Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Is it hypocritical to...

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:10:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
say that money isn't speech (i.e. corporations shouldn't be allowed to influence politics) and defend public unions (i.e. people influencing politics to get a better contract or more work)?
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:17:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 1:10:50 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
say that money isn't speech (i.e. corporations shouldn't be allowed to influence politics) and defend public unions (i.e. people influencing politics to get a better contract or more work)?

Is it hypocritical to the reverse :p?

it depends on your reasoning. Yes it would be hypocritical, but you could come up with another justification to defend public unions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:28:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 1:17:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:10:50 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
say that money isn't speech (i.e. corporations shouldn't be allowed to influence politics) and defend public unions (i.e. people influencing politics to get a better contract or more work)?

Is it hypocritical to the reverse :p?
No, because public unions can be opposed on multiple levels, while "money isn't speech" only has one attack: buying votes.

it depends on your reasoning. Yes it would be hypocritical, but you could come up with another justification to defend public unions.

You could defend public unions with other reasons, but the fact is, in both situations, an effort to influence politicians is made for the express purpose of negotiating a better contract, whether it is a labor issue or a contract for a business to get work.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:32:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are you talking about Union lobbying, or Unions negotiating a contract w/ the employer?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:36:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 1:32:28 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Are you talking about Union lobbying, or Unions negotiating a contract w/ the employer?

Specifically public unions, since elected officials negotiate/approve the contract. I see no material distinction between a company trying to sway public opinion and/or politicians' votes or a union doing it.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:38:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 1:36:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:32:28 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Are you talking about Union lobbying, or Unions negotiating a contract w/ the employer?

Specifically public unions, since elected officials negotiate/approve the contract. I see no material distinction between a company trying to sway public opinion and/or politicians' votes or a union doing it.

Unions don't do it with money, and the amount of money they can spend is pretty highly regulated. Unions cannot, as a general rule, use money for political campaigning; they must set up a PAC for that.

So what are you talking about specifically? Are you talking about advertisements, or bribes, or what?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:40:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 1:38:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:36:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:32:28 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Are you talking about Union lobbying, or Unions negotiating a contract w/ the employer?

Specifically public unions, since elected officials negotiate/approve the contract. I see no material distinction between a company trying to sway public opinion and/or politicians' votes or a union doing it.

Unions don't do it with money, and the amount of money they can spend is pretty highly regulated. Unions cannot, as a general rule, use money for political campaigning; they must set up a PAC for that.

So what are you talking about specifically? Are you talking about advertisements, or bribes, or what?

But the same applies for corporations as well. Unions and corporations fall under the same regulations I believe
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:42:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 1:38:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:36:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:32:28 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Are you talking about Union lobbying, or Unions negotiating a contract w/ the employer?

Specifically public unions, since elected officials negotiate/approve the contract. I see no material distinction between a company trying to sway public opinion and/or politicians' votes or a union doing it.

Unions don't do it with money, and the amount of money they can spend is pretty highly regulated. Unions cannot, as a general rule, use money for political campaigning; they must set up a PAC for that.

So what are you talking about specifically? Are you talking about advertisements, or bribes, or what?

Votes.
People in public unions literally vote for who will negotiate their contract. How is this any different than a company spending money on advertising or PACS to benefit them?

In both cases, entities are influencing government for their own ends.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:47:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 1:42:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:38:18 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:36:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:32:28 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Are you talking about Union lobbying, or Unions negotiating a contract w/ the employer?

Specifically public unions, since elected officials negotiate/approve the contract. I see no material distinction between a company trying to sway public opinion and/or politicians' votes or a union doing it.

Unions don't do it with money, and the amount of money they can spend is pretty highly regulated. Unions cannot, as a general rule, use money for political campaigning; they must set up a PAC for that.

So what are you talking about specifically? Are you talking about advertisements, or bribes, or what?

Votes.
People in public unions literally vote for who will negotiate their contract. How is this any different than a company spending money on advertising or PACS to benefit them?

In both cases, entities are influencing government for their own ends.

That's an absurd comparison.

We vote for politicians we like or who will serve our interests all the time, union, corporation, or none of the above.

The people who make up the corporations are allowed to vote just as much as union members; that has nothing to do with the "money as speech" debate, and it's wholly different than spending money on political campaigning.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:54:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a corporatist structure of government, both sides (labor and business) have equal representation in a decision making process where everyone must agree on a compromise.

I think this is highly effective and fair. Unfortunately, all of the best experiments with this have been under authoritarian regimes.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord