View Topic

So, I’m just curious: what exactly does Berny Sanders’ “democratic socialism” mean? Gerrick’s first post in this thread said that Berny Sanders being first on the list “needs no explanation.” Why is that, and why is he a good candidate in your eyes? I don’t know anything about him, so I’ve got no idea what I think.

Pete Buttigieg has officially announced his candidacy today. Finally.

So, I’m just curious: what exactly does Berny Sanders’ “democratic socialism” mean? Gerrick’s first post in this thread said that Berny Sanders being first on the list “needs no explanation.” Why is that, and why is he a good candidate in your eyes? I don’t know anything about him, so I’ve got no idea what I think.

No, those are totally fair questions.

I take Bernie Sanders' "democratic socialism" to mean in most basic terms to decentralize power by taking it from the rich and powerful and putting it back in the hands of ordinary people.
So what does that mean? (and this list isn't necessarily exhaustive):
1. a strong welfare state -- the government takes care of its peoples' welfare with a livable minimum wage and subsidized education, housing, unemployment, etc.
2. redistribution of wealth -- the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor (and in fact the poorest may pay negative taxes) to recirculate the money into the economy and help the poor.
3. more regulations on large corporations -- stronger anti-trust laws, closing tax loopholes, penalties for price gouging, pollution, outsourcing, and other irresponsible/undesirable outcomes.
4. more democratic functions in government -- publicly-financed elections, no first-past-the-post voting, heavier restrictions on lobbying, no partisan gerrymandering, more referendums.
5. more democratic functions in business -- more employee ownership and worker co-ops and collectives.
6. strong labor unions -- workers have more power in collective bargaining with their employers for better pay, benefits, work conditions, etc.
7. public ownership of some industries -- like healthcare, energy, and mass transit but not consumer goods.
8. equality and justice for all regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., and working to correct past wrongdoings.

Bernie Sanders is my number one pick because he consistently pushes for these ideals. He hasn't "evolved" (flip-flopped) on these issues like many newer self-proclaimed progressives -- he's been saying the same thing for decades, and it's pretty much always about policy. And he's proven to have integrity -- he gets the large majority of his money from small donations and unions, not huge corporations or special interests like many others, so his loyalties lie with ordinary people and he's not beholden to the rich and powerful.

So he's the real deal -- he walks the talk. Not to say that none of the other candidates are good, but he's by far the best in my opinion.

It's probably important to note that the way current progressive American politicians such as Bernie Sanders have begun using the term "democratic socialism" is more accurately described as social democracy. It's a departure from the traditional/historical use of the term "democratic socialism" to describe a socialist state (that is, capitalism is abolished, means of production is publicly owned, economy is democratically managed or planned) that is politically democratic. In contrast, politicians such as Bernie advocate for a social democracy in which strong regulatory policies (Gerrick describes it quite well) exist, but still ultimately within a capitalist economic framework.

Of course, definitions do change over time, and none of this is to say that one of these ideologies is better or anything, but it is somewhat annoying that American politicians have taken to using an existing term to describe something completely different, especially when there's already a term for the thing they're describing.

Yeah, I always found it frustrating that Bernie uses the term democratic socialism rather than social democracy. I think he'd alienate more people just because it has the word "socialism" in it, which is immediately connected in many people's eyes to the USSR, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.

The only reason I could think for why he uses that term is that he actually does ascribe to the democratic socialist ideology but understands that there need to be more incremental changes before that can happen. And so he openly uses the term to try to cast socialism in a more positive light so that when people see his social democratic platform, they'll say, "Oh, that's what socialism is? That doesn't sound bad," and then maybe the country will move in that direction instead of further to the right as it's been going.

Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts announced his candidacy yesterday.

Tim Ryan is running to I think.

Forgive the essay, I will just reply to all the points Gerrick raised with my own thoughts.

1) I agree, I like Welfare States to an extent.

2) In the vast majority of cases, they already do. Lets not also forget that, in 2015, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $568 billion, or 39.04 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $428 billion, or 29.41 percent of all income taxes. About 5 percent of the country, the top 5 percent, pays for about 50 percent of the countries income taxes. Lets not also call them greedy money-grubbers not paying their fair share while they do it to. And welfare programs target the poor, not the rich, so is that's all you want you already got it though not to the level you want, I suspect. The way you phrase the issue is, forgive the term, problematic in my view. Also, let's not forget that the Government, while it does recirculate money into the economy, does also tend to do it in a manner that is inefficient and wasteful. Military spending projects come to mind, for example.

3) The general idea I support but I suspect I would have disagreements with specific implementations. The devil is in the details, after all.

4) I agree with no FPTP, more lobbying restrictions and less gerrymandering (though trying to get either party to agree to such a move, in my view, would be like trying to get the First and Second Estates in France in 1780 to agree to paying higher taxes). However, Referendums are a terrible way to govern and I think there should be less of them, not more. Ask the average British citizen what they think of Referendums now. Publicly financed elections, as well, no, I cannot support. Such a move would be handing the power of the purse to the people it is supposed to police. You think Gerrymandering is bad? Imagine if the Government also got to decide who got how much to run a political campaign.

5) Impossible in the modern age. Such a move will also be the death blow to the American business and industrial markets forever. Co-ops and things like that are typically inefficient and not competitive with corporations, especially foreign corporations who will not subscribe to such high minded ideals.

6) Labour unions are a relic of a bygone age. They died their death in the 1980's and resurrecting their cold dead carcass will make things worse, not better. Let me show you an example of what I mean. John Lewis and his coal miners strike increased things like wages for workers, yes, but is also adversely affected the entire country, turned public opinion against the miners, possibly resulted in deaths as power became unaffordable and, in a twist of irony, hurt more miners than it helped since it drove the country to alternate sources of energy years before it would have naturally happened, resulting in a loss of demand for coal. Unions, at their heart, are narrow special interest groups more than willing to sacrifice the good of the whole for the good of the very, very few. I fail to see why you would endorse such a tactic when there are better ways to protect the poor and workers in your own list without also allowing what basically amounts to mafias and cartels to rule the economy into the ground.

7) Again, in general I agree but I suspect in the specifics we would differ.

I would need to hear more specific examples of what you mean but I suspect I will disagree with the specifics, again.

It looks like Biden has finally announced his candidacy.

In response to North:
2. Income inequality
The fact that the top 0.1%/1% pay such a large portion of the total income taxes is evidence of just how ridiculously rich they are compared to the bottom 50%. And while in 2016 (the most recent I could find), the top 1% paid $538B in taxes compared to the bottom 50%'s $44B (about 12 times as much), they also earned $480,000-$2.1M each compared to the bottom 50%'s <$40,000 each (so at least 12-50 times as much), which I would hardly call the model for progressive taxation. Also look at the trends over 2001-2016: the top 10% earned about 4.5 points more of the total income while the bottom 50% earned about 3.5 points less, meaning that gap has widened by about 8 percentage points over just 15 years. And all of this is likely going to get much worse with the 2017 Trump tax cuts.

Anyway, less than half of tax revenue comes from income tax -- over a third come from payroll taxes, which disproportionately affect the bottom 90% as it only affects the first $130,000 earned (so those who earn more than that have an effectively lower tax rate). Payroll taxes are also only imposed on earned income, so those who make money from investing (largely the rich as the top 10% own 84% of all stocks) don't pay any of that. So while income tax may be slightly progressive, payroll taxes are very much regressive, so those income tax numbers are misleading.

I have said nothing about calling the rich greedy money-grubbers (and neither has Bernie) -- you can't really blame somebody for trying to pay as little they can in taxes to the government, but you can blame those who make the tax laws (who just so happen to often be those in the top 1%) as well as those who break tax laws.

And no, the welfare programs we currently have are not nearly to the level I'd like. And though the government isn't always the most efficient with money, that isn't a good reason for cutting taxes or making them less progressive as that would disproportionately affect the poor, the old, and the weak. And I'm all for significantly cutting down the military budget.

4. More democratic functions in government
Six states actually already have nonpartisan redistricting committees (blue: California, Washington, New Jersey, Hawaii; Red: Arizona, Idaho), so it's not impossible.

Referendums are a common sight in state and local politics: that's how marijuana became fully legalized in 10 states (plus DC). I'd actually be ok with federal referendums that required a 60/65% supermajority to be passed to prevent such division -- if a supermajority of citizens want a law passed, the federal government should not be standing in the way.

I don't understand how publicly-financed elections could be seen as bad if all candidates were held to the same standard. Here's what I mean, by the way: overturn Citizens United to ban PACs, give federal tax credits to those who donate (up to a certain amount) to political candidates during federal elections, and lower the cap on individual contributions to candidates -- using a voucher program could be a way to do this, but I figure tax credits are simpler.

5. More democratic functions in business
I don't know what you mean as co-ops are a thing in the US -- there are about 400 worker co-ops, and that doesn't include community co-ops that are partly owned by the workers. And I understand that huge multinational corporations won't be very democratic, but for small businesses (under 1500 employees) it's definitely possible to encourage more. And I'm not saying enforcing all companies to do this but rather implement tax credits for co-ops/collectives/etc. to make them more viable. I don't think that would be the death blow to the American business and industrial markets forever.

6. Strong labor unions
Labor unions are definitely not dead -- they've declined since the 80s (when they made up 20% of the workforce), but there are still 14.7 million union workers (about 10.5% of workers), and union members make up over 1/3 of public-sector workers. Unions have an approval rating of over 60%, and more people would rather they have more influence than less, so they're not unpopular but rather kept from thriving by deregulation, union busting, right-to-work laws, and the repression of new unions by employers.

I think your view of unions is as if it's 50-100 years ago. Unions work to protect its workers -- how is that sacrificing the many for the few? And large unions aren't mafias and cartels any more than large corporations are. Corruption needs to be rooted out wherever it is, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater -- more good comes out of unions than bad. I wish unions were not necessary, but sadly with how the working class is exploited by those in power, they need to work together to get fair wages. And the fact that union membership is tied to income inequality, of course I endorse unions to support workers. (P.S. I'd be in favor of banning union PACs if corporate PACs were also banned.)

Allow me to respond.

2. My problem is with your rhetoric. The problem is not rich people. It is corporations. But in your rhetoric, and the rhetoric of left wingers, you make no real distinction as far as I can see. You definitely cannot say that the current leading left wingers in America do not indulge in that dangerous rhetoric.

Yes, I agree, I do not like those specifics. That's not what you led with, is it? And my main concern was that your rhetoric made it sound like the problem is that rich people are not paying their fair share of the tax burden. Which I disagree with. The sentence of yours I was disputing is "the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor". That somewhat implies that is not already the case. Your rhetoric was the issue I had.

You will get no argument from me that the American Tax system is messy and should be reformed (hell, both parties agree, on principle, that reform is necessary, what that reform should be is the point of contention) though, again, I suspect we will disagree on what that reform should look like.

And my point about the inefficiency of government in the economy was not to suggest tax cuts but to respond to your point about the matter, specifically that taxes should be increased to recirculate more money into the economy.

4) And if I recall problems have already arisen about allegations of favoritism in a few of those states but I may be mistaken. Again, I do not disagree that Election Reform is good, I just think it is unlikely without enormous pressure on the politicians.

I dislike the idea of Referendums because, at that point, what is the use of representatives? My problem with referendums is that they very rapidly become a way for politicians to punt their responsibilities. The whole point of representatives is to make the decisions the people are both unwilling and unable to make. Giving them leave to punt the difficult decisions lets them off the hook to easily in my view.

As for publicly-funded elections, now we need to clarify terms. Clearly, what publicly-funded elections means to me and to you is different. What do you mean by publicly funded elections?

5. The fact that they require tax credits and incentives to grow implies that they cannot survive naturally which implies that they are inefficient which somewhat supports my hypothesis. And my point was not to stand against Bill, Bob and Henry starting a..I don't know, Brewery and running that as a co-op to sell beer to their local county, it was that attempting to take that model and impose it on the mulit-nationals would be a recipe for disaster.

6. The reason why Unions typically sacrifice the good of a few for the good of the many is that they cause their workers to get wages above what the market would naturally bear for their work. That cost, for artificially increasing their value (typically through actions more comparable to how cartels operate than anything else), is transferred to someone else, typically the poor and middle class as goods produced by unions are typically much higher in cost than alternatives. That is sacrificing what is good for many people for the good of the union members.

Union popularity is high now but if unions start taking the same actions that they took in the past that popularity will drop I suspect. And they will if you give them more power since the power unions want is typically incredibly totalitarian. Not being allowed raw materials from overseas at the natural cost because unions means that manufactured goods cost more. Which means fewer people can buy them. Which means more people suffer. In the global economy, there is no place for unions anymore.

If someone else makes a better product than you that more people want to buy, improve. You don't demand that the game be rigged in your favor. When corporations do it that's bad, unions are no better.

2. I didn't say rich people are the problem, but the fact that the rich have so much while the poor have so little is a problem. And large corporations are also a problem, which I addressed in Point 3 ("more regulations on large corporations"). Point 1 is about income inequality among citizens, which is related to taxation. I can understand that my progressive taxation bit could have used the words "a much higher percentage of taxes than the poor" -- though I did include the bit about negative taxation for the poor, which we do not currently have, and so it's an ideal that we should strive for.

And I have given little rhetoric -- I have stated the ideals, goals, and policies for an ideology, not given vague figures of speech. Mathyland asked what "Bernie Sanders' democratic socialism" means, not lay out in specific detail what every proposal is -- if he had asked for that, I would have led with that -- I feel like I went into even more detail than what was expected at the start.

4. Referendums are used to push policies that the majority of citizens want. Representatives tend toward the status quo and are slower to respond to the will of the people. Hell, Congress didn't pass legislation making same-sex marriage legal -- many states used referendums to make it legal before the Supreme Court ruling. And I'm sure federal referendums would be quite rare. I'm not saying we should use referendums for every single issue, but if Congress is acting slow on something and the vast majority of people want it, it should be passed. That would hardly take much work away from representatives.

I mean, here's what I stated about publicly-financed elections:

overturn Citizens United to ban PACs, give federal tax credits to those who donate (up to a certain amount) to political candidates during federal elections, and lower the cap on individual contributions to candidates -- using a voucher program could be a way to do this, but I figure tax credits are simpler.

5. Lots of things already have tax subsidies: farmers ($25B), rural businesses ($6B), energy ($4B), small businesses ($1B), exporters, transportation, R&D, etc. Should we end these subsidies since "they cannot survive naturally which implies that they are inefficient"? The point of subsidies is to support businesses that need it and to encourage growth in areas we see as desirable. I would argue that co-ops are something that are desirable as they are the embodiment in business of democratic processes that the US claims to hold dear.

And as I said before, the federal government wouldn't force all companies to become co-ops, but rather incentivize them to do so (through tax credits, aka subsidies).

6. Ah, I see. However, if we were to extrapolate that logic, we should remove minimum wages to allow for the cheapest goods for consumers. I prefer to allow workers to have better wages -- that's the trade-off.

I don't think there is any evidence that unions would start taking the actions they did so long ago -- many things have changed since then and the balance of wealth is so far on the side of the owners that I doubt unions would ever be able to push it back (and I don't think it should go that far, but there is a balance that needs to be achieved, and that can be done with stronger unions).

I suspect we have a disagreement on what is considered totalitarian. When workers demand better pay, that means they don't already have the power or money needed -- there is someone more powerful than they are that they negotiate with, which by definition cannot make unions totalitarian. Perhaps we're at an impasse as I am not a free-trade supporter (though neither am I a protectionist, I consider myself a fair-trade supporter, which requires strong protections for workers and the environment on both sides of a trade deal), and you seem to be saying that free trade is ideal as it allows the lowest cost for consumers.

I agree generally that if you're not performing well that you need to improve, but when you're being undercut by those that are larger and more powerful, you should be supported to help thrive. When a huge corporation temporarily undersells a small business to take their business and then drives the cost back up after the small business had to close, there's an injustice that needs to be corrected and regulated -- it's the same with unions who need protection from the owners of huge corporations. The difference between unions and corporations is that unions are made up of workers (they're the ones who get the benefits) while corporations are run by the rich and powerful (so they're the ones who get the profits) -- you can't really call them the same.

the American Tax system is messy

Let me just take this moment to say fuck TurboTax, TaxAct, and the rest of those assholes.

2. Of course you used rhetoric. You gave a general idea. That's rhetoric. What idea you present and how you present it is part of rhetoric. There is rhetoric even in the ideas people propose. If I proposed the elimination of, I don't now, Mexicans from America in the most neutral and toneless way I can, there is still rhetoric in the idea itself, even in a tone-neutral manner (to be clear, I am not equating your proposal with that example I provided, it is not even remotely the same, I just used it for illustration). And my problem was that the rhetoric you used was inaccurate. Or, at least, the situation that your rhetoric implied (specifically that the rich do not pay higher taxes than the poor, which your words implied was the case, which in turn implies other things) was inaccurate. My main point of contention was that your choice of words, in my view, was poor, pardon the pun.

Though again, I suspect that the specific ideas you have on the matter and the ones I have are different as well.

4. In my view, decisions should be taken slowly. They should not be rushed, should not be quick (most of the time) and, in some cases, should not be beholden to the whims of the people.

An example of what I mean with representatives punting important issues is, again, Brexit. The consequences of fobbing off a difficult decision because of the political implications of making a choice either way is still being felt today. And as a proud child of the Commonwealth, I have seen referendums go ridiculously, even laughably, bad to often to have much respect for them.

And if your definition of publicly financed elections includes private donations, how is it publicly financed, how is it significantly different from now and would monetary corruption die, realistically?

5. Well, thank you for addressing all the arguments I never made.

Farming subsidies are an example of pork barrel spending pushed for by politicians from more farming heavy states like Iowa and I'm not fond of them and I never said I was.

Rural business are not naturally profitable a lot of the time, yes, I agree but they do provide an incredibly necessary service, namely providing goods to rural communities, so I support that for that reason.

Energy is a vital and necessary resource, I support subsides for them on that basis, plus a lot of energy subsides are for renewable energy so there is that.

Subsidies for small business are a political stunt so that politicians can stump about how much they support 'small business, the backbone of the American economy' and I like them no more then I like subsidies for co-ops.

My fundamental view on government subsidies to business is that it should only be to business that provide a service that is vital and necessary but which by itself is not necessarily profitable or that you do not want to be run for a profit motive or to stimulate certain sectors of an economy in emergencies. That's it. The idea that public money should be thrown at business already makes me uncomfortable in the best of circumstances.

And all the examples you provided are hardly similar since they were for specific industries and specific purposes whereas subsidies for co-ops is throwing money so that a very specific business practice you find desirable that provides no vital service or stimulates no part of the economy in crisis and that, apparently, cannot survive on it's own some of the time. It is the equivalent of me demanding subsidies for shops that print 5000 Singapore flags a year because I like the flag and want to see more of it everywhere.

And that does not address the main point I raised. Perhaps impose was to strong a word but you certainly want the multi-nationals to adopt such a business model. Focusing on that alone sidesteps my main point which is, regardless how it is achieved, the mulit-nationals adopting such a model would be disastrous.

6. No, because my point is not that prices should be kept low to the exclusion of all else (ironic that you think I think that since I'm criticizing unions for adopting a similar point of view), of course I think that protections for the workers at the cost of the consumers are sometimes necessary, my point is that unions extort to high a price, do far to much damage to the whole economy to be worth it for what you get and do it in a way I find disgusting and abhorrent.

There being no evidence that they will do as they have done in the past is not the same as being sure that they won't. I have no reason to think that they will not adopt the same destructive, counter-productive and poorly conceived paths that they have in the past if they could.

What unions typically want is rather totalitarian. Not being allowed to hire the people I want at a wage that is reasonable, being forced to hire from a union is totalitarian. Not being allowed to fire employees in my own company for reasonable problems is totalitarian. Being forced to negotiate with what amounts to a mob using threats is totalitarian. And the manner that unions enforce their will is totalitarian. On top of that, unions want legal protections so that they can continue what amounts to a shakedown in peace? If business owners conducted themselves like unions do I would look at them less like legitimate businessmen and more like the gangsters they are acting like.

And why is, for example, foreign steel which, naturally, is both cheaper and of a higher quality than domestic steel not used more in manufacturing in the US? Because the US Steel Workers Union lobbied and got tariffs on foreign steel passed into law. Because of that, the price of manufacturing anything with steel increased. Because of that increased cost the manufacturing company had less money to hire workers which either means cut salaries or lay-offs. The increased cost also means that goods are more expensive, hurting the wallets of the vast majority of Americans. The ones hurt most are the poorest since they cannot afford such a price increase. So for the benefit of about 800,000 people, the size of United Steelworkers, pretty much the rest of the country must suffer, including other workers in a twist of irony and dis-proportionally the poor and most vulnerable in society in another twist. That is why I dislike unions.

I also dislike corporations, do not get me wrong. Alas, corporations fill a niche where the benefit they provide to the economy and the people cannot be done as efficiently or as effectively as other entities. So I must tolerate their existence and wish to seem them regulated so the worst parts of corporations are kept under control. The moment a way to do what corporations do without the cartel-ism and corruption that accompanies them, I would jump on it. I have yet to see it.

Unions are not so lucky. Every benefit a union provides, everything a union does that is positive can be done by something or someone else. Protections for wages can be done with a minimum wage and other forms of legal protection. Protections from exploitation can be created legally and enforcement of the law can be done with law enforcement agencies. Representation of workers can be done with a Department of Labour that exists to ensure the laws are being followed and with political representation in Government. All the benefits of unions can be provided by something else with out the flaws of unions. I say that we let the relic of a bygone age die the death it deserves as we move into a new age, one where they are not needed anymore.


And yes, Mones, screw those guys.

Re: referendums

Gerrick, are you talking about direct initiatives here?

I feel that North's criticism of referendums as a way for politicians to shirk their responsibilities is absolutely valid. But you seem to be talking about referendums initiated directly by the citizenry, not the legislature.

As a someone from California, a state rather known for its quite strong direct democratic elements, I'd say that these elements of direct democracy often lead to horrible results (see Prop 8 and the horrible anti-LGBTQ propaganda that led to that constitutional amendment) but also has much potential for good, as you described. A more moderated approach with still some initiative and referendum elements might work federally, I think.

I would note that Brexit (since it has come up here a couple times as an example of a referendum) that (in addition to not being popularly initiated) it would have failed under Gerrick's suggestion of requiring supermajorities to pass referendums.

2. Hmm, yeah I suppose I understand what you mean and can agree with you there. I took your use of the word rhetoric to mean something different.

4. Oh, you are correct, tau. North, I am talking about direct initiatives that the citizenry propose then vote on during the next elections (if so many signatures are gotten first) -- not issues that Congress proposes to the citizenry during elections. That's totally my fault, and that's probably what's led to us talking past each other.

The elections would be publicly financed because, while yes you give personal money (if not using the voucher system), the government reimburses you. And the cap on donations you can give is drastically reduced (currently $2700 max, but I'm thinking down to like $200 max). I would argue that this would help curb monetary corruption as it prevents unlimited money to be poured into candidates' coffers through PACs (as donating to a PAC would be considered donating to a candidate).

5. I suppose we just have to agree to disagree on the point of subsidies. I agree that subsidies should be for at least that which you agreed with, but I also believe subsidies should go towards areas seen as desirable (like renewable energy, small farmers, small businesses, and co-ops). And besides bringing increased worker involvement in business through democratic means, co-ops also generate wealth and economic development at the local level and close income inequality, so it's not just some random practice, but one that brings meaningful change in a positive direction.

I'm going to reiterate this:

And I understand that huge multinational corporations won't be very democratic, but for small businesses (under 1500 employees) it's definitely possible to encourage more.

Sure it would be nice for huge multinational corporations to become worker co-ops, but I don't think that's the main goal. About half of the US workforce are in small businesses anyway, which are more likely to bring economic activity to local communities. I can't really argue on the effectiveness of co-ops on the multinational scale as that's not what I'm arguing for. If you go back and read through this section from the start, I think you just inferred that without me saying it.

6. I guess we have to agree to disagree again as I believe worker protections are worth higher prices. (I couldn't find any data on resulting prices from unions vs non-union companies or that they do much damage to the economy, so I can't really concede that point.) And if every worker were protected in their separate industries (i.e. everyone covered by unions), then everyone is paying slightly higher prices but are also reaping the benefits through higher wages, better job security, better retirement and healthcare, better hours, more leave, etc (which is akin to paying more in taxes to get better benefits/welfare, except not subject to the whims of the government). And it's not extortion if they're negotiating with employers for better benefits for workers. And besides, only half of all union membership is in the private sector. Public education is the industry with by far the largest membership rate. I'm sure you heard of the teacher union strikes in several states starting last year in West Virginia, and they all achieved positive outcomes for themselves that likely would've never come had the teachers not been in unions.

Those things you listed are not totalitarian as they're negotiated between unions and employers. Anyway, when employers pay lower effective tax rates than their employees, outsource jobs, and don't pay their workers decent wages (causing much more pain and suffering on workers than whatever way you're saying unions conduct themselves), I would say workers are justified in organizing and fighting back.

The protectionist steel bit is why I think lobbying should be harshly limited, including union lobbying. The poor would be supported through increased welfare, so that's not the main problem. The hardest hit would be related companies and their workers -- something that steel workers are really starting to understand now. And besides, you don't need to buy American, especially if you're poor.

But you seem to not be holding corporations to the same standards as you hold to unions. You say you dislike corporations and that they utilize cartel-ism and corruption like unions, and yet you say that corporations are necessary while unions aren't. And corporations have much more influence on the government with lobbying than unions do. So just regulate unions as well as corporations.

If there were a more effective alternative to unions, I could get behind that. But when you leave labor protection solely to the government, workers will not always be protected. The minimum wage hasn't increased in a decade, and a Department of Labor under a particularly anti-labor administration could just roll back protections. Some kind of nonpartisan institution needs to remain in place to allow for worker protections, and unions are currently the best option.

4. Well, I would disagree. I do not think things should happen just because a majority of people want it, though that should be taken into account. But that is a fundamental difference between our political philosophies, I suspect.

If you were going to limit donations like they why should the Government reimburse you? I mean, if you chose to donate to a political candidate that is your choice. Why should public money be spent to basically subsidize politics? Again, I suspect that comes down to a fundamental difference between our political philosophies.

5. Indeed, I doubt either of us could convince the other since we are looking at it through two different lenses. I do understand and respect your position, I just disagree with it.

6. Well, again, I doubt either will convince the other since we are looking at unions through two different lenses. You are more willing to forgive the flaws of unions, I am not, you see more benefits from their existence, I see few. Thought I will say this, I know public workers are in unions and I really, really do not like that since I do not think public servants should be allowed to unionize considering they serve the public interest. I have mixed feelings on the West Virginia Teachers Strike that I will not go into. I realize that those are negotiated between unions and employers, I know what collective bargaining is, my problem is that those negotiations are typically underscored by threats, threats of strikes, work stoppages, sometimes even intentional sabotage. And I know full well what happens when that power to strike is abused and it has been abused in the past to unfortunate results. Just take a look at Britain in the 60's and 70's.

Only if you get your way. The poor would be supported through increased welfare only if you get your way. Otherwise, my point stands and they would be negatively effected. In fact, they would still be negatively effected since if you had your way I assume they would receive increased welfare regardless.

I do hold unions and corporations to different standards, as I said, I cannot see an alternative to corporations as much as I want to so I must tolerate their existence. I see very viable and effective (at least in my view) alternatives to unions so I do not tolerate them. It is as simple as that.

And with unions workers are not protected all the time either, in fact, I would say that the Federal Government currently protects more workers more efficiently than unions do now. And what on earth makes you think unions are non-partisan? How much does to AFL-CIO donate to Republican candidates?

Again, though, I don't think we will convince each other of much since we are operating under different philosophies to our politics. I must say that this had been a very interesting and stimulating conversation, I must thank you, Gerrick, this was engaging.