part 2 re anarchy, laws, right and wrong

I must preface by saying if one believes as my "there is no truth" friend, then one likely also holds to the corollary of that theory which suggests there is no right or wrong--your wrong may be my right. In that case, there is no point in the discussion.

Once upon a time I was a member of a union. I thought it would help my plight with the racist, sexist phone company in Miami, heavily dominated by Cuban women and duplicitous managers of all shades. In reality, the well meaning union reps' hands were tied. The contract consisted mostly of guarantees for union management, provisions for offices, etc.

If you had a legitimate grievance, the first review to see if it could be acted upon was before a small board of 3, 2 of which were the people against whom you filed the grievance. There were further tedious, time consuming procedures which were very difficult to implement. Mostly the game was, pay dues, and let the union bosses thrive under a guaranteed tenure.

Not all of them are quite like that. I finally just left. If they didn't want me there and wanted to ignore good work while harassing me, my free market beliefs directed me to remove my services. The whole thing got rolling due to an incompetent co-worker who was in my training class. We were being sent to the same section at the end. He, one of few males in the place, was Cuban, so he would go up after class to kiss up in spanish. He gave reports on me that were untrue. A Black girl and I were the top of the class, but she was much faster at things. He was the class idiot. He claimed I was not getting it and he was trying to help me out.

Shameless, but he was of the preferred race and that set the stage. Unfortunately, Zena, my classroom pal, the black lady, went to another section. But this has little to do with anything.

What does have to do with anything is that it has become beneficial to many politicians to suspend normal rules for union behavior. Coupled with that is the effort to force people and companies to be unionized against their will. In public service (tax paid) jobs that means you have no choice but to pay dues to the outfit which then lobbies Congress and contributes to campaigns favorable to extending their power and wealth. Not many union bosses on food stamps.

To me that is a bit of a scam on taxpayers. That is where the money originates. This has become a major force in elections. And the tactics on the street are not always pretty. No one even blinks at union violence or destruction of property when they want to get their way.

Of course, I'd disallow any government contractor from direct lobbying. But, that would imply a free market approach to necessary government contracts. That doesn't always mean award the lowest bidder. As in real life, the best approach is to settle on what works best for the duration of the need.

Anyway, I know some people worship unions and turn a blind eye to this power structure. They beg the question; "what about xyz, etc.."

My argument is for choice, and for union members using their own personal money if they want to campaign for Chuck Schumer or some such crook. I've seen signs that say the International Brotherhood of Firefighters--or whatever it is called support a particular candidate, and that the ad is paid for by them. I'm thinking, "What if I was in that union and did not support that person?. My dues go to his campaign against my will, and that has nothing to do with the alleged purpose of this organization."

The fact that all is paid by the pubic under the guise of having people around to put out fires leads me to believe that this is a far cry from government services and agencies being under the will of the people.

But, that is why I think laws governing government need to strictly limit the scope of authority. The Constitution is supposed to do that but, like in the case of the union loop (union pays to campaign, politician kicks back laws and regulations to promote union which gets richer and more powerful and puts more people in office---etc). It goes on elsewhere too, I understand that, but this scheme may be about as powerful or moreso than any of them. They also push and cajole their people to vote a certain way. Sheeple welcome, all others Beware!

The healthcare thing is much less about health than it is a forfeiture of power by the citizenry. Or, in other words, a power grab by the federal government, particularly the executive branch. I still wonder why Congress and the president are exempt.
So many convoluted, unrelated little tidbits in that mammoth bill. Well, it bothered me when I heard Huxley, or one of them, predict that people would end up not only marching willingly into a type of slave state, but that they'd actually ask for it. He was right.

Whether this is evolution or design, I am not sure. It is such a subtle process that involves emotion and psychology that there seems no way to stop it. Considering the fact that people on every strata of power do, and have done, great harm to others, there is always a way to avoid the subject and point to past transgressions of one sort or another, then claim the new bold tyrannical move will fix it. But it doesn't seem to do anything but further limit freedom and mobility. That growth of that syndrome accelerated exponentially since the inception of TSA and Homeland security.

I'm all for defense and squashing the bad guys, but not for reverting to a condition of existing by permission of the state rather than vice versa. Never sure whether visa versa or vice versa is more correct.

Lots of people are short sighted idiots, or lack the nature not to steal and cheat if they can by with it, so I am not for no law whatsoever. I do think something is wrong when police culture is generally one of an "us against them" mentality, where the world of non-cops is seen as the enemy, or the prey. That is the fault of the way the system and laws have been constructed.

I've often been on the receiving end of great disdain when I suggest a distaste for the over-regulated nature of things, and the boot-on-your-neck nature of current governments. The compulsive devil's advocates always pretend I'm for chaos and anarchy. I almost am for the latter, but not quite. That is like me pretending that they are for central control of all industry, resources, personal choices, everything. Ooops. I guess some people actually are. Odd that the one extreme sounds more radical than the other.