As BHO (FOX News Refers To Obama as “BHO”) continues to transform the United States into a socialist hell, yet another poke in the eye is the National Mediation Board’s proposal to make it easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize.
For 75 years, the rule has been that for any class of workers (e.g., pilots) employed by an airline or railroad to unionize, a majority of all employees in that class have to vote for unionization. But the proposed new rule would require only that a majority of employees who actually vote on the question of unionization would be needed to unionize.
All Democrats love unions; Republican progressives love unions; and even many conservatives believe that a worker should be allowed to join a union voluntarily, so long as those who do not want to join the union are not forced to do so.
Which probably makes me a minority of one. Why? Because not only do I believe that workers do not have a right to unionize a company through tyranny of the majority, I don’t believe that any worker has a right to join a union without the consent of his employer.
What would it look like if the federal behemoth were severely cut down to size? Read Wayne Allen Root’s prescription for the nation in “The Conscience of a
Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts”
It is a basic tenet of libertarian-centered conservatism that without property rights, no other rights are possible. Unfortunately, most people do not understand this fundamental concept. They view property only as inanimate matter, separate and apart from a person’s life.
In actual fact, they are so connected that one is virtually an extension of the other. If you took everything an individual owned, the fact is that he would not own his own life, because whenever he attempted to create something for his personal gain, the fruits of his labor could again be confiscated.
The same is true of purchasing property. The money used to make a purchase presumably was earned through the purchaser’s efforts. That makes the money an extension of his life, and, therefore, the same would be true of anything purchased with that money.
A libertarian-centered conservative believes that no one has a right to any other person’s property, which includes both his body and everything he owns. When people make “humanitarian” statements about human rights being more important than property rights, they are, in a sense, correct. That’s because human rights include property rights, as well as all other rights of man.
A man has the right to dispose of his life and his property in any way he chooses, without interference from anyone else. By the same token, he has no right to dispose of any other person’s life or property, no matter what his personal rationalizations may be.
As explained in “Fundamentals of Liberty,” there are only three possible ways to view property:
Anyone may take anyone else’s property whenever he pleases.
Some (select) people may take property of other people whenever they please.
No.3 DEMOCRACY (One-man, one-vote) / Republicanism (Lesser Representative Democracy)
No one may ever take anyone else’s property without his permission.
It is self-evident to anyone who believes in individual liberty that the only morally valid way of viewing property is No. 3. Likewise, no one has a right to tell a property owner (property being land, buildings, a business, or anything else that a person may own) what he can or cannot do with his property.
Take a business, for example. It belongs to the owner, whether he started the business himself or bought it from someone else. No one has a right to take any part of someone else’s business, nor do they have a right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his business.
If a business grows large and has millions of shareholders, the business is the property of many people – the shareholders. Thus, size is irrelevant when it comes to property rights. When property rights are violated against a multinational corporation as opposed to a “mom-and-pop” business, it simply means that far more people become victims of government aggression. It is a moral absurdity to believe that bigness validates aggression.
Therefore, as a minority of one, I am compelled to say that regardless of the size of a business, the only way unionization is morally valid is if the owner of that business voluntarily agrees to it. Why? Because it’s his business! It’s his property! And it is his human right to set the rules for his own property!
In a truly free society, a worker has one inalienable, overpowering right with regard to his job: He can quit at any time. He is not a slave, so his employer cannot chain him to his work. If he wants to belong to a union, he is free to search for employment with a company that allows workers to unionize.
The fact that so many people reading this article will find my comments to be extreme speaks only to how far down the road toward socialism we have traveled. We no longer respect property rights, especially when the property is a business. Generations have been brainwashed into believing that abstract notions such as “the good of society” and “social justice” are more important than private ownership.
The proposed new ruling by the National Mediation Board opens a debate that is nothing more than a distraction. The real debate should be over whether or not employees should be allowed to unionize at all without the consent of the owner.
This is precisely the kind of issue that has caused conservatives to lose their way over the years. Until politicians have the courage to confront an issue such as unionization head on and stop buying into debates about whether to move further to the left or stick to what has become the status-quo left, America will continue its acceleration toward total collapse – both morally and economically.
It will be interesting to see if anyone reading this article has a strong enough belief in the absolute sanctity of property rights to agree with what I’ve said here. That would be nice, because it would instantly elevate me to the status of being part of a minority of two.
“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” Mahatma Gandhi
(The truth propounded in this site being, that Malaysia’s Laws and Constitution as currently standing ARE institutionalised APARTHEID from the Colonial era which neither BN nor PR, (much less the Bar Council or Judiciary of which both groups should have their degrees revoked, the earlier 2 coalitions mentioned unvotable, for the tacit approval of APARTHEID via silence, lack of address and mention) have yet to honestly address and mention or discuss openly . . . )
MahatmaGandhi Robert Ringer (article author)
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Try considering the above issue on property to social freedoms now. Even for a minority of 1 (being rhetorical here, generally such uniqueness is extremely rare), no matter how rarefied/antipathetic the meme or preference, equitable space reasonable to ‘life and liberty’ as considered against the UNHCR AND access to NEUTRAL spaces must be given, must be protected. In this the district by district concept of living space earlier discussed is the best way to apply unique and diverse mosaics of disyricts (preferably with the most incompatible districts being as seperate from the least compatible ones as possible).
Try the below groups for example in order of ease of implementation for closed districts, though with access to neutral spaces, such as traveling spaces etc.. :
i) Luddites/Anti-technology types (this district being ENTIRELY free of Electrosmog, ELF or EMF emissions)
ii) Smokers-Tobacco users/Coffee users (this district will allow use of tobacco throughout/the other coffee throughout – as we know Coffee is disallowed to Xians etc..) For more information on coffee use, see : https://malaysiandemocracy.wordpress.com/category/coffee/
iii) Fundo-religionists (wearers of Burkha to any dietarily limited persons)
iv) Conscientious military objectors (refusers of military culture, who must be offered abstention options and not punitive fines and jail terms to allow them to make a choice without being punished for making a choice)
v) LGBT (non-binary gender types – as sexual-energic exchanges appear to exceed beyond a street or neighbourhood at anytime, separate districts should be considered or dedicated living spaces in generally closed districts at night may be dedicated to these persons at a quantum suitable to the number of such persons)
vi) Red Light Districts (sex workers and sex worker patrons (nominally atheists) without religious injunctions to follow)
vii) Nudists (wearers of nothing, again the psychic-vibrancy issue arises, so dedicated places for nudists could be ensured)
viii) Organic psychedelic users (again the psychic-vibrancy issue arises, so dedicated places for organics users could be ensured)
ix) advocates of right to bear arms (they could live with others fine with the preference, though perhaps with high and thick walls to prevent any accidental misfirings – this should be at cost to the users of this district IF not a majority to warrant use of tax funds)
x) Synthetic psychedelic users (due to the sometimes permanent and undesirable mental effects synthetics cause, these persons could be required to distance themselves from certain groups again, physically or otherwise – with the very most toxic and debilitating drugs left entirely illegal unless a euthanasia or consensual waiver staying awarness of potential permanent mental debilitation is considered)
xi) Neurotech/Cybernetic/Electrosmog-causing-device Areas (the enhanced or debilitating effects may require inhibitants to give signed waivers and for service providers to give accurate readings of ionising radiation and EMF or ELF emissions on a street to street basis)
All these groups or combinations thereof should have dedicated districts or spaces appropriate to their community size for expression of self,self determinism etc.. and not be subject to discriminative disenfranchising and punitive laws or uncivilised harassment by citizens with differing preferences.
This must be assured WITH government awareness, formal recognition ofthe group, guarantees (administrators of government MUST be entirely neutral and non-judgmental and have no personal preferences or if they do have such prefeerence are very aware of the need to remain neutral in applicatio of thje law as oer professional administrators) of protection from discimination by other citizens, to ensure at least civilised treatment of the person is assured as per a responsible government.
The above suggested typifies an ideal First World Country’s conditions where any disparate group’s Human Rights may not be infringed on, via illegal electronic surveillance, secret druggings, theft of tangible or intangible property, tangible or intangible spiritual property, general harrassment or bullying by the mob-minded among the majority of citizens without consent or awareness in the most abusive cases.
Note : Building space issues notwithstanding, the above concept of separate districts was extrapolated from the ‘Nudist Colony’ and ‘Red Light Districts’ concept. So I thought why not specialised districts for every other disparate and diverse group? I have hence advocated closed districts based on a single street to a few streets (for example) since . . . with the narrow minded having condemened and smeared this one’s reputation no end with all forms of indirect retaliations from neurotech implantations/NLPs that have left some of us with no privacy, our human rights invaded upon, contrived car accidents (the last one being particularly serious), psychiatry-pharma neuro-poisonings to manipulative public reactions from people unknown no end. This world does not belong to any mob minded group, the world has enough space for everyone, the selfishness, hatred, unreasonable insularism and intolerance is a sign of a very vicious, sick, uncivilised and fundamentalist minded society. Hopefully the next generation of MPs and Senators or what not will have the presence of mind to develop a conscience and mental flexibility to appreciate the rarer mosaic parts that make up any and all societies . . . diversity is strength.