I'm glad to see you haven't changed your stance on calling child labor, sweatshops, and violence enrichment because I continue to feel vindicated for my perception of you as a complete subhuman scumbag.

An understanding of Common sense basic economics and your strawman make me a subhuman scumbag? interesting opinion, leech.

you're implying that his work does nothing to enrich the lives of others or that forced pay to support something like say law enforcement is inherently worse than voluntary pay for something like hookers

Just because you call your insanity common sense doesn't make it so.

He very well may enrich the lives of some people in an extremely inefficient and costly way that is funded by coercion. I didn't say otherwise.

I found it rather enlightening and thought it was important to highlight. His staunch opposition to voluntary trade and basic economics is even funnier now and makes a lot more sense.
He accuses others of putting greed above freedom and human dignity, when hes actually the one looking to cash in at the involuntary expense of others.

As I said before, if my services were being rendered to involuntary beneficiaries they would vote for politicians that would disrupt those services. I see you have absolutely no understanding of democracy to go with your complete lack of understanding of economics.

This is fallacious. The mere fact that a policy still exists does not necessarily make it good policy.

There are many concerns that voters have and they have few options. They cannot vote on every issue. They also are not necessarily aware of everything bad that is going on in government.
Clearly not even you understand how public unions are inefficient and troublesome, and you are intimately involved in it.

Voting out politicians that support bad economic policies is especially difficult when we are competing against armies of bureaucrats and their friends and families who have a far greater economic interest in keeping specific programs running.
Your votes and the money you make off the public is being used to promote politicians that send even greater benefits and protections to yourself at their expense.
A small time marxist getting a massive pension 30 years from now is not necessarily at the top of the list for most people, yet for you its likely issue number one and you aren't afraid to lie, insult and slander your way around the debate to protect it.
Nevertheless it remains bad for the public, incredibly inefficient and lacking beneficial market competition whether a current politician supports it or not.

I already explained how the costs are kicked down the road to avoid immediate political backlash.


You can also see in recent years there IS a considerable public backlash against public unions and the debt they inflict.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 29 2014 04:29pm

Public unions are not inefficient, that's just idiotic, they exist to represent their members. That's what they do and because they bargain against you is the only reason you as a taxpayer paying the salaries don't like them. You don't advocate for universal rights, only rights you see as convenient to you. That's a big part of why you're such a joke.
There is a campaign waged against all unions by the wealthy class who have to bargain against them, and by the ignorant fools like you who eat up their bullshit thinking that you have any chance in hell of being billionaires one day or are 13 years old and never had a real job in their life. A union is an organization of people associating to advocate for their own benefit and is protected under the first amendment. You hate unions, you hate freedom, period.

The fuck if it isn't. Do you need a rundown on the differences between de jure and de facto? Try getting elected to a school board without the blessing of a teacher's union.



You really ought to explain to me how we as a society ought to allow ourselves to be extorted. How did public employees ever get by before 1959? Did the unscrupulous robber baroning public keep them down with slave wages and deadly work environments?



I have a right to free association. A public servant has no right to extort the public for their personal gain.

They are inefficient economically overall. A broken window fallacy.
That which is enriching for you personally or for a union leader is not necessarily efficient for everyone else.



I just laid out a long list of reasons explaining how they are bad for the public.

yes the government bargaining with my money against my interests is a reason I oppose what they do.


Fabrication+insult. well done.



Oh good more fallacies, sophomoric insults, and a point I already debunked.

I support the freedom of private citizens to keep their hard earned fruits of their own labor. I do not support your "freedom" to steal it or your "freedom" to rack up debt in my name to pay for your luxuries.
I also support allowing public employees to not be forced into public unions who take their money to perpetuate their infestations against his will.

Do you not understand that it is you who wants special rights, privileges and subsidies from the government at the expense of others?