They are not forced to pay dues as the free market provides plenty of jobs where dues are not required.
Jeb Bush vs Hillary
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
- Status
They are not forced to pay dues as the free market provides plenty of jobs where dues are not required.
We pay income tax without buying anything. Are you baffled or confused by why there is an income tax?
You have to pay property tax for fire departments whether or not your house ever catches fire, as well as for police whether you ever call them or not, tax for local schools whether you have children or not, taxes for the road whether you drive or not. Are you baffled by all these too? Or do you accept that people have to pay for things they don't use all the time for the common good.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Arguing in favor of mandatory union dues by likening them to taxes does nothing to help the case that unions whose dues are mandatory on non-members are elements of the free market. It reinfroces that such unions are but manifestations of the State.
I do not accept any duty for anyone to pay for things that they do not choose to use, except when it is to compensate others for harm that they themselves cause.
It is just to have to pay taxes on the unimproved market value of land (in its economic sense, including all natural resources which would exist even without human labor) that you monopolize, to compensate other members of the community for the privilege of excluding them from equal access to the bounty of nature. It is just to pay Pigouvian taxes on pollution, to compensate others for the externalities of said pollution. Such taxes alone are able to provide more than sufficient revenue to cover the costs of all the services that government has any business providing.
Other taxes are inherently immoral, whether we are forced to pay them to the State or to a union.
Of course, unions should not be presumed to represent any workers who do not choose to be dues-paying members. Those who choose not to join the union for collecting bargaining should be left to bargain on their own, not getting the same benefits like healthcare. Unions are at their best when they work primarily as friendly societies in which members cooperate to provide service to each other, rather than merely as an intermediary between employers and employees.
I do not accept any duty for anyone to pay for things that they do not choose to use, except when it is to compensate others for harm that they themselves cause.
It is just to have to pay taxes on the unimproved market value of land (in its economic sense, including all natural resources which would exist even without human labor) that you monopolize, to compensate other members of the community for the privilege of excluding them from equal access to the bounty of nature. It is just to pay Pigouvian taxes on pollution, to compensate others for the externalities of said pollution. Such taxes alone are able to provide more than sufficient revenue to cover the costs of all the services that government has any business providing.
Other taxes are inherently immoral, whether we are forced to pay them to the State or to a union.
Of course, unions should not be presumed to represent any workers who do not choose to be dues-paying members. Those who choose not to join the union for collecting bargaining should be left to bargain on their own, not getting the same benefits like healthcare. Unions are at their best when they work primarily as friendly societies in which members cooperate to provide service to each other, rather than merely as an intermediary between employers and employees.
I agree. However, I was not arguing in favor of labour union dues. Nor was I likening them to the free market. I was honestly asking if Katzilla did not see the communal benefit of mandatory dues. I was also probing whether he was opposed to the concept of taxes with communal benefits. It seems like you are opposed to them. Is that correct?
I disagree. The fact that both use the communal benefit through mandatory contribution system does not mean that Unions are run by the State. It just means that the system is an effective way of running/funding institutions.
This is fair, of course, but Labour Unions would collapse under such a system.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
So you admit it is fair for Labour Unions to collapse?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Without unions the workers suffer - it's too easy to take advantage of them. Mind you I think a lot of unions are too bloated and have grown beyond being just useful, but that doesn't change that they're needed in some capacity.
You just responded to my question with a question. Answer my question and I'll be happy to answer yours.
It is interesting that people that are so in favor of propping up communal capital want to destroy communal labor to stand up to it.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,410
<nvm>
I am baffled by all taxes where commerce doesn't occur.
Can I tax people for being fat?
How about for being a smoker?
Is there anything wrong with taxing people for not owning a gun?
Thanks to Obamacare, this last one is coming with the next Republican president.
There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves.
Why not let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.
Isn’t that reasonable?
Not that owning a gun would be mandatory. People could opt out and just pay the tax. It's only fair.
Does anyone actually own their property if it can be taken away without yearly tax payments on it?
Taxes are a necessary evil I'll admit. But they're still evil.
I was deeply alarmed when Congress wanted to tax windfalls 100%.
In the end, I'll admit the US started out from where I think it had a better system and then evolved from there.
So going backwards makes no sense because the same will happen again.
So I mostly grumble and keep an eye out for the next crazy tax mostly.
There is a tax on cigarettes, and all tobacco IIRC... We also tax fast food, candy and soft drinks, so I guess the answer to your question is yes and yes.
If we do away with taxpayer funding for police then wealthy towns who don't have much crime will easily pay for minimal police forces, while poor towns with higher crime will just opt out because they cant afford police. Will that work? Or will the people in the poor towns with no police start to endanger the rich towns with tiny police forces?
And if the tiny rich police become overwhelmed, then what? The rich towns ante up for more police to "protect their borders" right? They would have to right? But of course then you've created a sort of walled-city system where there the rich are basically prisoners surrounded by the lawless poor towns around them. They cant leave their town because their local police only protect them until they get outside the "wall." That system seems dysfunctional. I would say since the rich have to pay for the police anyway they are better served by giving the money to the state so that the state can fund adequate police forces all over the state.
And that principle applies to just about everything where taxes are involved.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,410
Oh, the rich could probably afford really big police forces, if we'd stop taxing them half to death.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
And you have in fact mentioned a mostly crazy tax. Well done.
Gun owners make everyone less safe, including themselves. If there is a justifiable tax here it would be on the gun owners, but I'm not in favor of that.
One of the first acts of Congress mandated gun ownership.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I've been a Union Steward for 20 years. I accept that as fair in certain circumstances.
J
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Most bosses know that an happy worker is a productive one, so they know that if they treat their workers fairly that the workers shouldn't complain.
Welp, there goes Dr. Ben Carson.
@1:10 you can hear his presidential chances implode.
Link to video.
@1:10 you can hear his presidential chances implode.
Link to video.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
He had presidential chances? How?
Well, he was a rich white ivy league educated 6ft tall male between the ages of 45 to 70 who has previously been a governor/senator/vice president, but then he made a dumb statement so now he's done.
What homosexual act would Carson choose if we put him in prison?
- Status
Similar threads
