Monday, February 28, 2011

Balance of Power, Corporate Interests, Unions, and Justice

...the outcome of both market fundamentalism and anarchism, if applied universally, is identical. The anarchists associate with the oppressed, the market fundamentalists with the oppressors. But by eliminating the state, both remove such restraints as prevent the strong from crushing the weak. Ours is not a choice between government and no government. It is a choice between government and the mafia." George Monbiat

Government wasn't intended to bring about justice, but prevent injustice. Those that petition their government for a redress of grievances are seeking justice from our courts. Ideally, our courts weren't to defend "justice", as our government's "checks and balances" were to prevent abuses of power.

James Madison viewed government as horizonally protecting or balancing of power among the braches of the Federal government (executive, legislative and judicial), while the vertical relationship was to be no less a balance of power.

Today many are seeking to uphold the Tenth Amendment, where States have the right to nullify the Federal government. Indiana's "Right to Work" was one such attempt to give "the people" a choice about whether the worker should be granted protection by "collective bargaining", that leaves the States at the mercy of teachers and thier union contracts.

Collective bargaining is a hierarchal form of governing, and without realizing it, the worker is less able to control his "outcome" than if he went about negotiating the terms himself. Collective bargaining has an intial appeal, as it grants "protections" and advances interests. But, once the unions are entrenched,  the worker becomes, again a pawn of others . Collectivity does nothing to enhance industry, creativity, and self-governance. And it does nothing to protect the corporation from manipulations from the worker. And honest job requires an honest wage, and those terms should be negotiated terms, in a free society. Corporatons, nor the Union has a right to impose their terms upon the individual, without consent!

So, while I don't believe that anarchy is the means to further "good government", neither is collective bargaining. The individual must deal with his company himself, and the company should have the decency to negotiate the terms of the contract with the full knowledge and consent of those employed.

No comments: