RedStateEclectic

From the New World

The Symphony No. 9 in E Minor "From the New World", Op. 95, B. 178, popularly known as the New World Symphony, was composed by Antonín Dvořák in 1893 during his visit to the United States from 1892 to 1895. It is by far his most popular symphony, and one of the most popular in the modern repertoire. In older literature and recordings this symphony is often indicated as Symphony No. 5.

 

Favourable Conditions for Theocratic Regimes and the Reconditioning of the American Mind

Thanks to the American government, Nebraska, of all places, had a role to play in instigating militant Islamic fundamentalism, which it was once politically correct to regard as heroic and pro-West, and has been reinterpreted since as a deadly threat which the poorest people in the world pose to the United States.

“In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books… [The U.S. is] now…wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism. What seemed like a good idea in the context of the Cold War is being criticized by humanitarian workers as a crude tool that steeped a generation in violence. … Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s…[at] the University of Nebraska-Omaha…Today, the books remain widely available in schools and shops, to the chagrin of international aid workers. ‘The pictures [in] the texts are horrendous to school students…’ One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is missing. Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin, who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says.” (Source here.)

Talking about favourable conditions for theocratic regimes, the foreign policy botchers of the US government are unlikely to have ever considered this in coming up with their Middle East "strategies":

The rise of theocratic regimes in the Middle East may continue, following a longstanding pattern that goes back at least to the overthrow of the Shah in Iran.

The Shah, like all Middle East dictators, including Egypt's recently overthrown Mubarak, and the embattled Col. Gaddafi of Libya never allowed opposition parties to form. Once the regime was overthrown, the only group with an organization in the country, the religious, filled the power vacuum. There are no political parties in Egypt and Libya. The religious groups have the organizations, giving them a strong edge in filling the power vacuum.

Will Americans soon be reeducated to hate the Libyans and the Egyptians that overthrew Gaddafi and Mubarak, just like they were successfully reconditioned to hate the once admired anti-Soviet freedom fighters of Afghanistan?

Where Does Government End and Personal Responsibility Begin?

Senator + Lobbyist = Zero Real Reform

NET recently interviewed Senator Lathrop about the labor reform issue in Nebraska and lobbyist Lynn Rex about city-state relations. Both videos offer useful insight into the issue.

Senator Lathrop’s main solution to the public union issue is to clarify statutes so municipal governments can make more accurate forecasts for labor costs. All the same structures would remain, but cities could fine tune their budgets better. This would do little to head off failing city budgets.

Similarly, municipal lobbyist Lynn Rex proposes to improve government labor costs by using a better formula to estimate cities’ costs. She rightly praises the idea of at least comparing city employee wages with similar positions within the community, but misses the real point of the issue.

Politics has too much influence in government labor relations. The whole point of the Business and Labor Committee is to manage this kind of dispute. Deflecting the reform to minor clarifications of existing statutes would leave the same structures in place. The CIR, public unions across the state, municipal lobbyists, and the Business and Labor Committee would still hold the same level of influence.

By supporting mild reforms Senator Lathrop and Lynn Rex would come out looking like they took decisive action to resolve the labor issue but in reality little would change. Public unions will still be susceptible to irrational revenue and cost factors, political moves for personal benefit, poor stewardship, corruption, and all the faults of government revenue systems (taxation). All the same distortions in government cost estimates could come back to bite Nebraskans sooner or later.

Abolishing collective bargaining for public employees would have a much more pronounced effect than making minor tweaks to statutes. Elimination of the monopoly power held by public unions would enable municipalities to outsource a large portion of their services. Not only would it eliminate political influence from government services but it would also lead to much more efficient and accessible services.

As the country’s fiscal crisis gets worse citizens must demand the best solutions from all levels of government. Elimination of public unions is an important step in the right direction. Please contact Senator Lathrop and the other members of the Business and Labor Committee and ask them to support LB 664, the strongest of the labor reform bills.

Government Unions - A Vicious Cycle

Government is supposed to serve the people. By implication, government workers are supposed to serve the people. I am amazed at the lack of an ethos in many government employees that would reflect the fundamental purpose of their employment.

Instead, many government workers consider self-enrichment at the expense of the people a fundamental right.

Public-union supporters would have us believe that government employees' right to bargain collectively was handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. In fact, these unions are of relatively recent vintage, and some states don't allow them.

"The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create," explained labor expert James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation in the New York Times. [See also my post W.H. Hutt on Unions, G.T.]

"Government workers, however, don't generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers.'"

So why did public unions catch on, then grow exponentially in the 1960s?

Because union leaders and Democratic politicians, like New York City's Mayor Robert Wagner, figured out they could benefit big-time from scratching one another's backs.

They could guarantee full campaign coffers for Democratic candidates while arming public employees with a power to dictate their own wages and benefits that private-sector unionists could only dream about.

Here's the vicious cycle: Union leaders take money from union dues and pass it to Democratic candidates. Once elected, the politicians "negotiate" with the unions that helped elect them.

In essence, the unions hire their own bosses who face them across the bargaining table. Eat your heart out, Delta Air Lines union members.

Politicians repay unions' financial support by doling out hefty pensions and benefits. It's easy to be generous when you're spending taxpayers' money, not your own.

Elected officials aren't accountable to a board of directors or shareholders, and they don't have to worry about going bankrupt, as private companies do.

Government is a monopoly, or near monopoly, so it has no concerns about competitiveness or efficiency to keep it honest. To keep unions happy, politicians need only kick the can down the road.

Today, public unions are among the Democratic Party's largest donors, and form the core of its on-the-ground campaign machine.

AFSCME was the biggest outside spender in the 2010 elections, shelling out $91 million. War chests of this magnitude strike fear in the hearts of politicians of both parties.

When New Jersey's Gov. Chris Christie took on the teachers union last year, he faced a $6 million barrage of attack ads in just two months.

Government unions' cozy relationships with the politicians who write their checks short-circuits the democratic process, giving partial control of public agencies to unelected labor leaders.

The public good suffers. Today, for example, union power makes it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher.

But the gig is up.

Increasingly, taxpayers understand that the structural deficits this arrangement generates will bankrupt us. Already, taxpayer-subsidized pensions and benefits are edging out other spending priorities -- from schools to parks and highways.

Scott Walker joins New York's Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey's indefatigable Chris Christie in shining the light of truth on this situation.

Recently, Christie confronted a crowd of catcalling union firefighters.

"I understand you feel deceived and betrayed," he told them. "For 20 years, governors ... have lied to you, promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for ... just hoping that they wouldn't be the man or woman left holding the bag."

Christie is trying to save the state's public-employee pension system, he said, which is close to bankruptcy. "What I don't understand is why you're booing the first guy to tell you the truth."

Walker's battle is our battle. Christie puts it bluntly: "If we don't win this fight, there's no other fight left."

The full article.

Hat tip to Carpe Diem.

W. H. Hutt on Unions

Anyone seriously interested in understanding the pros and cons of unions will be hugely assisted in her endeavour by taking note of the work of W.H. Hutt, "who showed that South Africa's economic apartheid was largely designed to protect white labor union members from black competition."

A good and rather comprehensive introduction of Hutt's work is available here, a number of his books are also available from the Mises Institute (see especially the Literature section for down-loadable books by Hutt).

From Rafe Champion's introductory article Bill Hutt on Trade Unions, Wage Fixing and the Rule of Law, where he summarises Hutt's debunking of the following myths:

1. The industrial revolution and the factory system resulted in a period of brutal exploitation of the labouring masses.

2. The workers were frustrated and oppressed by the Combination Acts which were designed to favour the employers and to prevent the workers from forming associations.

3. Labour has an inherent disadvantage in the contest with capital unless the state intervenes to provide assistance, especially by protecting the right to engage in collective bargaining and strike activity.

4. Labour had to wage a bitter struggle to achieve improved pay and conditions.

5. Collective bargaining by the trade unions is a manifestation of the solidarity of the working class to resist exploitation and get a fair go.

6. Wage rates are “indeterminate” so it is good for unions to bargain as hard as they can to get the best possible pay and conditions.

7. Strike activity with the use of violence against non-conforming workers is morally legitimate to adjust for the imbalance of power between labour and capital.

8. Collective bargaining, with strikes or the threat of strikes, is not only morally legitimate but it was also necessary to improve the share of the common wealth between labour and capital.

These views are deeply entrenched in the mythology and the ethos of the labour movement and in the community at large because they have been propagated in standard histories and in works of fiction (novels, films, songs, plays, and other works of art) and in folklore generally. As a result, most of them, if not all, would gain practically universal assent, even among people who deplore the abuses of trade union power and influence in modern times.

A person who used a combination of historical research, sound economic principles and clear reasoning to demolish each and every one of those eight assumptions deserves to be well known and well read, indeed he or she ought to be a household word in up to date and progressive intellectual circles. The person is William Harold Hutt (1898-1988).

The full article.

See the Red Tide cartoon on the State of the Union.

 

Public Unions: Revolting, Nation-wide

UPDATE: More information on the labor reform issue in Nebraska: Senator + Lobbyist = Zero Real Reform.

Public Unions: Revolting, Nation-wide

As the budget crisis deepens, state and local governments are seeking new means of cutting costs. The recent pro-union protests in Wisconsin have taken center stage in the national budget battle and have inspired similar protests across the country.

The Nebraska Capitol was the site of Nebraska’s Wisconsin-esque protest this Saturday. Hundreds of Nebraskans showed up on a cold, snowy day to show their support for union members and the retention of collective bargaining by state employees. To get a better understanding of the pro-union perspective, Jeremy Jensen of the York County Tea Party briefly interviewed several protesters. His video provides several examples of the unfortunate misconceptions people hold about public unions.

The Case for Labor

First, a woman described the pro-union view of private corporations (4:00), “we have seen time and time again that corporations will not support our rights as workers … their bottom line is money not people.” This interpretation of American corporations hearkens back to the industrialist days prior to World War I. Corporations are motivated purely by profits and would presumably enslave anyone who they can get their hands on, according to the unionistas. On the other hand, unions protect the “little guy” workers from awful greedy men who would dare to question public union members’ ‘right’ to retire at age 45 and get paid over $80k per year while getting hundreds of days off every year. Never mind corporations, this rally was about public unions, so the evil greedy corporation in this case is YOU: the taxpayer.

She later clarified what she meant by ‘rights’ (11:35), “Worker rights are human rights, period.” Human rights generally refer to protection from activities such as slave labor, forced prostitution and war crimes.  I don’t think any rational person would disagree with her - those things are unacceptable, but she takes the idea of human rights much further. Her perspective is that workers deserve the right to collectively bargain, to come together and force cigar-smoking employers in top hats to provide ever-increasing guarantees of benefits and pay. This is always backed with the threat of force by way of production-crippling strikes.

Economic Reality

Individual employees who feel they are underpaid are always free to seek better employment. It is not uncommon for people in the private sector to change jobs often. However, if an employee is working in an industry dominated by a monopoly he or she may have much more difficulty finding an equivalent job.

In a free market the general rise in prices for goods or services produced by unionized businesses will discourage consumers and they will tend to take their business elsewhere. If the union understands the lost market share resulted from their actions, future demands on employers will be less drastic and the business can still compete with non-union counterparts.

By nature, government is a monopoly. By monopolizing sectors of the economy (police, fire, schools) the government erases the free market counter-balance described in the paragraph above. Unions can continue to make higher and higher demands. Members can shirk productivity because the union protects them from having to compete.

Politics interferes with normal employer-employee relations, especially in the form of high pensions. Promises of future compensation are written into contracts because it conceals the compensation in the immediate view (i.e. a $40k salary sounds reasonable, but the real costs are contained in extravagant pensions that don’t pay out until later).

Over time taxpayers pay higher and higher taxes without receiving corresponding increases in productivity. Ultimately these factors have led us to the current debt crisis. A man at the Capitol rally Saturday acknowledged the debt (8:20), incorrectly stating that Nebraska is “almost a trillion dollars in debt”. In reality the budget shortfall for FY12 is $314 million – no small amount but definitely nowhere near $1 trillion.

Nebraska Legislature Incapable of Reason

After the Omaha union/budget fiasco of 2010 a whopping NINE labor reform bills were introduced in the Nebraska legislature. Business and Labor Committee Chairman Senator Lathrop said, “They want to get rid of labor unions, because they want everyone to work for minimum wage.” As Chairman, Lathrop can dictate the direction of any labor reform. He introduced one of the nine bills, LB 397, but it is a “shell bill” meant to be a placeholder for a later substitute. His apparent bias toward labor unions and his key position in committee will likely mean any labor reform will be ineffective.

One Ray of Hope in the Battle of Public Union Budget Woes

LB 50 would help to diminish the monopoly of public unions in education. It would create scholarships for children so that they can attend private schools. See Advancing School Choice in Nebraska for more.

More Pro-Union Protest Statements

1.       8:20 - “that’s what Republicans do, they spread lies!”  

 ~Rather than use rational judgment, it is easier for partisans to simply demonize the opposition.

 2.       13:20 - “if governments cut employment in a recession they make the recession worse. They have to run deficits, which they can easily do.”

 ~FDR, according to some textbooks, singlehandedly saved America during the Depression by creating 3-lettered bureaucracies to employ displaced workers. The benefits of government projects are questionable, inefficient at best, but FDR convinced people of the goodness of government with his jobs programs. America had the ability to deficit spend back then because the dollar was much more valuable but today’s monetary situation at the Federal Reserve and the fiscal situation in Washington make it increasingly difficult to continue funding deficits without de-valuing the dollar. Furthermore, states and municipalities cannot print more money to pay for bills like the Fed/Washington can.

 3.       13:46 - “I don’t know how changing the CIR is going to fix the budget problem,” said one union leader.

~If you don’t understand you shouldn’t be leading anybody.

 4.       14:30 Regarding corporations’ bad working conditions: “I don’t want to call out any corporation per se. I think wages get lower and lower when you allow them to. Or there’s ways in which corporations find ways to cut corners which means maybe your wages don’t go down but you’re expected to work more hours. They’re always trying to get more productivity out of workers.” … “To get productivity out of workers is great but to squeeze them to the point where they no longer … care about what it is that they’re doing … your job should bring you happiness, it should bring you meaning.”

~While smart enough to perceive decreasing wages, the woman doesn’t make the connection to decreasing prices. Products across the board have continually become cheaper due to things like increased worker productivity, increased quantity of competing products, increased number of overall products on the market, and decreasing costs of materials. Think about the cost of computers and cell phones as well as the increased productivity they enabled. All of these factors are normal functions in the free market, and while the numerical values of prices and wages have changed over time the overall result of free market competition has been increased quality of life. Strange, quality of life seems to be what she is getting at in the second half of her statement?!

5.       15:20 – “This governor pushed his responsibility off to cities, forcing them to raise taxes, not doing what he is supposed to do.”

~Running city budgets is not the duty of the State Government. If it were, there would be no point in having city governments.

6.       15:40 - Paying taxes is patriotic?!

~I simply disagree with this.

7.       16:50 - “we have to protect Nebraskans, we have to protect United States-ians”

~I just hope any liberty activists who get interviewed at events know better than to say something as outrageous as “United States-ians”.

Even More Ridiculous Statements

The correlating rally in Colorado’s capital Denver was more raucous, with a large union rally countered by a large tea party. One woman’s summary/impression of the goofy insults heard that day: “Yeah! How dare you send your children to homeschool instead of public schools because the teacher’s union is in charge of public schools and they are doing such a great job, you jobless, except secretly job-having, rich, regular-clothes-wearing, except secretly wear your suits and sit behind your desks and spend your money, Escalade-driving Nazis, you Wall Street tools, who are also slaves and secretly Chinese?! Yeah!”

Triumph of an Ideal - Classical Liberalism

The second, longer, and even more fascinating part of Dr. Davies lectures on the decline and triumph of classical liberalism. See also The Decline of an Ideal - Classical Liberalism, and enjoy:

 

Even in a Red State

There was a Worker’s Rights Rally in Lincoln today.  I didn’t make it, but a friend of mine did, and provided this video.  I found myself sitting at the computer with my jaw dropped.  As another friend suggested, “these people eat propaganda for breakfast.”

Be prepared.  The views here represents (I think/hope) a very small percentage of Nebraskans.  Watch for the folks quoting Lenin and claiming to be socialists!

UPDATE: The view from the counter protest.

Decline of an Ideal - Classical Liberalism

Dr. Davies traces the decline of classical liberal/libertarian ideas from the mid-19th century through the mid-20th century.

Make sure to visit Laura's post on Liberty Republicans (for an important account of classical liberalism's influence and decline in America). A brief summary of the main tenets of classical liberalism is available from What Is Classical Liberalism. You may also find of interest The Classic Conception of Freedom.