In the past I've tried to convince people to change the way they think by entering into a discussion with them rather than just explaining what I believe in and why. Perhaps this may make them stop listening to what I'm saying and instead think about how to debate my every point. Going forward my blog will be written as a debate, but more as an explanation of what I believe and why it is I believe this way.
So, going forward look to this new writing style as I play with it and turn away from writing to create conflict and more toward peace through understanding who I am.
07 July 2014
Regional Store Chain Takes Down American Flag
(Spoilers....you'll either agree or disagree with me after reading this)
Like most people out there, I have friends/family that work at a regional chain store. Scanning my Facebook feed today, I found an interesting post that talked about how at least two stores in this chain had taken down the American flag that had been flying for several years. The original poster initially posted that they were taken down because of a complaint by an individual from Iraq and asked their thoughts. Later on, they posted that the store took them down outside because they weren't part of the "sign package" for their store. So what?
To me, it's the Store's property, they can do with it whatever they please to do. If they decide today to have the flag of Germany, and then Tuesday, the flag of Greece, then on Thursday, the flag of Mexico, and on every third Sunday, the flag of the United States of America flown upside down, that's their call to make, unless it isn't a "free country" after all (spoilers....it isn't).
The thing that interested me was the comments people made, and to which I devote most of this post to. Two posters said that if the person from Iraq didn't like it, they should leave and go back to Iraq. I find this view a bit ignorant. It also shows their complete lack of historical knowledge. If they could go back to the 1600's how would they feel if instead of the native peoples inhabiting the Americas being welcoming to the settlers, who were trying to leave persecution for their beliefs, they were met with the "if you don't like it here, leave" rhetoric that today is put out there by "nationalists"? I think many people would not want to live the native lifestyle. Would they leave and go back to their place of origin?
What if the native people's decided that the lifestyle of the settler's wasn't acceptable. Would the settler's have left? History records the deaths and tragedies that the settler's caused toward the people of the native inhabitants seems to answer that question.
I also find that those who would agree that the National Socialist German Workers' Party flag should never been flown, especially, in front of people of the Jewish faith. That these same people are being hypocritical when it's their chosen flag being asked to be taken down for the same exact reason. That to other people the "United States flag" is a reminder of the men and women who murdered their friends and families.
Asking the flag of those who murdered your family members, or caused to be murdered, to be taken down at a business that is open to the public, isn't asking much, in my opinion. If the business had the policy of "no "Iraqis"", it might be more reasonable to tell them, I'm sorry, your business isn't wanted here, so no we will continue to fly the "American flag" as a warning to you that you aren't wanted here. I doubt this was the intention of the commentators, but that is the message they are broadcasting, if they realize it or not. Of course this is a public business, who wants everyone to feel welcome to shop there. If they have to take down a flag to make someone welcome to their store, I think it's appropriate. Isn't that also the reason why the "United Nations" flies all those flags too, to make everyone know they are welcome there?
Another commentator said this "...[I will] not so kindly remind them about the sacrifices our troops have made!!" in regards to the original poster's question, should it be found that the reason they took the flag down was because an "Iraqi" complained. The sacrifices that the "troops made" weren't for the "people" but for the "government" that sent them there. Too many people believe that the "troops" are there to protect them, and while they are protected to some extent, the sole purpose of the "troops" are to protect the "government" not the people. This is how it has been for the last several thousand years. In case you don't believe me, look back to Hurricane Katrina, and watch the "troops" taking, by threat of force, and actual force, weapons from the "people" in direct violation of the "Law". You may justify this action with the belief that "it was required to maintain the peace" or "to stop the looters" but this action also killed people because they couldn't stop the looters with the threat of force, or actual force. It was also against the "Law".
While we are on "the troops" and their so-called "sacrifices" what about their real crimes? Obviously murder is one of many. Many would retort, "this is war, there is no murder". This isn't war. War has rules. One of those rules is you declare war before you can engage in acts of war. Another is you don't invade someone's "sovereignty". What about their own "law", they don't follow those and no one objects when it goes against their vested interest. For some examples the "law" that requires a "declaration of war" before engaging in combat, the various Treaties that require certain rules to be followed, specifically attacking only military targets, differentiating between military and civilian targets. Soldiers are accountable for their actions, including following illegal and unconstitutional orders. Of course, commanders are also responsible for the actions of their men. What about the highest authority who issues unconstitutional and illegal orders, aren't they also criminals as well?
One last commentator said "[p]olitical correctness is part of what's destroying this country." Really? Of all the much bigger things you could cite that are destroying "this country" you talk about "political correctness"? How about blind obedience to authority? How about violations of your rights as a human being that you just let happen everyday? How about people killing others and claiming that you gave them the authority to do so?
As an aside to those whom believe I'm anti-military or a military basher. I state the following because you'd never know otherwise. My mother, whom served 25 years in the military, whom taught me everything I know about the military first hand, passed away recently and was given full military honors at one of the National Cemeteries.
I believe in a proper armed defense force. What we currently have isn't one. It's an armed offensive force, utilized by men and women who want people to murder, enslave, and destroy for them to help them enrich their own lives. When the men and women who are tasked to execute those orders fail to act properly, they are criminals. Those who question those orders when they violate the oath that each member takes before assuming the role of soldier, and are called traitors, and are jailed, such as Bradley Manning, are the real heroes. As Thoreau said, "[u]nder a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."
Like most people out there, I have friends/family that work at a regional chain store. Scanning my Facebook feed today, I found an interesting post that talked about how at least two stores in this chain had taken down the American flag that had been flying for several years. The original poster initially posted that they were taken down because of a complaint by an individual from Iraq and asked their thoughts. Later on, they posted that the store took them down outside because they weren't part of the "sign package" for their store. So what?
To me, it's the Store's property, they can do with it whatever they please to do. If they decide today to have the flag of Germany, and then Tuesday, the flag of Greece, then on Thursday, the flag of Mexico, and on every third Sunday, the flag of the United States of America flown upside down, that's their call to make, unless it isn't a "free country" after all (spoilers....it isn't).
The thing that interested me was the comments people made, and to which I devote most of this post to. Two posters said that if the person from Iraq didn't like it, they should leave and go back to Iraq. I find this view a bit ignorant. It also shows their complete lack of historical knowledge. If they could go back to the 1600's how would they feel if instead of the native peoples inhabiting the Americas being welcoming to the settlers, who were trying to leave persecution for their beliefs, they were met with the "if you don't like it here, leave" rhetoric that today is put out there by "nationalists"? I think many people would not want to live the native lifestyle. Would they leave and go back to their place of origin?
What if the native people's decided that the lifestyle of the settler's wasn't acceptable. Would the settler's have left? History records the deaths and tragedies that the settler's caused toward the people of the native inhabitants seems to answer that question.
I also find that those who would agree that the National Socialist German Workers' Party flag should never been flown, especially, in front of people of the Jewish faith. That these same people are being hypocritical when it's their chosen flag being asked to be taken down for the same exact reason. That to other people the "United States flag" is a reminder of the men and women who murdered their friends and families.
Asking the flag of those who murdered your family members, or caused to be murdered, to be taken down at a business that is open to the public, isn't asking much, in my opinion. If the business had the policy of "no "Iraqis"", it might be more reasonable to tell them, I'm sorry, your business isn't wanted here, so no we will continue to fly the "American flag" as a warning to you that you aren't wanted here. I doubt this was the intention of the commentators, but that is the message they are broadcasting, if they realize it or not. Of course this is a public business, who wants everyone to feel welcome to shop there. If they have to take down a flag to make someone welcome to their store, I think it's appropriate. Isn't that also the reason why the "United Nations" flies all those flags too, to make everyone know they are welcome there?
Another commentator said this "...[I will] not so kindly remind them about the sacrifices our troops have made!!" in regards to the original poster's question, should it be found that the reason they took the flag down was because an "Iraqi" complained. The sacrifices that the "troops made" weren't for the "people" but for the "government" that sent them there. Too many people believe that the "troops" are there to protect them, and while they are protected to some extent, the sole purpose of the "troops" are to protect the "government" not the people. This is how it has been for the last several thousand years. In case you don't believe me, look back to Hurricane Katrina, and watch the "troops" taking, by threat of force, and actual force, weapons from the "people" in direct violation of the "Law". You may justify this action with the belief that "it was required to maintain the peace" or "to stop the looters" but this action also killed people because they couldn't stop the looters with the threat of force, or actual force. It was also against the "Law".
While we are on "the troops" and their so-called "sacrifices" what about their real crimes? Obviously murder is one of many. Many would retort, "this is war, there is no murder". This isn't war. War has rules. One of those rules is you declare war before you can engage in acts of war. Another is you don't invade someone's "sovereignty". What about their own "law", they don't follow those and no one objects when it goes against their vested interest. For some examples the "law" that requires a "declaration of war" before engaging in combat, the various Treaties that require certain rules to be followed, specifically attacking only military targets, differentiating between military and civilian targets. Soldiers are accountable for their actions, including following illegal and unconstitutional orders. Of course, commanders are also responsible for the actions of their men. What about the highest authority who issues unconstitutional and illegal orders, aren't they also criminals as well?
One last commentator said "[p]olitical correctness is part of what's destroying this country." Really? Of all the much bigger things you could cite that are destroying "this country" you talk about "political correctness"? How about blind obedience to authority? How about violations of your rights as a human being that you just let happen everyday? How about people killing others and claiming that you gave them the authority to do so?
As an aside to those whom believe I'm anti-military or a military basher. I state the following because you'd never know otherwise. My mother, whom served 25 years in the military, whom taught me everything I know about the military first hand, passed away recently and was given full military honors at one of the National Cemeteries.
I believe in a proper armed defense force. What we currently have isn't one. It's an armed offensive force, utilized by men and women who want people to murder, enslave, and destroy for them to help them enrich their own lives. When the men and women who are tasked to execute those orders fail to act properly, they are criminals. Those who question those orders when they violate the oath that each member takes before assuming the role of soldier, and are called traitors, and are jailed, such as Bradley Manning, are the real heroes. As Thoreau said, "[u]nder a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."
10 February 2014
Why do we need a standing congress?
I was reading an article today that sparked a internal discussion within me and I thought I might share that. The question was 'Why do we need a standing Congress?'
So, currently, we have a standing Congress in the United States. Going back to the beginning of things, the founding fathers made a rule, Congress must meet once a year to address the nation's needs. In their minds, at the time, it was thought that without such a rule that this group of 'representatives' wouldn't come together unless there was some pending need to do so. Ironically, the founding fathers thought we shouldn't have a standing military, but we should have a standing congress. An army of trained killers is just as bad I think as an army of rights violators.
Congress has strayed so far from the imaginings of the founding fathers to become that which the founders they themselves fought so hard against. According to the founders, the purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of all the people. Today, however, congress feels the need the interfere with almost every aspect of our lives.
Like a parent, Congress feels the need tell you where you can shop, what you can buy, where you can live, how you raise your kids, and everything else. But let's stop for a moment and recognize that 'Congress' is just a concept, it isn't a human being like your inappropriate Uncle Joe, it is just a collection of human beings. If they have a right to tell you what you can and can't do then you are their slave.
Slavery is easily defined as 'one who has to bend their will to another', that of course fits what the individual people calling themselves Congress do every day isn't, they create their will and force you to bend to it or face having your property, liberty, or life taken from you.When they say to you, 'you can't use that kind of gun to protect your family because criminals use that kind of gun to hurt your family', what they are really saying is that you are a slave, and slaves can only do what we tell them they can do. Ironically, it's the criminals in that situation, that don't follow the individuals who call themselves Congress will anyway because they are criminals and will still use those guns to harm your family anyhow and you can't protect your family anyway. They paint "victim" on your forehead for all the criminals to see.
I wonder if you, like myself, have ever examined the relationship between your and the individuals who call themselves Congress? So you have two individuals, A and B, who ask you to give them your endorsement. You can't give both of them it, so you have to choose one. You choose A, they are more inline with your personal beliefs then B is. So finally it comes time to count the votes and B wins the election and now B is your "representative". I find the idea of calling someone whom you didn't choose can't honestly be your "representative". To me it's like saying I want this real estate agent to represent my interests and someone comes up and gives me a different real estate agent.
The difference between the individual "representing" your interests in Congress and the individual representing your interests in real estate, is you can fire them if they don't do a good job. But you think, you can recall an individual in Congress. Have you ever seen what it takes to recall an individual calling themselves Congress? You have to get a number of people in every single political subdivision of the "State" you live in sign a petition to recall that individual. It doesn't stop there, however, once you get that, then their is an official vote where everyone else decides if that person should be "recalled" and the number of people who are required to vote "yes" is some where in the fifty to sixty percent range. So, if you believe the individual claiming to represent you in Congress is doing something wrong and should be recalled, your view can be overridden by a simple majority of other individuals who are probably not paying attention to the facts anyhow.
How is it that this individual claiming to represent you could in fact even represent you. Imagine you and your neighbor George have opposing opinions on one single idea but in all other ideas you agree. You and George force individual B, who claims to represent you in that collection of human bodies calling themselves Congress, to choose which side of that idea to represent. If he chooses George's side, then he isn't representing you is he? If he chooses your side of the idea, then he isn't representing George.
Of course this would put any average individual who wants to represent people in to a quandary. Of course, the simple answer would be to just ignore you and George and represent they own side of the idea. This is what most of these individuals who claim to represent you who call themselves Congress do anyhow. You don't need to have to be a rocket scientist to see the facts staring you in your face to realize it. Take the issue called "Obama care", according to the media, most people opposed it. Most people told the individuals claiming to represent them and calling themselves Congress, to not vote for it. What did they do? They almost all voted in favor of it.
Back to the question of "why" we need a standing Congress. The founding father's created the concept of Congress to protect life, liberty, and property, and as high on a pedestal as we put them, they were human beings capable of making mistakes. The idea of Congress can now be seen as a mistake since this collection of men and women have been found to be as much of a threat to the concepts of life, liberty, and property as any other potential threat. When you tell someone they are a Hammerer and you give them a hammer, after they run out of nails to hammer, they might start thinking that everything else is a nail.
I personally am not a follower of the "Cult of Government", but if you are, and you value your life, liberty, and property, it would seem that the individuals in Congress are acting like the bullies. It may be a good idea to limit the amount of damage they can do by limiting the amount of time they have to do that damage or even better, only be called up when a big enough issue faces you and you need them to lead.
So, currently, we have a standing Congress in the United States. Going back to the beginning of things, the founding fathers made a rule, Congress must meet once a year to address the nation's needs. In their minds, at the time, it was thought that without such a rule that this group of 'representatives' wouldn't come together unless there was some pending need to do so. Ironically, the founding fathers thought we shouldn't have a standing military, but we should have a standing congress. An army of trained killers is just as bad I think as an army of rights violators.
Congress has strayed so far from the imaginings of the founding fathers to become that which the founders they themselves fought so hard against. According to the founders, the purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of all the people. Today, however, congress feels the need the interfere with almost every aspect of our lives.
Like a parent, Congress feels the need tell you where you can shop, what you can buy, where you can live, how you raise your kids, and everything else. But let's stop for a moment and recognize that 'Congress' is just a concept, it isn't a human being like your inappropriate Uncle Joe, it is just a collection of human beings. If they have a right to tell you what you can and can't do then you are their slave.
Slavery is easily defined as 'one who has to bend their will to another', that of course fits what the individual people calling themselves Congress do every day isn't, they create their will and force you to bend to it or face having your property, liberty, or life taken from you.When they say to you, 'you can't use that kind of gun to protect your family because criminals use that kind of gun to hurt your family', what they are really saying is that you are a slave, and slaves can only do what we tell them they can do. Ironically, it's the criminals in that situation, that don't follow the individuals who call themselves Congress will anyway because they are criminals and will still use those guns to harm your family anyhow and you can't protect your family anyway. They paint "victim" on your forehead for all the criminals to see.
I wonder if you, like myself, have ever examined the relationship between your and the individuals who call themselves Congress? So you have two individuals, A and B, who ask you to give them your endorsement. You can't give both of them it, so you have to choose one. You choose A, they are more inline with your personal beliefs then B is. So finally it comes time to count the votes and B wins the election and now B is your "representative". I find the idea of calling someone whom you didn't choose can't honestly be your "representative". To me it's like saying I want this real estate agent to represent my interests and someone comes up and gives me a different real estate agent.
The difference between the individual "representing" your interests in Congress and the individual representing your interests in real estate, is you can fire them if they don't do a good job. But you think, you can recall an individual in Congress. Have you ever seen what it takes to recall an individual calling themselves Congress? You have to get a number of people in every single political subdivision of the "State" you live in sign a petition to recall that individual. It doesn't stop there, however, once you get that, then their is an official vote where everyone else decides if that person should be "recalled" and the number of people who are required to vote "yes" is some where in the fifty to sixty percent range. So, if you believe the individual claiming to represent you in Congress is doing something wrong and should be recalled, your view can be overridden by a simple majority of other individuals who are probably not paying attention to the facts anyhow.
How is it that this individual claiming to represent you could in fact even represent you. Imagine you and your neighbor George have opposing opinions on one single idea but in all other ideas you agree. You and George force individual B, who claims to represent you in that collection of human bodies calling themselves Congress, to choose which side of that idea to represent. If he chooses George's side, then he isn't representing you is he? If he chooses your side of the idea, then he isn't representing George.
Of course this would put any average individual who wants to represent people in to a quandary. Of course, the simple answer would be to just ignore you and George and represent they own side of the idea. This is what most of these individuals who claim to represent you who call themselves Congress do anyhow. You don't need to have to be a rocket scientist to see the facts staring you in your face to realize it. Take the issue called "Obama care", according to the media, most people opposed it. Most people told the individuals claiming to represent them and calling themselves Congress, to not vote for it. What did they do? They almost all voted in favor of it.
Back to the question of "why" we need a standing Congress. The founding father's created the concept of Congress to protect life, liberty, and property, and as high on a pedestal as we put them, they were human beings capable of making mistakes. The idea of Congress can now be seen as a mistake since this collection of men and women have been found to be as much of a threat to the concepts of life, liberty, and property as any other potential threat. When you tell someone they are a Hammerer and you give them a hammer, after they run out of nails to hammer, they might start thinking that everything else is a nail.
I personally am not a follower of the "Cult of Government", but if you are, and you value your life, liberty, and property, it would seem that the individuals in Congress are acting like the bullies. It may be a good idea to limit the amount of damage they can do by limiting the amount of time they have to do that damage or even better, only be called up when a big enough issue faces you and you need them to lead.
16 June 2012
Ideas of Education
As a parent of a awesome eight year old, education of my progeny is always on my mind. Relying on my past experiences of education and learning, I dislike the idea and execution of so called "public education". As someone who "has" had "ADHD" since age six, education was a horrible experience for me. I try to learn from those experiences to help my son have a happier experience and to actually learn things that are important to being a happy human being, not just some cog in a society formed to be the best cog he can be.
I, with help from my wife, educated our son from birth till 6 years old. We home schooled him for kindergarten and half of first grade. Due to economic reasons we had to enroll him into "public school" for the second half of first grade and then upon moving back to Alaska enrolled him into second grade. His experiences in first and second were better, due mostly to understanding teachers, but was still overall slightly rough.
The biggest problem was his behavior. He's impulsive and is learning to control those impulses. Not having had to control them, or learned to control them due to his home school environment, he is progressing as anyone could expect. Of course, his development in comparison to his peers is delayed because while they were learning to be a good cog in society, he was still allowed to be free to be impulsive. Now being presented with a more strict structure, he is adapting to it.
There are many alternatives to "education". I've tried the home school approach and while it may work for older children who know what they may want, I'm still exploring other options for educating him.
Currently I'm exploring "unschooling". The concept is a simple one. Rather then forcing a child to develop through curriculum, allow the child to learn through the natural process of child development. Taking games and play to teach things to children and allow them to self direct the process.
When I discuss with my son about his choices of education, I often show him that he has two options, the "regular school" option and a "home school" option. The only consistent complaint I hear from him on the idea of "home school" is that he won't get to play with his friends. So in designing the 'what to do next' phase of his education, I need to find him other children of the similar age group, or learning group so that in the between times in learning he has a small select group of children to play with.
My mind falls back to my experience when trying to solve this problem. Create a small group of third graders to come together on a regular basis to learn and play together. So that's what I'm looking at doing.
I, with help from my wife, educated our son from birth till 6 years old. We home schooled him for kindergarten and half of first grade. Due to economic reasons we had to enroll him into "public school" for the second half of first grade and then upon moving back to Alaska enrolled him into second grade. His experiences in first and second were better, due mostly to understanding teachers, but was still overall slightly rough.
The biggest problem was his behavior. He's impulsive and is learning to control those impulses. Not having had to control them, or learned to control them due to his home school environment, he is progressing as anyone could expect. Of course, his development in comparison to his peers is delayed because while they were learning to be a good cog in society, he was still allowed to be free to be impulsive. Now being presented with a more strict structure, he is adapting to it.
There are many alternatives to "education". I've tried the home school approach and while it may work for older children who know what they may want, I'm still exploring other options for educating him.
Currently I'm exploring "unschooling". The concept is a simple one. Rather then forcing a child to develop through curriculum, allow the child to learn through the natural process of child development. Taking games and play to teach things to children and allow them to self direct the process.
When I discuss with my son about his choices of education, I often show him that he has two options, the "regular school" option and a "home school" option. The only consistent complaint I hear from him on the idea of "home school" is that he won't get to play with his friends. So in designing the 'what to do next' phase of his education, I need to find him other children of the similar age group, or learning group so that in the between times in learning he has a small select group of children to play with.
My mind falls back to my experience when trying to solve this problem. Create a small group of third graders to come together on a regular basis to learn and play together. So that's what I'm looking at doing.
14 March 2011
Public Unions Should Not Be Allowed
Recently I was having a discussion with a friend who supports public unions and I was trying to get my ideas across about public unions.
I think that private individuals should have the ability to form unions. Personally, I don't think that unions are needed anymore as they currently exist. People have always had the freedom to associate and unions are just another form of association. Its perfectly acceptable that when one works for a private sector employer they can come together with their fellow employees and collectively enter into contract with their employer. Of course the employer always has the option to find new employees, should the costs of labor exceed what the business can get on the free and open market, providing he hasn't engaged in a contract that doesn't allow him to do so. While I believe any contract that doesn't allow an employer to 'start over' if contract negotiations break down is a foolish employer, but I support their ability to enter into any contract that voluntarily agree to.
Of course, public unions are a different animal then private unions. In the private sector a customer is free to buy or not to buy a service or product should that product or service not meet their needs or is priced more then they are willing to pay or whatever it may be. In a public union the employer is the public. Anyone who works for the public does so with the understanding that they are serving the public and the idea of 'making a profit' goes out the window, because they choose to work for the public and not a private individual. Working for the public means that you should expect your pay and benefits will be lower then the private sector not more than them, regardless of how 'important' the job may be.
I normally wouldn't be caught dead taking a cue from the likes of Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is my opinion that F.D.R. dealt the world a mighty blow with the policies during his term of office, the likes of which may be only equaled to those actions taken by Mr. Abraham Lincoln during his term. However, all men, regardless of their over all value have good points to be made. I take to heart those words by F.D.R. in his "Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service" dated August 16, 1937.
Public workers are paid for by the people. It is said that the people incur taxes by their representatives, it is actually that those in power demand you give them what they ask or you can sit in a cage, but I digress from my point. If we were to equate the quality of the service given to us by comparison, we are paying for a luxury car and getting a Volkswagon.
Statistics are compiled every year, showing us how public educated children are in the lower middle of educated children in the entire world. Our own state by state statistics show that it isn't the amount of money spent on education that isn't the problem. Some of the best schools in the US have the lowest per child per capita rate.
Teachers aren't the entire problem, the public unions are the problem. If a member of the people doesn't like the quality of Wal-Mart products, they can goto Target, or to Costco. The people however are stuck with public worker's since their jobs aren't 'readily transferable' to the private sector. It is in fact that they are, it is however the public unions that block all attempts to privatize those industries. All public workers would be far better off working in the private sector then in the public sector.
Another problem with public unions is that they and their members expect things that not even the private sector has. Pensions are no longer available in most, if not all, private sector jobs. If they aren't available in the private sector, then they ought not to be available in the public sector. The idea that you can get a portion of your income for the rest of your life isn't realistic as it once was. Many companies have choked to death on their pension plans, that is why they aren't available anymore. Today it is public sector pension plans that choke the budgets of every state, leading the people of those states to ruin.
Based on my own experience with health coverage, I've often lived without coverage because it was too expensive for me. At one dealer I worked at, the monthly rate to cover my healthcare was $571 a month, considering I made only $2200 a month, that was a large part of my income, had I taken it. The average cost of health insurance today for a family is $1176, so I would have been paying half of the total cost of my healthcare every month. If it is true in the private sector that employees pay half of the cost of their healthcare, then it ought to be that public employee's pay for half of their healthcare. Regardless of the actual percentages, it should be that public workers pay as much as private sector workers for the same thing.
In the private sector retirement plans employee contributions are the bulk of the money that gets put into the plan. Public workers aren't putting their fair share up for their retirement.
In the end, the private sector does things, produces things, provides services that people actually want because they voluntarily pay for them. Some people desire the things that public workers provide, if everyone wanted what they provide, they wouldn't work so hard to decrease their tax burden. If you are going to point a gun at my head and tell me to pay for a teacher, police, or other public worker, they better not be making more in total compensation then a private employee makes for the same job, or you might as well pull the trigger because its not worth it.
I think that private individuals should have the ability to form unions. Personally, I don't think that unions are needed anymore as they currently exist. People have always had the freedom to associate and unions are just another form of association. Its perfectly acceptable that when one works for a private sector employer they can come together with their fellow employees and collectively enter into contract with their employer. Of course the employer always has the option to find new employees, should the costs of labor exceed what the business can get on the free and open market, providing he hasn't engaged in a contract that doesn't allow him to do so. While I believe any contract that doesn't allow an employer to 'start over' if contract negotiations break down is a foolish employer, but I support their ability to enter into any contract that voluntarily agree to.
Of course, public unions are a different animal then private unions. In the private sector a customer is free to buy or not to buy a service or product should that product or service not meet their needs or is priced more then they are willing to pay or whatever it may be. In a public union the employer is the public. Anyone who works for the public does so with the understanding that they are serving the public and the idea of 'making a profit' goes out the window, because they choose to work for the public and not a private individual. Working for the public means that you should expect your pay and benefits will be lower then the private sector not more than them, regardless of how 'important' the job may be.
I normally wouldn't be caught dead taking a cue from the likes of Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is my opinion that F.D.R. dealt the world a mighty blow with the policies during his term of office, the likes of which may be only equaled to those actions taken by Mr. Abraham Lincoln during his term. However, all men, regardless of their over all value have good points to be made. I take to heart those words by F.D.R. in his "Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service" dated August 16, 1937.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.A member of the public workforce can not make demands upon his employer because his employer is all of the people. His employment is by its very nature based on what the people need or want. If the pay or benefits are not to his liking, he may always leave and join the private sector. To demand his employer, the public, pay him more then his job in the private sector is to say to the people whom he works for, 'I have a right to your money'. He is no longer the people's employee but now he attempts to act as it is he whom the people work for him.
Public workers are paid for by the people. It is said that the people incur taxes by their representatives, it is actually that those in power demand you give them what they ask or you can sit in a cage, but I digress from my point. If we were to equate the quality of the service given to us by comparison, we are paying for a luxury car and getting a Volkswagon.
Statistics are compiled every year, showing us how public educated children are in the lower middle of educated children in the entire world. Our own state by state statistics show that it isn't the amount of money spent on education that isn't the problem. Some of the best schools in the US have the lowest per child per capita rate.
Teachers aren't the entire problem, the public unions are the problem. If a member of the people doesn't like the quality of Wal-Mart products, they can goto Target, or to Costco. The people however are stuck with public worker's since their jobs aren't 'readily transferable' to the private sector. It is in fact that they are, it is however the public unions that block all attempts to privatize those industries. All public workers would be far better off working in the private sector then in the public sector.
Another problem with public unions is that they and their members expect things that not even the private sector has. Pensions are no longer available in most, if not all, private sector jobs. If they aren't available in the private sector, then they ought not to be available in the public sector. The idea that you can get a portion of your income for the rest of your life isn't realistic as it once was. Many companies have choked to death on their pension plans, that is why they aren't available anymore. Today it is public sector pension plans that choke the budgets of every state, leading the people of those states to ruin.
Based on my own experience with health coverage, I've often lived without coverage because it was too expensive for me. At one dealer I worked at, the monthly rate to cover my healthcare was $571 a month, considering I made only $2200 a month, that was a large part of my income, had I taken it. The average cost of health insurance today for a family is $1176, so I would have been paying half of the total cost of my healthcare every month. If it is true in the private sector that employees pay half of the cost of their healthcare, then it ought to be that public employee's pay for half of their healthcare. Regardless of the actual percentages, it should be that public workers pay as much as private sector workers for the same thing.
In the private sector retirement plans employee contributions are the bulk of the money that gets put into the plan. Public workers aren't putting their fair share up for their retirement.
In the end, the private sector does things, produces things, provides services that people actually want because they voluntarily pay for them. Some people desire the things that public workers provide, if everyone wanted what they provide, they wouldn't work so hard to decrease their tax burden. If you are going to point a gun at my head and tell me to pay for a teacher, police, or other public worker, they better not be making more in total compensation then a private employee makes for the same job, or you might as well pull the trigger because its not worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)