That would be illegal and so within the exception I set out above.
It’s really sad that liberals have such a fundamental misunderstanding about money and what it represents. Several of their major malfunctions would be remedied by properly viewing money as representing value provided to someone instead of just filthy luchre or whatever.
No Objectivist or Libertarian should rely so ontologically on the authority of the law as such; your political position presumes its injustice in many respects.
Anything non-criminal somebody will pay you for counts as “doing good”? No, sir, that does not define nor satisfy “doing good,” not unless you amend it significantly – at the very least, to exclude any and all rent-seeking behavior, speculation, and any economic activity of which the social costs/burdens significantly outweigh the benefits.
It isn’t money itself that is evil, Rand. Its the love of money that is evil. I got that in Sunday School. Held up pretty well, over the years.
I think it is you who has missed the very obvious point. Post CU corporations can contribute more money. They will just donate MORE money to both parties. Big corporations are not nearly as interested in buying elections as they are in buying political favors from politicians. Again…see “Crony Capitalism” for the long version of this answer.
Sure, as long as the Democrats are led by the Clintonistas, devoted to being Republican Lite. As it stands, all of one political party is in thrall to Money, and about half of the other.
Didn’t California just vote to reign in “government” union pensions because they have become to expensive for the taxpayers to fund?
I’m of two minds about this.
I used to be a teacher…poorly paid and even that poor salary falling after adjusting for inflation (which is why I left teaching). My health benefits sucked and there was no other benefits at all (except for a ‘retirement’ plan where there was no employer contribution and the contributions by the teachers had hamstrings on it making it uncompetitive to just going to Schwab and opening an IRA). Every year any negotiations would be subject to en ‘emergency measure’ and stripped away so we didn’t even bother negotiating after awhile. Every year was an ‘emergency budget’. :rollseyes:
That being said, this isn’t just about teachers. It’s about government workers. A few years ago, in MN, we had a ‘strike’ by government workers because…GASP…they might have to have a copay on medical visits! THE HORROR!!!
Completely out of touch with reality.
Government jobs/organizations are among the most flagrantly racist and sexist institutions out there in terms of hiring and promoting. It is good, maybe, for them to have to cut back on salary and bennies.
Like I said, two minds. However, if I was in a position to influence how things go, I would favor the unions. They have been screwed over pretty bad over the last 40-50 years.
I think you should read up on externalities.
Wait… so, if assassination were legal, murdering people for money would be a good thing?
I would think so, unless you want to draw some distinction between assassination and murder. I think of ‘assassination’ as politically motivated, rather than your typical murder for profit or as a result of a domestic dispute, but YMMV.
You don’t believe in absolute morality. You cannot say that making money is good. Liberals aren’t wrong about the morality of making money–they can’t be by your own world view.
I would appreciate it if you’d stop going around telling people things you yourself don’t believe.
Unions organise arbitrations between workers and employers, provide legal representation, negotiate wages (and campaign for unemployment benefits and living wages), educate workers (through the Harvard Trade Union Program), campaign for healthcare reform and immigration rights.
Edit: This is in the US alone, disregarding third world countries and those with Ghent systems.
Just world hypothesis.
The job of a pundit is the same as the color commentator/analyst assisting the play-by-play announcer during baseball games. Their job is to make the game sound more intersting. Some pundits have strong personal opinions while others try to stick to the facts and possibilities.
The WIS recall election proved that if the major political parties and their various supporters, PACs, unions, etc annoy enough voters, those voters will turn out in droves to cast their vote.
It seems that every major, over the top, “turn-out-the-vote” campaign does increase the number of voters. On BOTH sides of the issue. No matter how many voters the progressive Democrats were able to draw to the polls, the conservative Republicans were able to draw more.
Did these voters turn out because they endorsed Walkers efforts? Maybe. Did they turn out because they really disliked how the recall supporters were acting? Maybe. Did they turn out because they didn’t believe that Walker had done anything illegal and recalls should only be used if the sitting Govenor had actually broken the law? Maybe. Some pundits don’t care why the voters actually did what they did but only want to express their views of how stupidly the voters acted. Their choice. I can always watch a different media outlet. NBC/MSNBC put a lot of effort into getting Walker recalled and then getting Mayor What’s His Name elected. NBC/MSNBC’s credibility was the biggest loser of the night. They can’t get anyone else elected either.
The WIS recall did show that Obama won’t or can’t publically support the voters who support him. I guess he can’t take the chance of alienating or aggrivating the voters in a possible swing State. His track record of his endorsement getting another Democrat elected is almost zero.
Would a campaign effort by Obama insured Walkers recall? Probably. Would an Obama effort have cost Obama the State’s Electoral College votes in November? Probably.
The bottomline is that the tactics and message (lack of message?) used by the unions/Democrats to failed to achive their desired results. Will they continue to use the same tactics or find something that actually works.
Here’s something I’ve been wondering:
It’s clear that most people voted for Walker because they thought a recall shouldn’t have happened, not because of political affiliation. Was this by any chance the message that Walker’s supporters were using? Because it would seem to be the perfect way to take the focus off all the immoral and possibly illegal things Walker did by making the recall not about him.
If so, it would then seem that money can make people vote against their own political leanings if you frame the situation correctly
Rational wiki would be so much better if they’d elevate the tone. Then I could actually link people to it.
That is not clear. It is what you want to believe. That doesn’t make it fact. Even if you really, really think it is.
OTOH, RationalWiki is a whole lot funnier than Wikipedia! 
And dares to say a whole lot of valuable things that really need to be said, but wouldn’t pass the neutral point of view test. Remember, “fair and balanced” is usually a fallacy or a lie covering blatant bias.
Nothing in politics is permanent. I would agree that for now, at least, unions are again taking it on the chin, as they should. Not that things have been so great for unions since the PATCO strike.
Actually, it’s only partly because of politics; it’s mainly because the American economy has been shifting for 30 or 40 years now to sectors not so amenable to unionization; while those sectors that are have been offshored to third-world countries where labor unions are barely or not at all tolerated. Check out [The Work of Nations,](work of nations reich) by Robert Reich (1991).