As a Libertarian and staunch individualist, I have been frustrated by a growing Socialist presence in our government. If you’re reading my site odds are better than even that you feel the same way.

Well who is the leading champion of the socialist ideals that threaten our freedoms? Is it politicians? The students?

It’s the unions.

A while ago I came across a statistic from a January report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, stating that for the first time in American history, more union members are employed by the various levels of government than in the whole of private industry. Since that time I’ve been working on an article on labor unions, trying to put my finger on exactly what bugs me about them only to conclude it’s…everything. There’s so much information regarding the negative impact they’ve had on our economy and government, that I may not even scratch the surface. But I will try.

The whole idea of organized workers is one that originated with Marx and Engels, infused into unions by the father of the American labor movement; Eugene Victor Debs. Founding member of the International Labor Union, as well as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Debs went on to run for President of the United States as a member of the Social Democratic Party in 1900, and later as the Socialist Party of America candidate in 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920.

He recruited blue collar Marxists, attracted to union organizing for the same reason white collar Marxists are attracted to community organizing, because they are failures who could not succeed in the competitive environment of a free market. Unions and government are the means by which they gang up, and confiscate the success of others. That is the essential notion of labor unions. Forming a labor cartel, for centralized planning and negotiation by the workers, with the express purpose of redistributing wealth from “upper class” owners to the “under class”; until at last ownership of the means of production is vested solely in the workers.

But like it’s political cousin, labor organizing seldom works as advertised.

Wealth re-distributors would have you believe that wealth is redistributed from the wealthy to the poor, or in the case of unions from the "management" to the "employee" class. In reality it is the middle class managers and non union employees (regardless of income) who suffer from a unionized workforce’s redistribution.

Unions increase the wages of 10 to 15% of workers by as much as 15% at the cost of reducing the wages of the other 85 to 90% of workers by about 4%, and because labor unions raise the cost of labor above the median, employers ultimately can afford to employ fewer people, thus reducing productivity and adding to unemployment. Think about it: steel workers, auto workers, virtually all of our manufacturing sector; unions have run these industries into the ground, and forced much of it overseas in an effort to compete.

So why are union jobs in government surging when their private sector brethren are on the unemployment line? Because union bosses finally stumbled upon their niche. Government has no competition, no market forces. With the right people in power, government can grow and grow until it’s near collapse, but not before fattening union coffers.

But with union workers having infiltrated every level of government, and big labor owning the Democratic party, how could labor get any more powerful? Why, forced unionization and forming their own political party of course.

Are you worried yet?

Vote for leaders that fight for smaller government, who are not beholden to labor, and support National Right To Work...or you will be forced to join a union, sooner or later.

28Apr2010
Last night I put to bed an issue that's been taking up a lot of my free (read: blogging) time, and am now the proud owner of a PT Cruiser.

No, I wasn't by swayed by General Motor's recent advertisement touting how they paid taxpayers back five years ahead of schedule. The model I bought was an '06, a much coveted "pre-bailout" GM.

Despite the warm fuzzy feeling you're meant to get from that commercial, GM's assertion that it has paid back its loan is about as compelling as "No, really, the cream cleared that rash right up." You still just don't want to go there.

Of course when government and big business collude, you're not getting the full story.

On Apr 21 General Motors made an announcement that it had paid back the remainder of its debt to the government, about $4.7 of the original $6.7 billion in government loans.

But that $6.7 billion dollar loan is small in comparison to the $50 billion dollar total bailout package given to GM. The package leaves the U.S. a 60% equity owner through the TARP program, and gave GM working capital to repay their loan to the government...with money from the government.

Don't you just love accounting?

19Apr2010
For a couple of weeks, I've been researching an entry on labor unionization in America.

It was practically written. But I find that the retirement of Andy Stearns as president of SEIU, and this article by the Washington post, have me going in an entirely new direction.

Expect the updated post in a few days. Something is happening, and it isn't good for any of us.

15Apr2010
I spent a couple of hours today passing out Liberty on the Rocks brochures at Des Moines' Tax Day Tea party.

There was a pretty good turn out, I gave out about half of my pamphlets, and some business cards.

People were a little hesitant to talk to me, likely for fear of a set up, since a few infiltrators were in attendance.

What pathetic human beings; to NEED for the Tea Party to match their concept of racist hatemongers so badly, that they will fabricate evidence where none exists.

The National Tea Party Federation said that between 1,700 and 2,000 tax-day rallies were scheduled for today nationwide, and the attendees are vigilant.

I'm sure some so called "incriminating" photos will turn up on MSNBC, but somehow I don't think the leftist slackers behind the party crashers have the balls or organization to make any real impact.

06April2010
Collectivism isn’t new; it isn’t a conception of man. It, like individualism, is inherent within us; one of two states in the human condition.

There is a sizeable portion of our society, which bears ethical resemblance to swine. They desire neither liberty, nor opportunity, only security; and they’ve no care for what the "farmer" may want in the end, so long as they’re fed on time.

We’re not fighting their ideological leaders, the farmers. We're fighting the very lowest among them, the greedy little piglets. Every one of them would prey upon their neighbor, yet they choose to live with one another because plunder has become their way of life. Their moral code justifies it, so they consistently vote to make our legal system agree.

That makes them the most dangerous of herd animals…the entitled electorate. Just as a hog will eat anything it can get to, so will they seize anything left undefended in the name of society’s “need”.

When Thomas Jefferson said that it was the natural progress of things that the people yield their liberty and government gain ground, he couldn’t have imagined the world today or just how right he was. We are in one hell of a fight.

But, take comfort.

It has also been said that when Socialism is allowed to take hold and grows in its power and acceptance by the people, it will at last become the position of contemporary conservatism. Then, as always, to struggle with the revolutionary minority which seeks to overcome it. If that sounds absurd, one need only think that in the socialist nations of Europe; the word “Liberal” means something closer to our definition of “Libertarian” than that of “Socialist”.

03Apr2010

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

In July of 2008 when candidate Obama said those words, it set alot of those in the liberty set to talking, and the main stream media dismissed us as tin-foil hat kooks.

Well it happens that there is a little-known provision in the health care reform bill (just 2 of 2700 pages) that would authorize the President of the United States to create a 6,000 person "Reserve Corps". While it is ostensibly to be used in healthcare emergencies, the language in the bill is ambiguous; this force would be battlefield trained, domestically deployable, and under exclusive command of the executive branch. The potential for abuse is massive.

I'm sure there'd be plenty of volunteers lined up to become foot soldiers in Obama's zombie army.

We are down the rabbit hole, folks.