He rails against unions for their “frenzy against
freedom”, labeling them grandly as “the enemies of freedom”, and celebrates
Michigan’s new “Right to Work” law. In
the interest of his cherished freedom of opinion, he cheers for the decline of
the unions (is there some contradiction there, George?), and celebrates the
loss of union membership (made possible though the layoffs initiated because of
the recession brought on by the excesses of the wealthy.) Others have already spotted his misuse, in
his own frenzy, of Jefferson’s celebrated defense of the right to hold one’s
own RELIGIOUS opinion and not support through taxes the RELIGIOUS views of
others to argue for the right of non-union workers not to pay union dues. George’s
frenzy did not prevent him from careful deletion of the word “religious” from
the quote. Subsequent reprints of that
column have also carefully neglected to include the misused quote. And of course, as a devoted studier of Supreme
Court decisions, George should have noted, but did not, the distinction between
the unrestricted freedom of opinion and carefully regulated freedom of
action. In right to work laws, the issue
under debate is not opinion, but the “free loading” of non-union workers who
receive the benefits gained through collective bargaining without paying for
them, thereby creating their own little welfare state. In that perspective, right to work laws are
very close to the antithesis of the Jamestown Colony’s “If you don’t work, you don’t eat”. I’m sure George’s fellow princes of
capitalism would welcome the voluntary rejection of higher pay and benefits by
such principled workers.
Again in his pre-Christmas frenzy, though, George
failed to note the unions’ perhaps greatest attack against freedom. For as
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-laureate economist, notes, it is unions that provide
a major counter-force against corporate managers’ freedom to set their own
excessive salary increases while simultaneously laying off thousands of
workers. Corporate boards of directors
have long ago been made toothless in that regard. I wonder how poor George overlooked that?
George’s own version of Christmas Spirit exhibits
itself in his robust defense of the freedom of those who don’t care enough
about overcoming the many barriers to voting to insist on exercising their
right to vote. He asks, compassionately
I am sure, “should the indifferent be required to vote?” He laments that long voting lines are created
as the local jurisdictions in places like Alabama and Mississippi tidily try to
clean up their voting registers while the untidy poor wait to vote, and fears
that eventually voting will be a required exercise for all citizens. Oh, the
Horror! He notes that Hitler was elected
with an average voter turnout of 86 percent.
Might it have been preferable for Germans not to be allowed to vote at
all? George regards “lackadaisical
citizens choosing not to vote as a non-problem.” Perhaps he should investigate the suspicious
finding of sociologists that voting is itself a means of attaching citizens to
the society, and serves to promote social stability.
Ah, the vicissitudes of George’s pre-Christmas
doldrums. All the sweetness and light in
the air about us is getting to be too much!
Meanwhile though, we’ll wish him joy and peace, though he may lodge some
objections to its too easy availability to all.
Merry Christmas, George!
No comments:
Post a Comment