Tag Archives: rights

Union “Dues”

Posted on by
Reply

Now the taxpayer looks to be on the hook.  At least in New York.

[O]n May 1, New York’s state Senate voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off.
If Governor Andrew Cuomo signs this bill, he’ll effectively be using New York’s unemployment-insurance program to subsidize union strikes, upending the balance of power between workers and management.

Union strikes are little indistinguishable from extortion, except that they’re legal. They’re used to threaten a company’s ability to function—to survive—unless they surrender to union demands.  “Nice little business you got here. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”

In a way, though, Cuomo’s pandering makes sense. Since unions can’t commandeer pieces of the paychecks of non-union workers anymore, they have to make up the money loss from somewhere.

Enter the victim-taxpayer.

An Ill-Informed Candidate

Posted on by
2

On Fox News‘ Claremont, New Hampshire town hall with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg Sunday, Buttigieg had this to say about abolishing our Electoral College.

“States don’t vote, people vote.  …if we’re going to call ourselves a democracy,” the US should move to a popular vote system.

When the moderator, Chris Wallace, asked further about that, particularly comparing the voice of small States like New Hampshire with large States like California, Buttigieg gave an unresponsive answer about how New Hampshire wouldn’t be harmed by abolishing the Electoral College because New Hampshire is one of the first-to-vote-in-primaries States.

There are so many things wrong with Buttigieg’s remarks; here are a couple biggies.

We don’t call ourselves a democracy.  We don’t call ourselves that because we are not a democracy; we are a republican democracy consisting of a federation of States.  As a republican democracy, States do, indeed, vote, doing so alongside citizens (not just “people”), and that’s by design.  The Great Compromise in the final agreement on our Constitution was the creation of the Senate as a separate house in our Congress, which body would give equal representation to the States as States—the two Senators per State structure.

This was intended to produce a number of outcomes.  Two of these were a guarantee that our nation’s member States all would be on an equal level among each other within our central, federal government; large population States would not dominate small population States.  Thus, we would not be a popular democracy with its inevitable devolution through a tyranny of a majority into mob rule.  We would, instead, be a republican democracy with greater protections for and balance of the rights of the minority along with the rights of the majority.

Associated with that is the Electoral College, which functionally extends the protection of small States from domination by large States to the election of our President and Vice President.  States are allocated a number of Electors equaling the sum of the number of Representatives a State has, which is based on that State’s population, and its two Senators.  Thus, States vote as States for these candidates alongside the citizens, with the citizens represented, in addition to their individual votes, a second time, indirectly through their State’s Electors.

Within that, Buttigieg’s facile answer that New Hampshire wouldn’t be harmed because it’s an early primary voter ignored similarly small States like New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and others—none of whom are early voters.  Rather, his answer was (how to put this delicately) dismayingly ignorant.

Anyone who paid attention in eight grade Civics knows all of this.  A man so ignorant of the structure of our republican democracy and the reasons for that structure simply is unqualified for the office of President.

The Supremes, Liberals, and Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

The Liberal, Living Constitution, wing of the Supreme Court is up in arms over losing a case with precedential implications.  The proximate case concerned Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt, in which the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that held that States are not required to grant legal immunity to other States in interstate lawsuits.  I won’t go into that because that’s not the crux of the matter.

Instead, that Liberal wing, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, objected to the precedent reversal not on its merits or on the merits of precedent overturning/preservation, but on the premise that overturning this precedent would lead to overturning the abortion ban restrictions in Roe v Wade.

[L]iberal Justices warn that conservatives by overturning Hall will “encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases.”

This actually is an unqualified Good. Error should be corrected whenever it’s discovered.

That Liberal wing bellyached further:

It is far more dangerous to overrule a decision only because five members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question[.]

This makes no sense, though. It took only five members of the prior Court to make the mistake in the first place, for all that other members might have agreed with it.

And the NLMSM weighed in, showing the Liberal wing’s worries about abortion.

“Clarence Thomas Just Showed How Supreme Court Would Overturn Roe v Wade,” declared one columnist. [Jay Michaelson of the Daily Beast]

This, though, is just another bit of Liberal disingenuosity. Roe is technologically-based. The circumstances under which States are permitted to regulate abortion to the extent of banning them are based on viability of the baby, which the Roe Court suggested began around the third trimester. Modern medical technology makes babies viable much earlier, and so abortions can be restricted much earlier—wholly within Roe.

Though I wouldn’t mind the question coming to court so that the technological aspect can be better emphasized.

Great Britain’s Retreat from Liberty

Posted on by
Reply

Or, perhaps they’ve been routed by the forces of Government Knows Better.

This incident occurred last January, but there’s no evidence since that the Brits—their government, anyway; there are pockets of concern, as this incident also indicates—have regained their spine.

A man has been fined after refusing to be scanned by controversial facial recognition cameras being trialled by the Metropolitan Police.
The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods.

Here’s Detective Chief Superintendent Ivan Balhatchet, Scotland Yard’s lead for facial recognition:

The technology used in Romford forms part of the Met’s ongoing efforts to reduce crime in the area, with a specific focus on tackling violence.
As with all previous deployments the technology was used overtly.

That’s utterly disingenuous.  Being open about dragooning citizens to give up their privacy for the convenience of Government does not at all mitigate the fact of being forced to surrender individual privacy to Government for no reason other than that Government is…curious.

A man declined to be tracked by a warrantless government, and he was punished by that government for his effrontery.  Never mind that warrants and the requirement to have them were invented by the English centuries ago.

A Ban on Facial Recognition

Posted on by
Reply

San Francisco is about to ban the use of facial recognition by city agencies.

I agree with the sentiment.

However, good luck enforcing this sort of ban. There’s also a general ban on lying under oath, but in the end, all perjury laws can do is attach liability to the lie; they can’t prevent the lying. The primary difference is that lying under oath is easier to detect than is using facial recognition, and so the ban on lying under oath is easier to enforce.

What’s needed more is the ability to detect the use of facial recognition.  Banning it and applying sanction to its illegal use, whether shaking the city’s finger very firmly at the misbehaver or applying heavy fines and serious jailtime, is an empty gesture without that.