Unions like government prioritize what ever the vocal, loudest, and most organized minority of the group wants prioritized, this will not align with all members, and rarely even aligns with what the majority of members desire
Trade unions and Employment unions are very different.
That said, i suspect the parent story was from years ago, most likely late 90's or early 00's when that type of thing was common
Today most unions are very very very hard up to find anyone willing to work everyone that wants a job, and can actually follow instructions, and show up on time (harder than it sounds it seems) gets a job right now...
Simple. Did the management meet the various internal targets outlined by the board.. Those could be anything from profitability, to total cost structure, to anything really
That is not really true these days. for a Long time many cars have had small screens in the center of the dash and 4 way buttons to navigate into menus of the car to preform different tasks. These buttons are contextual to the menu they are in, and many even have double tap, hold, etc options with in the button response matrix.
Well then, that will only service to make the media the selector then, as who ever can get the most "free" media air time would win. What if I went all Bezo's and bought a newspaper or TV Station... What about the corporations that own those networks, Does every time they talk favorably about Biden count as a Campaign Ad?
I dont see how you can achieve that while maintaining a support free expression, unless of course you do not care about free speech?
>>Applied to human politics in the real world, 70% of the population can't benefit from harming the other 30% - there's not enough "meat" to go around. But 1% can benefit greatly from harming 99%. So in practice, democratic accountability puts bounds on how shitty governments can get.
I think we are seeing today that is not true. You seem to be under the same false narrative that the rich do not "pay their fair share", and the poor pay more than their far share when in reality nationally more than 50% of the population pays zero income tax, and 60-70% get more direct government transfer payments than they pay into the system
The people have been continually voting for more and more government largess funded mainly by debt, and by continually moving the goal posts on what "fair share" is and who should be paying that "fair share"
>>Free speech is not a pesky barrier that democracy tries to get around.... And for the record: yes Canada and the EU have free speech. Maybe not as extremely guarded as America does, but it's still there.
Canada and the EU disprove your statement, when people are arrested / convicted because their dog raised a paw on video, or because someone was offended by a tweet or have compelled speech laws to force one person refer to another person based on their declared preference... you can not claim to have free speech. Sorry no the EU nor Canada has free speech today.
>>I'm not going to get involved in the gun debate aside from pointing out that guns are not a backstop against abuses of government power. You have a pistol, they have nuclear weapons.
I guess UKR should just give up to Russia then if that is your logic.
In reality you can not control a nation or its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones. The fighter jets can not kick down your door at 3AM to search your home... The military can not maintain a police state, and enslave a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening, glassing large area's.
The government would not want to kill all of this people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical in the first place.
Remember it took 20 years, 4 presidents, trillions of dollars, and plenty of tanks, jets, and military arms to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.... All the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal amounted to nothing.
So it is good you refrain from the gun debate as you would lose.
>While I'm not going to argue that paying tax is a moral imperative
not only is it not a moral imperative, Income based taxation is actively immoral and unethical.
Some types of Taxation could be ethical such as a Single Tax system on natural resources. Income based taxation should be viewed for what is it, theft of labor, something I assume you accuse the evil rich of doing
>>Whoever came up with "companies donating millions to politicians is free speech so nothing can be done to limit that" is either a massive idiot or extremely biased towards big money influencing elections.
So Elon Musk wants to spend millions on politics it is OK, but if I and 10,000 of my friends want to form a corporation to spend millions it is idiotic??
And if you want to Limit Elon how do you get around the 1st amendment ?
Is 2 wolves and lamb voting on what they will have for dinner. I have no desire to be ruled by the majority. If we had a a straightforward democratic system we would have no free speech, no gun rights, no rights at all really. We would be like Canada or the EU, I have no desire for that dystopia ( and yes I did call the EU and Canada a dystopia for which I am sure many will disagree)
I abhor collectivism, and systems of government designed to promote majoritarianism over the minority... and the smallest minority is the individual
I am not sure how that is different from today? Do you want all Reps to be "At Large" so instead of voting for 1 person, in CA would would vote for 54 people?
I am not sure that is tenable but an interesting concept.
I have always supported the Wyoming Rule, and supported taking congressional redistricting out of the hands of legislatures moving towards fixed allocation based on something non-political like zip codes.
On the Electoral College... 10000000% disagree. The President should absolutely not be elected by direct majority, that is taking the same mistake of the senate and making it for the president
First and foremost the office of president should be reduced in power, Congress and abdicated far too much power to the executive, that is what has made the Presidential election soo important, is should not be.
Secondly, I would be in favor of a change to the electoral process where by the votes are allocated proportional just like the house, instead of First Pass the Post like we do today, but I would Strongly Oppose just moving to a pure democracy system. That would effectively make many states have no vote in the election of the president and almost fully remove republicanism from the US system, if not completely put us on that path
Democracy tends to depend on Empire Building. The more democratic the US has become the more imperialist we have also become. This results in many of the problems we have were we look to nationalize more things to enable resources and power to be directed external.
Ryan Chapman has a great video on DEMOCRACY: From Antiquity to Modernity [1]
The filibuster rule is from a time when the Senate was selected by the States, not the people. It was designed as an effective State Veto.
It works for that purpose and in that context and IMO is good.
We should return the Senate to be the States representatives in congress, and the House is the People. Instead of having both the Senate and the House be popularly elected.
Return to more republican (i.e Republic not the party) style of governance, and less democratic, but I know that is heresy today where democracy is the new religion and people fail to learn the lesson of Athens
Where did I say anything about "absolute personal freedom"
I clearly outlined that my freedom (in this case my privacy and body autonomy) should be respected unless there is a reasonable and articulable individualized justification to preform a search (i.e drug screen) on the basis I am a danger to others
Your position is we assume everyone is on drugs and they have to prove they are not
My position is we use logic and reason to look at a situation, and if the reasonable suspicion someone may be under the influence then we make the accusation and attempt to collect evidence to prove that.
My position is one of rationality and respects freedom as much as possible while still keeping people safe
your position is authoritarian with no rationality to it at all
You believe your absurd statement is in any an analog to refusing drug screening?
You think the response to security theater, no security it all?
You think that is we do not do a daily drug screen on an employee that has no indication they are on any type of drug or alcohol is the same as "transmitting in cockney rhymes "
yes, Freedom, Personal autonomy, Privacy, and Innocence until proven guilty are all the "entirely the wrong outlook " and people holding that "wrong outlook" clearly can not be anywhere near "safety-critical areas"
that is just absurd, Safety Theater is basically what you are advocating for
Let me ask you this, do you think forcing me to remove my shoes is a "critical safety" process before boarding a plan, and that allowing someone to pay $100 to bypass that means it is secure?
People seem to believe other nations have freedom.. In reality when looking at it objectively Most nations lack a huge amount of core freedoms we in the US take for granted
This is why we need some version of Loser Pays law... Especially when there is a huge resource imbalance like a FB suing a lone dev.