• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The need to abolish Police unions

vegas giants said:
This is an important lesson for you. I have already asked the question twice. Why do I need to ask it a third time? Oh wait.....that was a question....you will ignore it. LOL
Click to expand...

So pathetic. I assume you would carry on like this for months accusing me of not answering some random mystery question you allege to have asked that I haven't answered, while continuing to refuse to even say what it is. Truly shameful.

If you had the courage to answer the question I asked you probably seven times, these would be your options:

1) Sure, repeal 15 USC 17. The problem with that is that it would make much of what unions do illegal, and all the nation's unions would rail against you for being an anti-union bigot, but the debate between us would end because you and I would be in agreement about how the law should apply to labor unions.

2) No, don't repeal 15 USC 17, at which point you would be simultaneously arguing that unions are not cartels while arguing to protect the exemption they have from laws that prohibit cartels.

I've already explained to you the trap you're in. The reality is that unions are cartels, and whether you answer my question or not, acknowledging the question itself requires acknowledgement that unions are cartels. That's why you're dodging it.
 
Neomalthusian said:
So pathetic. I assume you would carry on like this for months accusing me of not answering some random mystery question you allege to have asked that I haven't answered, while continuing to refuse to even say what it is. Truly shameful.

If you had the courage to answer the question I asked you probably seven times, these would be your options:

1) Sure, repeal 15 USC 17. The problem with that is that it would make much of what unions do illegal, but the debate would end because you and I would be in agreement about how the law should apply to labor unions.

2) No, don't repeal 15 USC 17, at which point you would be simultaneously arguing that unions are not cartels while protecting the exemption they have from laws that prohibit cartels.

I've already explained to you the trap you're in. The reality is that unions are cartels, and whether you answer my question or not, acknowledging the question itself requires acknowledgement that unions are cartels.
Click to expand...
I'll be nice . No I do not favor repeal. Now time for you to get another question

Why do you think specifically the governemt grants exemptions to several institutions along with unions?
 
Neomalthusian said:
So pathetic. I assume you would carry on like this for months accusing me of not answering some random mystery question you allege to have asked that I haven't answered, while continuing to refuse to even say what it is. Truly shameful.

If you had the courage to answer the question I asked you probably seven times, these would be your options:

1) Sure, repeal 15 USC 17. The problem with that is that it would make much of what unions do illegal, and all the nation's unions would rail against you for being an anti-union bigot, but the debate between us would end because you and I would be in agreement about how the law should apply to labor unions.

2) No, don't repeal 15 USC 17, at which point you would be simultaneously arguing that unions are not cartels while arguing to protect the exemption they have from laws that prohibit cartels.

I've already explained to you the trap you're in. The reality is that unions are cartels, and whether you answer my question or not, acknowledging the question itself requires acknowledgement that unions are cartels. That's why you're dodging it.
Click to expand...

Antitrust laws do not apply to, or are modified in, several specific categories of enterprise (including sports, media, utilities, health care, insurance, banks, and financial markets) and for several kinds of actor (such as employees or consumers taking collective action).[28] First, since the Clayton Act 1914 §6, there is no application of antitrust laws to agreements between employees to form or act in labor unions. This was seen as the "Bill of Rights" for labor, as the Act laid down that the "labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce". The purpose was to ensure that employees with unequal bargaining power were not prevented from combining in the same way that their employers could combine in corporations,[29] subject to the restrictions on mergers that the Clayton Act set out. However, sufficiently autonomous workers, such as professional sports players have been held to fall within antitrust provisions.[
 
Human labor is not an commodity or article of commerce and thus can not form a cartel
 
vegas giants said:
I'll be nice . No I do not favor repeal. Now time for you to get another question

Why do you think specifically the governemt grants exemptions to several institutions along with unions?
Click to expand...

vegas giants said:
Antitrust laws do not apply to, or are modified in, several specific categories of enterprise (including sports, media, utilities, health care, insurance, banks, and financial markets) and for several kinds of actor (such as employees or consumers taking collective action).[28] First, since the Clayton Act 1914 §6, there is no application of antitrust laws to agreements between employees to form or act in labor unions. This was seen as the "Bill of Rights" for labor, as the Act laid down that the "labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce". The purpose was to ensure that employees with unequal bargaining power were not prevented from combining in the same way that their employers could combine in corporations,[29] subject to the restrictions on mergers that the Clayton Act set out. However, sufficiently autonomous workers, such as professional sports players have been held to fall within antitrust provisions.
Click to expand...

Last minute copying and pasting from Wikipedia isn't going to impress me. I am well aware of how Antitrust laws treat labor unions (I was the one that brought it up in this thread), and I am intimately aware of the philosophical basis for why Clayton was passed with the arbitrary declaration that labor is not an article of commerce. That philosophical basis lacks any semblance of consistency and is basically just wrong, as evidenced by the general rule that every single organization of sellers of any type of labor/service that is subject to antitrust laws unless they are considered a bona fide labor union. Labor is an article of commerce, and labor is subject to antitrust/anti-cartel regulations.

Every seller of labor is subject to antitrust laws, i.e. the seller of labor cannot assert monopoly power or engage in tactics that inhibit the free sale of similar labor by competitors. Even non-profits are subject to antitrust regulations. This makes labor an article of commerce subject to antitrust regulations in every case except when the seller of labor joins a bona fide labor cartel, because those particular organizations enjoy special exemption. The fact that all sellers of labor are subject to antitrust regulations that forbid cartel tactics flies in the face of the arbitrary declaration that labor is not an article of commerce and thus not bound by antitrust regulations. This declaration doesn't hold up to the reality of how labor is bought and sold, rather it is just used as the excuse to grant only particular types of sellers of labor (those which belong to a labor union) this exemption.

If you start a computer repair company with some computer buddies, you and your buddies sell your labor to people who need computer repair labor, and you cannot get friends on your local council to pass laws prohibiting or inhibiting other computer repair companies from forming or moving in and competing with your price so that you can keep yours high. If you start any other company or organization, even if it's a non-profit, you sell your labor and that of any staff you hire, and antitrust regulations apply to you. Only by joining a labor union, which is protected under the antitrust exemption stemming from Clayton, are you and the other cartel members allowed to engage in cartel tactics because 15 U.S.C. Section 17 explicitly permits that which is otherwise illegal for those particular types of sellers of labor only (and a handful of other examples of government-granted monopolies/cartels, e.g. auto dealer associations).

Legally speaking, labor is not regarded as an article of commerce when and only when the seller of labor belongs to a labor union. In every other case, labor is an article of commerce. In reality, labor is always an article of commerce. It is simply declared otherwise as an excuse to give antitrust exemption only to labor unions but generally not to any other type of organization or association of service providers.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
Last minute copying and pasting from Wikipedia isn't going to impress me. I am well aware of how Antitrust laws treat labor unions (I was the one that brought it up in this thread), and I am intimately aware of the philosophical basis for why Clayton was passed with the arbitrary declaration that labor is not an article of commerce. That philosophical basis lacks any semblance of consistency and is basically just wrong, as evidenced by the general rule that every single organization of sellers of any type of labor/service that is subject to antitrust laws unless they are considered a bona fide labor union. Labor is an article of commerce, and labor is subject to antitrust/anti-cartel regulations.

Every seller of labor is subject to antitrust laws, i.e. the seller of labor cannot assert monopoly power or engage in tactics that inhibit the free sale of similar labor by competitors. Even non-profits are subject to antitrust regulations. This makes labor an article of commerce subject to antitrust regulations in every case except when the seller of labor joins a bona fide labor cartel, because those particular organizations enjoy special exemption. The fact that all sellers of labor are subject to antitrust regulations that forbid cartel tactics flies in the face of the arbitrary declaration that labor is not an article of commerce and thus not bound by antitrust regulations. This declaration doesn't hold up to the reality of how labor is bought and sold, rather it is just used as the excuse to grant only particular types of sellers of labor (those which belong to a labor union) this exemption.

If you start a computer repair company with some computer buddies, you and your buddies sell your labor to people who need computer repair labor, and you cannot get friends on your local council to pass laws prohibiting or inhibiting other computer repair companies from forming or moving in and competing with your price so that you can keep yours high. If you start any other company or organization, even if it's a non-profit, you sell your labor and that of any staff you hire, and antitrust regulations apply to you. Only by joining a labor union, which is protected under the antitrust exemption stemming from Clayton, are you and the other cartel members allowed to engage in cartel tactics because 15 U.S.C. Section 17 explicitly permits that which is otherwise illegal for those particular types of sellers of labor only (and a handful of other examples of government-granted monopolies/cartels, e.g. auto dealer associations).

Legally speaking, labor is not regarded as an article of commerce when and only when the seller of labor belongs to a labor union. In every other case, labor is an article of commerce. In reality, labor is always an article of commerce. It is simply declared otherwise as an excuse to give antitrust exemption only to labor unions but generally not to any other type of organization or association of service providers.
Click to expand...

You have an opinion that labor is an article of commerce. I have a legal precedent that is over 100 years old and has stood the test of time thru conservative and liberal administrations longer than you have been alive that disagrees with your opinion.

But you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

Does that impress you? LOL
 
vegas giants said:
You have an opinion that labor is an article of commerce. I have a legal precedent that is over 100 years old
Click to expand...

YOU don't have it, labor unions do, and recall that I'm the one that brought this issue up in the first place, and did so quite intentionally. I'm guessing you weren't aware of it until I pressed you on the issue.

Only when the seller of labor is a member of a boba fide labor cartel is labor actually (in reality) treated as the antitrust-exempt non-commerce item Clayton declared it to be. The antitrust labor exemption applies exclusively to labor unions. It's a special privilege sanctioned by government for the exclusive benefit of Big Labor.

Unions have a dismal future even if we do nothing about their antitrust exemption. They will bring about their own inevitable demise, and are well on their way. All I'm advocating is a coup de grâce to bring about a more expeditious merciful end to this cartel-tolerant chapter of economic history.
 
Neomalthusian said:
YOU don't have it, labor unions do, and recall that I'm the one that brought this issue up in the first place, and did so quite intentionally. I'm guessing you weren't aware of it until I pressed you on the issue.

Only when the seller of labor is a member of a boba fide labor cartel is labor actually (in reality) treated as the antitrust-exempt non-commerce item Clayton declared it to be. The antitrust labor exemption applies exclusively to labor unions. It's a special privilege sanctioned by government for the exclusive benefit of Big Labor.

Unions have a dismal future even if we do nothing about their antitrust exemption. They will bring about their own inevitable demise, and are well on their way. All I'm advocating is a coup de grâce to bring about a more expeditious merciful end to this cartel-tolerant chapter of economic history.
Click to expand...

You can hope for whatever you like. But 103 year old precedent is pretty damm strong. Could you overturn it....sure.....and you might get a unicorn someday too. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom