BF2S Forums The Taft-Hartley Act

lol you act like spending money somehow forces someone to vote a certain way.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lol you act like spending money somehow forces someone to vote a certain way.

Well, enough of it does tend to force Congress members to vote a certain way.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If spending as they pleased subverted the will of the majority, yes.

The entire idea of a Republic (which we are) is to offset the will of the majority and not leave us at the mercy of the whims of the mob.

But our founders didn't like the concept of being ruled by special interests either.  James Madison worried about what he called "factionalism" among the populace, which we see in both the development of political parties and in the lobbies behind them.

....and Jefferson had a lot to say about big business as well...

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."  --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If spending as they pleased subverted the will of the majority, yes.

The entire idea of a Republic (which we are) is to offset the will of the majority and not leave us at the mercy of the whims of the mob.

But our founders didn't like the concept of being ruled by special interests either.  James Madison worried about what he called "factionalism" among the populace, which we see in both the development of political parties and in the lobbies behind them.

....and Jefferson had a lot to say about big business as well...

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."  --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

"Madasonian Dilemna"


tyranny of the majority (federalism) vs tyranny of the minority (states rights)

Turquoise wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But our founders didn't like the concept of being ruled by special interests either.  James Madison worried about what he called "factionalism" among the populace, which we see in both the development of political parties and in the lobbies behind them.

....and Jefferson had a lot to say about big business as well...

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."  --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

"Madasonian Dilemna"


tyranny of the majority (federalism) vs tyranny of the minority (states rights)

Pretty much...  It's kind of weird, because if you look at human history overall, most ruling has been done by the minority, not the majority.

You would think that the Founders would actually have been more wary of ruling done by aristocracy than of the problems of mob rule, because England was much more aristocratic than America back then.

Articles of Confederation.

Turquoise wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But our founders didn't like the concept of being ruled by special interests either.  James Madison worried about what he called "factionalism" among the populace, which we see in both the development of political parties and in the lobbies behind them.

....and Jefferson had a lot to say about big business as well...

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."  --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

"Madasonian Dilemna"


tyranny of the majority (federalism) vs tyranny of the minority (states rights)

Pretty much...  It's kind of weird, because if you look at human history overall, most ruling has been done by the minority, not the majority.

You would think that the Founders would actually have been more wary of ruling done by aristocracy than of the problems of mob rule, because England was much more aristocratic than America back then.

They were aristocrats themselves and had far more in common with the English gentry they ascribed to be than with your average hired farmhand.

Besides, mob rule should absolutely terrify you.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much...  It's kind of weird, because if you look at human history overall, most ruling has been done by the minority, not the majority.

You would think that the Founders would actually have been more wary of ruling done by aristocracy than of the problems of mob rule, because England was much more aristocratic than America back then.

They were aristocrats themselves and had far more in common with the English gentry they ascribed to be than with your average hired farmhand.

Besides, mob rule should absolutely terrify you.

Nope.  Mob rule scares me far less than feudalism, plutocracy, communism, and crony capitalism.

Ahh, well, 4/4 derive from giving too much power to the government.

Since when can unions not donate to federal campaigns? They do it all the time. And they endorse political candidates--without a vote of the membership to do so.

Right to work laws? What's wrong with them? Are you saying it's OK to force people to join unions in order for them to work? Right to work laws don't outlaw unions, they simply state that you can't require union membership in order to be employed somewhere.

Now, some of the aspects of the law in the OP are nonsensical (signing non-communist affidavits and whatnot), but most of it makes perfect sense.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ahh, well, 4/4 derive from giving too much power to the government.

Plutocracy and Crony Capitalism mostly derive from the power of corporations over government.

Newp. If the government stayed out of the market, neither could flourish. The businesses would be wholly at the mercy of the market.

...and the masses would be fully at the mercy of corporations.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Plutocracy and Crony Capitalism mostly derive from the power of corporations over government.

Newp. If the government stayed out of the market, neither could flourish. The businesses would be wholly at the mercy of the market.

...and the masses would be fully at the mercy of corporations.

You have this misguided belief that corporations exist solely to screw people over. They aren't some monolithic entity devoid of rational thought, they're nothing more than groups of humans with a common goal. Yes, there are bad people in the world, but at the same time there are plenty of good people. The goal of any corporation is to make a profit, and doing so requires maintaining good PR among many other things. A company can not screw over its customers indefinitely without facing stiff consequences. In fact, they deal with on an every day basis what you define as your personal goal, the will of the people, or democracy in action. Government intervention does nothing more than limit competition by picking the winners and losers and by shielding the corporations you despise from the repercussions they would face in a truly open market if they made poor decisions. One good example? After the Exxon-Valdez mishap in Alaska, people across the country and world staged boycotts of Exxon gas stations. This cost the company billions of dollars in sales. Their response? They spent billions of dollars cleaning up the shores of Alaska while simultaneously putting out a staggering amount of publicity photos and videos of birds being cleaned. The government didn't have to put a gun to their head and force them to do this, it was necessary positive PR that saved their business in the long run. It's why British Petroleum changed its name to Beyond Petroleum, they're trying to make themselves appear more eco-friendly. The only place where democracy exists is within an unadulterated free market.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

...and the masses would be fully at the mercy of corporations.

You have this misguided belief that corporations exist solely to screw people over. They aren't some monolithic entity devoid of rational thought, they're nothing more than groups of humans with a common goal. Yes, there are bad people in the world, but at the same time there are plenty of good people. The goal of any corporation is to make a profit, and doing so requires maintaining good PR among many other things. A company can not screw over its customers indefinitely without facing stiff consequences. In fact, they deal with on an every day basis what you define as your personal goal, the will of the people, or democracy in action. Government intervention does nothing more than limit competition by picking the winners and losers and by shielding the corporations you despise from the repercussions they would face in a truly open market if they made poor decisions. One good example? After the Exxon-Valdez mishap in Alaska, people across the country and world staged boycotts of Exxon gas stations. This cost the company billions of dollars in sales. Their response? They spent billions of dollars cleaning up the shores of Alaska while simultaneously putting out a staggering amount of publicity photos and videos of birds being cleaned. The government didn't have to put a gun to their head and force them to do this, it was necessary positive PR that saved their business in the long run. It's why British Petroleum changed its name to Beyond Petroleum, they're trying to make themselves appear more eco-friendly. The only place where democracy exists is within an unadulterated free market.

...and you have a misguided belief in the proactiveness and intelligence of the general public....

Hardly. I think the average person is a moron. I just don't believe that it's anyones job to protect people from themselves.

Turquoise wrote:

I think if you give corporations free reign, competition dwindles, people get fucked, and the overall quality of life starts to suffer.

It's not that different from what's happening now.

Please cite specific examples about how the 'evil corporations' have negatively impacted your quality of life.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think if you give corporations free reign, competition dwindles, people get fucked, and the overall quality of life starts to suffer.

It's not that different from what's happening now.

Please cite specific examples about how the 'evil corporations' have negatively impacted your quality of life.

Consumer choice...

In the American market, telecoms are a good example.

While it is nice that we haven't yet had to deal with bandwidth caps to the same degree as a lot of other countries, most midsize or smaller cities have only 1 or 2 real options for decent broadband.  In my case, we have Time Warner and AT&T.  AT&T blows because the DSL here is just shit, so Time Warner is really the only decent option.   Because of that, I pay a good amount more than a lot of other areas for the same service.

With cell phone service, there are often effective monopolies for local areas.  I say effective, because some companies manage to buy up the towers in a given area and then charge exorbitant rates to competitors, since there's no other way for competition to exist than to lease from the owners of the infrastructure.  Verizon has had a lot of fun with this in New York markets.

Verizon (via NYNEX) built and operates/maintains the towers. I know this because my dad installed many of their radio towers for them in the 80s. I have a nice picture of myself on top of the WTC as a child right next to the giant radio tower that he helped design and build. Granted, the system was originally designed with car phones in mind but they adapted it to cell phone service over time. So, why should they not profit off of infrastructure they built themselves?

Do you not have 3G coverage in your area? Is there no option for satellite broadband? Do you live in a densely populated area or do you live in the sticks where the cost of installing infrastructure would outweigh the benefit for the company providing the service? What would be a competition level that you would be more comfortable with? How many companies do you think should compete for your business? If you have a real issue with it, and think that better service in your area is warranted, why haven't you formed your own telecom company to compete with TWC?

I don't share your problems as I live in the most densely populated part of the country and have many options for my internet and phone services. Perhaps if you're worried about competition in your area, you should move to a part of the country where it's economically viable to compete.