beamends wrote: 
That's why libertarianism isn't a viable option.
It's a great idea if you're self-sufficient and kind.
If you're dependent or unkind, then it's a poor choice to not have a government around to help or to keep you from taking advantage of others.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Well, yes - it would be nice if everyone played fair, but sadly human nature gets in the way. I suppose the trouble is everyone's definition of 'fair' is different. I like to think I treat all as equal, but I suspect others would not agree. That's not to say the dream should be abandoned, I just don't see any great progress being made in the near future.

 beamends wrote: 
yes.

I believe in my soul that people should do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because it is the law.  You may say I'm a dreamer... 

 islander wrote: 
If you're 25 years old and don't have a mortgage or kids, then sure it's easy to leave. But what if you are 40 years old, married with a house and kids? Many people in America are terrified of losing their jobs, because it's very difficult to get another one. People put up with a lot of garbage when they live in fear. Meanwhile corporations are making record profits and paying very little in taxes.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
When you say 'hate the government', is that hate it because there is one at all, or because you hate the general politics set up as is?

 beamends wrote: 
Maybe you haven't picked up on the fullness of my radicalism.  Government - in my humble opinion - is something to be hated at best.  I'm in the (apparently rather tiny) camp that thinks we need improved people, not improved government.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Hmmm - that is a bit weird, but then I find the idea of the kids doing an oath every day (or at least they did in New York sate when 'Er Indoors lived there a few years back) very strange too.

 hobiejoe wrote: 
Absolutely - avoiding sitting in my own mess slowly losing my marbles in front of day-time TV is a very high priority as that is a really scary prospect!

 islander wrote: 
you know, for a filthy rich effete snob, you're pretty smart.

 Proclivities wrote: 
That doesn't sound like the vast bastion of liberal thought that is RP....

I'm seriously fine if people want to join a union. I'm just saying that not much of this makes sense to me.  I know there was a time and place for unions and that's fine. I think there is even still a role for people who want to work that way. But a lot of the "protections" offered are really symbolic only and really serve to actually hurt the employees in many cases. With the large and mobile middle class brought to us by unions, people have a lot more options. This lessens the need for the unions. If you're not being treated fairly by your employer, you can leave. Your employer knows this and will treat you at least as well as he thinks you'll be treated at his biggest competitor if he thinks you bring more value to your job than he pays you in your paycheck. Yes corporations try to maximize their profits, but don't the employees try to maximize their wages as well?  The smartest of both of those groups will find a way to work together for best effect and split the difference. If they don't do it well, there will be some upstart who will enter the market and do it better.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Well said, whether you were venting or not.

 duchamp wrote: 
Thank you for your reality-based input.  It seems a great many people here desire to blame the teachers or the unions for all of the ills in this country.  Yes, horrible examples can be found everywhere and there is much lacking in the educational systems of this country.  I wonder how many of these pundits came out of five-or-more years of higher education, $70,000.00 in debt, and want to be told that they're greedy parasites because they desire to get into a teachers' union in order to earn a steady, living wage.  How many of them want to teach public school in Detroit, Memphis, or Newark?  Sometimes it seems more like resentment: "Well, I've never had a union looking out for me, so no one else should either".
Sorry, I guess I'm just venting and generalizing too.

 duchamp wrote: 

 oldslabsides wrote: 
ain't it though.   Sometimes that conflicts with the oath to teach ''what is factual and true as to your specialty''.

 duchamp wrote: 
and there's the rub.

 beamends wrote: 
Yes, there is.  ..and a morality clause; a teacher's oath to support the government and to model and teach good citizenship; a code of ethics; observations  on and on. I can only speak for the state of Florida. Many if not most of the discussions here on this subject are inaccurate and misleading.....ad nauseum.

Teachers are identified here as well and given, support et al.   In some cases their contracts are terminated or not renewed. Lifetime tenure for public school is no longer in my state.  It is for five years at a time.

Some horrible example can usually be found for most any thing...... teachers included.   

..

 beamends wrote: 
And, of course, it ameliorates some of the longevity pressure on the pension pot

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Tobacco smuggling into the UK - it's our only growth industry, and with the government adding 80p to a packet record sales are predicted. Also, there's none of that pesky tax to pay

 Lazy8 wrote:  I'm considering investing in hookers and blow.

 arighter2 wrote:
That's not all of it. The retirees lived a lot longer and their health insurance cost a lot more than GM projected when it made the investments.

If anybody has an investment that appreciates as fast as healthcare costs rise I need to hear about it!