7 ms·

I support this step in destroying Federal bureaucracy. Hoping these cases go somewhere.

by brvsft 3y ago

forgetfreeman 3y ago
If unfettered free markets and a society unburdened by the constraints of government oversight are what you crave why not book a one way ticket to Somalia...
- endo_bunker 3y ago
  Surely you're creative enough to imagine a system of government less imposing than an unaccountable executive bureaucracy but more functional than gangs of warlords.
  - DiscourseFan 3y ago
    Well, those warlords are getting paid by someone, and its not profitable to use warlords to extract resources and labor from a country with a functional government.
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    Truly, but my worldview is not so childlike to assume such systems scale.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  What is wrong with Somalia and how is that causally due to less government oversight?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    In particular, is it caused by a constitutional form of government that requires lawmaking authority to rest in elected rather than unelected officials?
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    The nation of Somalia is not effectively governing since the 1990s or before and is often described as a failed state. Naval piracy, kidnapping, terrorism, and other violence are constant problems. The US travel advisory for Somalia is currently: don't, and then lists precautions like drafting a will and other steps to prepare for your potential kidnapping or murder. Due to its ineffective governance, the country is used as a counterpoint to arguments that government is evil -- i.e., something will fill the void, and without a centralized government with policing capabilities and some sort of effective government services, you're likely to get extreme poverty and violence.
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      Cool, apply the same logic to North Korea.
      - NegativeK 3y ago
        I was giving a pretty dispassionate answer to what I thought was an honest question. I don't appreciate your flippant, clearly politicized response.
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    Somalia has a patchwork of petty warlords exerting arbitrary and unlimited authority within their fiefdoms. This is a far cry from a debate about the limits of the proper authority of congress to intervene in employment contracts. You’re engaging in a lazy rhetorical argument that’s basically a straw man.
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      You ignored the comment I was responding to that referenced Somalia first and are calling me lazy. What does that make you?
      - ch4s3 3y ago
        Apologies, I actually intended to reply to the same comment you were replying to.
    - forgetfreeman 3y ago
      No, I'm engaging in reductio ad absurdum and while I'd cheerfully agree it's lazy rhetoric this forum doesn't lend itself well to long-form arguments which unfortunately the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle indicates is required for a complete deconstruction of the standard anti-government babble that gets traded here and elsewhere.
      - ch4s3 3y ago
        Surely there’s a distinction to be made between a discussion of the proper role of the state and devolution into stateless warlordism. I’m not sure that making a reductive argument against the worst possible interpretation of what small government types advocate really adds to the discourse.
        forgetfreeman 3y ago
        Maybe not but then the next best thing is an exhaustive examination of what happened to Kansas when the libertarians took over, which takes several paragraphs and you're still left with a hazy picture because federal programs kept the state from collapsing completely. Anyway the entire ethos can be summarized in a single sentence: "I got mine, everyone else can go fuck themselves" which as an ideology ignores our species only strength: cooperation.
- brvsft 3y ago
  Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to simply emigrate. And on the whole, I do prefer the US, and it's not because the Federal govt has laws preventing Starbucks from "union busting" tactics. For the most part, I don't care if Starbucks, etc. workers are unionized. They should have that 'right', but I see no benefit in having entire federal agencies devoted to making up the rules that dictate how unionization works, who can do it, or anything similar. It's mostly farcical bullshit given the government itself prevented railworkers from striking. I don't think they should have any such power, at all. Perhaps you should move to North Korea though?
  - noahtallen 3y ago
    If they should have the right to unionize, then someone needs to enforce that right. Or the company with far more power (Starbucks) will retaliate so hard that the right, in practice, does not exist. I thought this country was about protecting rights. I’m not interested in living in a society where companies with vast amounts of power can do whatever they want to make money. The incentives are nearly completely unaligned with human flourishing, and you don’t need to look far to see that.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > If they should have the right to unionize, then someone needs to enforce that right. The government isn't prohibiting them from forming a union and there are existing laws against companies retaliating through violence. If the company isn't retaliating with violence, isn't the union supposed to be the thing that protects them? Why don't they just get together and go on strike? And if the answer is that the union has no power because they're unskilled labor and can be easily replaced, it seems like that's your real problem. What good is forming a union which is just going to go on strike and get permanently replaced by other workers?
      - Osmose 3y ago
        Because they can't form a union in the first place due to union busting tactics like compulsory meetings that talk about how unions are bad, hiring consultants that spread fear and misinformation, or just threatening your livelihood by firing you for even attempting to form one. There's a power imbalance—enforcement exists to help balance the scales so that an efficient negotiation between workers and the company can happen.
sheepscreek 3y ago
Last time I checked, we got here from colonial oppression and anarchy. Here’s the reality: this isn’t about corporations. It’s about the people that work there and protecting their rights. The small person vs. a trillion dollar corporation. How do you even begin to tip the balance right? What is keeping the workers from being oppressed by the desires of those running the corporation? (aka executives earning fat paycheques and the shareholders) The blue collar/working class suffers from a double whammy - lack of education and resources (time/money). The ability to collectively bargain/negotiate with the corporations is a very small way towards that. I think it’s fair. Especially when you consider the execs have access to $2000/hr lawyers on company retainer and any other resource they need for negotiations.

I support this step in destroying Federal bureaucracy. Hoping these cases go somewhere.

by brvsft 3y ago

I support this step in destroying Federal bureaucracy. Hoping these cases go somewhere.

If unfettered free markets and a society unburdened by the constraints of government oversight are what you crave why not book a one way ticket to Somalia...

endo_bunker 3y ago
Surely you're creative enough to imagine a system of government less imposing than an unaccountable executive bureaucracy but more functional than gangs of warlords.
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  Well, those warlords are getting paid by someone, and its not profitable to use warlords to extract resources and labor from a country with a functional government.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  Truly, but my worldview is not so childlike to assume such systems scale.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
What is wrong with Somalia and how is that causally due to less government oversight?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  In particular, is it caused by a constitutional form of government that requires lawmaking authority to rest in elected rather than unelected officials?
- NegativeK 3y ago
  The nation of Somalia is not effectively governing since the 1990s or before and is often described as a failed state. Naval piracy, kidnapping, terrorism, and other violence are constant problems. The US travel advisory for Somalia is currently: don't, and then lists precautions like drafting a will and other steps to prepare for your potential kidnapping or murder. Due to its ineffective governance, the country is used as a counterpoint to arguments that government is evil -- i.e., something will fill the void, and without a centralized government with policing capabilities and some sort of effective government services, you're likely to get extreme poverty and violence.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    Cool, apply the same logic to North Korea.
    - NegativeK 3y ago
      I was giving a pretty dispassionate answer to what I thought was an honest question. I don't appreciate your flippant, clearly politicized response.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  Somalia has a patchwork of petty warlords exerting arbitrary and unlimited authority within their fiefdoms. This is a far cry from a debate about the limits of the proper authority of congress to intervene in employment contracts. You’re engaging in a lazy rhetorical argument that’s basically a straw man.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    You ignored the comment I was responding to that referenced Somalia first and are calling me lazy. What does that make you?
    - ch4s3 3y ago
      Apologies, I actually intended to reply to the same comment you were replying to.
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    No, I'm engaging in reductio ad absurdum and while I'd cheerfully agree it's lazy rhetoric this forum doesn't lend itself well to long-form arguments which unfortunately the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle indicates is required for a complete deconstruction of the standard anti-government babble that gets traded here and elsewhere.
    - ch4s3 3y ago
      Surely there’s a distinction to be made between a discussion of the proper role of the state and devolution into stateless warlordism. I’m not sure that making a reductive argument against the worst possible interpretation of what small government types advocate really adds to the discourse.
      - forgetfreeman 3y ago
        Maybe not but then the next best thing is an exhaustive examination of what happened to Kansas when the libertarians took over, which takes several paragraphs and you're still left with a hazy picture because federal programs kept the state from collapsing completely. Anyway the entire ethos can be summarized in a single sentence: "I got mine, everyone else can go fuck themselves" which as an ideology ignores our species only strength: cooperation.
brvsft 3y ago
Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to simply emigrate. And on the whole, I do prefer the US, and it's not because the Federal govt has laws preventing Starbucks from "union busting" tactics. For the most part, I don't care if Starbucks, etc. workers are unionized. They should have that 'right', but I see no benefit in having entire federal agencies devoted to making up the rules that dictate how unionization works, who can do it, or anything similar. It's mostly farcical bullshit given the government itself prevented railworkers from striking. I don't think they should have any such power, at all. Perhaps you should move to North Korea though?
- noahtallen 3y ago
  If they should have the right to unionize, then someone needs to enforce that right. Or the company with far more power (Starbucks) will retaliate so hard that the right, in practice, does not exist. I thought this country was about protecting rights. I’m not interested in living in a society where companies with vast amounts of power can do whatever they want to make money. The incentives are nearly completely unaligned with human flourishing, and you don’t need to look far to see that.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > If they should have the right to unionize, then someone needs to enforce that right. The government isn't prohibiting them from forming a union and there are existing laws against companies retaliating through violence. If the company isn't retaliating with violence, isn't the union supposed to be the thing that protects them? Why don't they just get together and go on strike? And if the answer is that the union has no power because they're unskilled labor and can be easily replaced, it seems like that's your real problem. What good is forming a union which is just going to go on strike and get permanently replaced by other workers?
    - Osmose 3y ago
      Because they can't form a union in the first place due to union busting tactics like compulsory meetings that talk about how unions are bad, hiring consultants that spread fear and misinformation, or just threatening your livelihood by firing you for even attempting to form one. There's a power imbalance—enforcement exists to help balance the scales so that an efficient negotiation between workers and the company can happen.

sheepscreek 3y ago

Last time I checked, we got here from colonial oppression and anarchy. Here’s the reality: this isn’t about corporations. It’s about the people that work there and protecting their rights. The small person vs. a trillion dollar corporation. How do you even begin to tip the balance right? What is keeping the workers from being oppressed by the desires of those running the corporation? (aka executives earning fat paycheques and the shareholders) The blue collar/working class suffers from a double whammy - lack of education and resources (time/money). The ability to collectively bargain/negotiate with the corporations is a very small way towards that. I think it’s fair. Especially when you consider the execs have access to $2000/hr lawyers on company retainer and any other resource they need for negotiations.