From: bam@tripodics.com Subject: Democracy or Anarchy - both are better than tyranny. Date: February 26, 2011 10:44:22 PM EST To: bam@tripodics.com Wisconsin, Libya, Indiana, Egypt, Bahrain, et. Each presents a few choices as alternative to the status quo. The possible choices are: -- Tyranny (soft or hard) with authoritarian rule -- where the ruler suppresses dissent. No limits to power, -- Democratic republic -- where the people freely decide who governs, and the ruler's powers are limited. -- Anarchy -- where nobody rules (and violence wins). N.B.: Anarchy is not a durable status; therefore, the outcome will be T or D or somewhere between. Libya: Status quo = Tyranny (hard) with authoritarian monarch; one-party rule. (No real limits to power.) Possible outcomes: restoration of the monarch -- unlikely. temporary anarchy, followed by another monarch. temporary anarchy, followed by rule by religious authorities. democracy? -- very unlikely (given the history of the nation). Egypt: Status quo ante = Tyranny (semi-soft) with authoritarian, one-party rule. (No real limits to power.) (Previous monarchs: King Faroukh, Nasser, Sadat, Mubarrak, etc.) Status quo = Army rule (and temporary anarchy) Possible future status: restoration of the current monarch -- NO. installation of a new monarch -- (Nasser, Sadat, Mubarrak, etc.) -- quite possible creation of a new autocracy -- quite possible temporary anarchy, followed by rule by religious authorities. democracy? -- unlikely Wisconsin: Status quo ante = Democratically elected government. Constitutionally limited powers. "Protesters": Those clinging to power, resisting overthrow by democratic process. 1. Government workers - trying to preserve their protected jobs, higher pay, benefits, power, status, etc. 2. Union leaders (& outside supporters from other states) - trying to preserve forced dues, monopoly bargaining rights, imposition of costly "work rules" Possible future status: restoration of the democratically-elected government. OR toppling of the democratically-elected government (in favor of the protesters who occupy the capitol). Unlike Egypt, etc. those who occupy the capitol ARE the ones in power. They oppose the will of the people, as expressed in the November elections. Like Gaddafi, they vow to hold on to power, regardless of the will of the electorate. (Also like Gaddafi, some of them also threaten violence if anyone tries to take away their power.) ------------- Unions are exempt from anti-trust laws that prevent collusion between suppliers, e.g. price-fixing, withholding goods & services to create shortages, etc. When a union bargains with as corporation, the corp. loses its OWN money for every concession, and if it gives away too much, it can lose investors, lose market share, or go out of business. Governments can't lose "investors" (i.e all citizens are coerced into paying). Governments can't lose "market share" (i.e citizens can't shop elsewhere for govt-monopoly services). Governments don't lose their OWN money (it's other people's money). Governments don't "go out of buisiness". Unlike unions bargaining with corporations, the "public" unions Often, the unions occupy "both sides of the table"! e.g. on Long Island, most school boards are dominated by union-supported members (and some actually have union leaders sitting and voting). ---- And govt workers are captive pawns. They must join the union and they can't bargain for themselves. They can't reject the union or choose a different bargaining agent. And many cannot go elsewhere to find employment (since the government has a monopoly on certain kinds of work). Yet, the unions control work rules, featherbedding, seniority privileges, LIFO layoffs, etc. ---- February 28, 2011 Dear C4L Member, Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. For too long, that is the game public sector unions have played with tax-payers. You see, monopoly bargaining rights and forced union dues allow union bosses to elect the politicians who negotiate their compensation packages. This rigged game has led to public employee benefit packages and pensions that are bankrupting state after state across the nation. But now, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin is fighting back on behalf of the tax-payers, and the public unions have raised their attacks to DEFCON level 1. Governor Walker's proposal to eliminate monopoly bargaining rights and forced union dues in an effort to balance Wisconsin's budget has incited massive opposition by the left. Democrats in the State Senate fled the state in a cowardly maneuver to block a vote on this legislation by denying the Republican Majority a quorum. Radical leftists and public employee unions are storming the streets in protest to protect the very policies that have drained state treasuries and crushed taxpayers with oppressive taxation. The "protests" have featured incendiary rhetoric and hateful imagery, although you won't hear about these uncivil acts in the "mainstream" media, as the left and public unions have deemed Wisconsin a hill to die on. They know that if Governor Walker holds firm in Wisconsin, other Governors will be emboldened to rollback forced unionism and monopoly bargaining, breaking the public union stranglehold over state governments. Recently, I sat down with National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix to discuss worker freedom and the dangers of monopoly bargaining and forced union dues. I hope you'll take a few moments to watch the video to better understand the stakes of the fight in Wisconsin. And please, sign our statement of support for Governor Walker to hold strong in the fight for worker freedom and to restore fiscal sanity to his state budget.