention is a claim I've only heard from ill-informed libertarians who view everything through a very ideological lens. Your responses are not dissuading me that you fall into that category. You have yet to point to any external source which supports your arguments. I have pointed to primary sources demonstrating that your specific claims are invalid and your understanding suspect. You make other claims like "the left pretends it is normal" without attempting to explain why your ideologically extreme viewpoint is correct, or meaningful, much less explain how the right - start with Reagan - is any different. > So don't go round claiming it is just like a firm with multiple employees. That is nonsense. I did not. Are you referring to my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37274569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37274569 were I wrote "If it makes you feel better, think of the union as a co-op owned labor provider who made a multi-year contract with a company as the exclusive provider of a certain type of labor. Would that be "collusion"?" That was meant to show how union "collusion" could be implemented in a corporation model, leading to similar economic results for the co-op owners, but demonstrably not seen as a collusion when done by companies like Adecco. I did claim that you confused the abstract concept of "employer" with the concrete concept of "employee", leading to a failure in your analogy. It means you see a company as a distinct economic entity (created by government fiat) from the managers who make employer decisions. By analogy, a union is a distinct economic entity (yes, supported by government fiat) from the employees. A union is not a firm, and claiming so would be counter to centuries of history dating back to the medieval guild era.

dang 3y ago

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Please don't do that! If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

memefrog 3y ago
What the hell? No warning, nothing. Never been moderated before then wham I am banned. Sad.
- dang 3y ago
  Usually we warn people before banning them, and often many times, but sometimes an account has been breaking the site guidelines so badly and so frequently that we just ban them. When I scrolled through your comment history I saw so many cases of this that you fell into the latter category. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37210786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37210786 - you can't post like that here, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are, and even a quick glance at the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) ought to have made that clear. It doesn't have to be permanent, if you genuinely want to use HN as intended—that's what I tried to explain above.