Sign in to follow this  
Traveler

What about Unions?

Recommended Posts

Clearly the Union of Unicorns failed. All the unicorns have now died out because their union failed to protect them. I think they were made redundant by the Fraternal Society of Rhinoceroses who have two horns instead of one,  a much tougher skin, and a much more aggressive negotiating strategy. Unlike unicorns, which tend to fly away at the first hint of danger, rhinoceroses will take any challenge head on and just crash their way through. A bit like unions.

I will never be able to get that image or images out of my kind. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you think that I say it will exist. I was VERY CLEAR on the matter that Socialism is only good in a perfect society.... which, of course, does not exist.

That's the point. Socialism could never exist in a perfect society. Socialism is not good at any level. Well, it's better than an anarchic societal/economic system, so I suppose it's less bad than some alternatives.

 

The law of consecration is all about free choice. Government-sponsored socialism is all about coercion. The two could hardly be more different, in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's the point. Socialism could never exist in a perfect society. Socialism is not good at any level. Well, it's better than an anarchic societal/economic system, so I suppose it's less bad than some alternatives.

 

The law of consecration is all about free choice. Government-sponsored socialism is all about coercion. The two could hardly be more different, in my view.

I think I'm starting to get a glimmer of where we have a disconnect. Socialism is merely the economic principle - juxtaposed to Capitalism. It doesn't indicate any method of governance. There are many ways to apply Socialistic principles - Communism, Marxism, Socialist Republic, Theocracy, and even Democratic among others.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

My dad was a union man; a journeyman electrician. Generally skilled laborers work for smaller companies, who don't always have the means (and sometimes not the desire) to take care of their employees. Through the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, my dad always had health insurance for his family and a retirement plan. He had a good reputation and the union knew him as a clean, good, reliable employee, so job placement usually wasn't a problem (except when work in general was scarce for everyone). Thanks to the union, my mom still has his pension (though cut in half now that he's passed) to live on, even though the company he worked for for the last part of his career is teetering on the brink, and, knowing the owners, they would not have taken care of him or my mom. So for him and Mom, being part of a union was a good thing.

 

My BIL who was the local representative for his teacher's union feels differently. Even as a representative he didn't feel he has a voice. The union who is supposed to be looking out for the teachers of Washington state really only looks out for itself, and he has never found them to be any sort of help to him or anyone in his area, in fact they're more a hurdle. One he gets the privilege of paying every year.

 

So, like many things, I think it depends on the union. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to suspect you and I are talking about two different things. 

 

Apparently so. 
But whatever form of Socialism you're referring to, let me remind you that no less than a Prophet of God has stated that Socialism is Satan's counterfeit to the United Order. 
We can parse terms all the day long, and we can argue that Satan doesn't own the copyright, but whatever you wish to call the family unit I think you should call it something other than Socialism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps this may help on socialism-

there really isn't a good term (save perhaps for the lds term of united order that may come closer, but try using that term in an economics class or government class in school) for a society that when the people of themselves choose to give up everything they don't need to be shared among their neighbors, or in more extreme cases even the things they do need . People see something like that and they label it socialism.- this principle is a very good principle. this is what anatess is talking about
(I call this from the bottom up type socialism)

Now having some entity or power forcing people to do some semblance of the above is bad (usually anyways, or at least it heads really far south real quick). - and this is what fits within the definition of socialism.  and this is what capitalist is talking about.
(i call this top down socialism- and this is something I am generally against)

As far  i see the discussion anyways. dunno if this helps or not.

Edited by Blackmarch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Apparently so. 

But whatever form of Socialism you're referring to, let me remind you that no less than a Prophet of God has stated that Socialism is Satan's counterfeit to the United Order. 

We can parse terms all the day long, and we can argue that Satan doesn't own the copyright, but whatever you wish to call the family unit I think you should call it something other than Socialism.

Again... a Prophet of God said that not because Socialism, as an economic principle, is bad. It is because GOVERNING such a principle is BAD until we are all perfect.

The UNITED ORDER as an economic principle IS a form of SOCIALISM. As a governance, it isn't. But then the word Socialism - at least in America - has been usurped (in the same way the word LIBERAL has been usurped) as a government activity instead of individual activity.

I can't call it something other than Socialism because... that's the word for it! I didn't come up with the word! It's like saying, don't call people from the Orient Oriental because Oriental is a derogatory term... fine, I'll call them East Asians... but there's no other word for Socialism. So, until Webster comes up with another word, there's no other word I can use.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

there really isn't a good term (save perhaps for the lds term of united order that may come closer, but try using that term in an economics class or government class in school) for a society that when the people of themselves choose to give up everything they don't need to be shared among their neighbors, or in more extreme cases even the things they do need . People see something like that and they label it socialism.- this principle is a very good principle. this is what anatess is talking about

(I call this from the bottom up type socialism)

It is more than that. The Philippine structure of Family is Socialist. I'll give you a classic example. In my family, we have doctors, nurses, physical therapists, lawyers, civil engineers, architects, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, plumbers, carpenters, musicians, programmers, etc. etc.

When I get sick, I don't go to any other doctor. I go to my brother who learned his trade from my uncle. He is a neurologist but he takes care of any medical issues in the family. I don't pay him anything. In his office, there are 2 entrances - the main entrance to the waiting room is where everybody enters except for family - we know to enter through the 2nd door. His wife is a pediatrician sharing the same office, so between him and his wife, family gets taken care of. Now, with my brother - family is not limited to blood relations. I'll give you an example - my classmate from elementary school had a cousin who had a stroke. My brother waived the doctor's fees because he was "related to me". Now, take note that my brother has not seen this classmate of mine since we were little kids when she used to play at our house on weekends. That was over 30 years ago. And... neither my brother nor I have ever met her cousin.

Now, my brother has a computer. It breaks. A lot. Somebody in our family fixes his computer. For free. He has a 7 bedroom/6 bathroom house. My parents live in it, his wife's parents live in it, my nephew (my other brother's son) lives in it and it's practically the "family hotel" for when family visits from abroad. Some family member fixes his plumbing when the toilet gets clogged up, some other family member built him a table tennis table for the kids to play in, he gets his filtered water from my uncle across the street, etc. etc. He and his wife travel for medical conferences... no worries, somebody is taking care of his children and pets, no need to arrange it, he just has to say I'm leaving on... and it's arranged.

This is the same scenario with everybody else - the lawyers, the architects and civil engineers (who built all our houses), the customs officers (who makes sure our baggage goes through customs without anybody stealing from it!), etc. If we don't have what we need within our family, like the oncologist that my dad needed - we pool our money to hire someone. Pooling money is also used for stuff like... my dad and 3 of his siblings had cancer and all 4 of them went through chemo. Their medicines cost thousands of dollars per month. We don't have health insurance because the family is the health insurance... we put up a collection and all 4 of them had their chemos taken care of.

The interesting thing about this is the little kids growing up see this and they get inspired to be whatever we don't have in the family. So, the older generation has a lot of musicians who didn't pursue music - instead they became engineers and such. The next generation, you'll see more musicians who pursue a music career - so we don't hire out things like weddings anymore - we have somebody in the family composing original music and forming a choral group... we even have a few film people - for those who want professional TV advertising and even youtube videos...

Last Christmas, we took a tour to the Northeastern States - our itinerary was 3 weeks long and we drove from North Carolina to Maine. We didn't stay at hotels. We stayed with family the entire time and they took us places. Cousins, 2nd cousins, etc... The farthest from the family tree that we stayed in was my Aunt in Queens who is my dad's 2nd cousin... that is, my grandfather's mother's brother is my Aunt's grandfather. She is staying with her kid (my cousin - 3x removed) who has a kid who my children played with (they are 4x removed). They took us to cool places in NYC.

That's the essence of Socialism as taught in Filipino colleges. Nobody is forced to do anything. If you can't do it, just say so. The deeper the branch goes, more socialist groups get formed. So that, my dad's branch is its own socialist group, and my dad's sibling's branch is its own socialist group. Our first responders are in our group. If we don't have what we need in our branch, we branch out...

Now, why does this work for my family but not for society in general? Because... we're FAMILY! It binds us together. We WANT to be in the family. Those who don't want to be in the family usually goes and identifies with another family - like an in-law or a friend or something or just go do their own thing. And that's just fine.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UNITED ORDER as an economic principle IS a form of SOCIALISM. 

 

 

No it isn't. 
A fundamental principle of the United Order is PRIVATE PROPERTY! 
See if you can find ANY socialistic system (economic or otherwise) where the same is true.
 
You wrote: "But then the word Socialism - at least in America - has been usurped (in the same way the word LIBERAL has been usurped) as a government activity instead of individual activity."
 
Since when has socialism ever been concerned with "individual activity"?? The origin of the word, and its subsequent meaning throughout the 19th century until today, has always stood for the "collective". If the word has been usurped it has been so by those who claim it has anything to do with the wants/needs/desires of the individual.
 
Like I said, we can parse terms all day long, but Socialism in ANY of its economic or political forms is anathema to the family. See if you can find any group or individual who espouses socialism who doesn't also denigrate (either by word or deed) the family as we (LDS) know and understand it.
 
Socialism is what it is---it was Satan's program from the beginning; there were no altruistic motives in its design; and it has served his evil purposes in every single one of its numerous manifestations for the past 200+ years.
Edited by Capitalist_Oinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No it isn't. 

A fundamental principle of the United Order is PRIVATE PROPERTY! 

See if you can find ANY socialistic system (economic or otherwise) where the same is true.

 

You wrote: "But then the word Socialism - at least in America - has been usurped (in the same way the word LIBERAL has been usurped) as a government activity instead of individual activity."

 

Since when has socialism ever been concerned with "individual activity"?? The origin of the word, and its subsequent meaning throughout the 19th century until today, has always stood for the "collective". If the word has been usurped it has been so by those who claim it has anything to do with the wants/needs/desires of the individual.

 

Like I said, we can parse terms all day long, but Socialism in ANY of its economic or political forms is anathema to the family. See if you can find any group or individual who espouses socialism who doesn't also denigrate (either by word or deed) the family as we (LDS) know and understand it.

 

Socialism is what it is---it was Satan's program from the beginning; there were no altruistic motives in its design; and it has served his evil purposes in every single one of its numerous manifestations for the past 200+ years.

Private Property as defined by WHO? Government.

A Socialist Community under... say... The United States Constitution... have PRIVATE property. The government cannot take it away without Constitutional backing.

The collective under the Constitution of the United States can own collective property outside of individual ownership in the community as a voluntary contribution, submitting the collective as a group (e.g. an Association, a Charity, a Corporation, etc.). That's one method to implement Socialist principles in a democratic country. There are many methods - some good, some bad.

Explain exactly how Socialism is anathema to Family. I presented to you how MY FAMILY implement Socialist principles. Of course, we're not perfect, so we don't implement full Socialism.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private Property as defined by WHO? Government.

 

I’m not sure what you mean?
Is there a definition of private property that I'm not familiar with?
 
I was simply pointing out the fact that private property was a fundamental principle of the United Order. Each man owned his portion or inheritance or stewardship with an absolute title, which at his option he could sell, transfer, or keep and operate in any way he saw fit. In other words, under the laws of the land it was his "private property". The Church did not own the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.
 
You wrote: "A Socialist Community under... say... The United States Constitution... have PRIVATE property."
 
Then if it IS private property it ISN'T a socialist community, is it? I mean you can call it what you wish, but socialism it is not. 
If you and I pick up basketball and spend four 8 minute periods kicking it around a golf course scoring two points each time we bounce it off a flag, we can SAY we played basketball but the reality is we played no such thing. 
 
You wrote: "The government cannot take it away without Constitutional backing." 
 
This is off topic (which was already off topic), but the government can do whatever it wants with "your" property. In fact there really isn't such a thing as "private property" anymore. We merely rent property from the government. You really think you own it?
Try not paying your rent (property taxes) and see what happens to "your" property.
 
You wrote: "The collective under the Constitution of the United States can own collective property outside of individual ownership in the community as a voluntary contribution, submitting the collective as a group (e.g. an Association, a Charity, a Corporation, etc.). That's one method to implement Socialist principles in a democratic country. There are many methods - some good, some bad."
 
Once again I would argue that socialist principles are all bad, all the time. Socialism is Satan's program. He is the author of it. He established it as a counterfeit to the United Order. If someone wishes to attempt to make something good out of it, they may enjoy a measure of success for a time, but ultimately their attempt will fail as surely as night follows day; and history is replete with evidence of that. 
 
You wrote: "Explain exactly how Socialism is anathema to Family. I presented to you how MY FAMILY implement Socialist principles. Of course, we're not perfect, so we don't implement full Socialism."
 
Once again, you can call it what you wish, but what you've implemented isn't Socialism! 
Adopting a principle here and there is no more "Socialism" than abstaining from alcohol and tobacco is "Mormonism". 
 
I'm curious why you insist on defending a system (or even portions of it) that prophets and apostles for the past 185 years have condemned; and one which has also proven to be a universal and abject failure in fostering its purported goals?
Edited by Capitalist_Oinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you like about unions and why do we need them.  What do you dislike about unions and why do we need to get rid of them.  


 

At it's heart a union is the freedom of association and the right to control your own labor (aka if you're going to work or not). I'm disinclined to pass laws preventing people from associating with other individuals in their field (or even workplace) and telling them they can't quit en mass (we seem to have no problems letting employees cut people loose en mass). 
 
Now where today's unions go past this conceptual nugget is where they have legal protections that essentially change the balance between employer and employees and change it to employer versus employees + government, I think lively and healthy debate can be had about those legal protections and advantages and if they should be eliminated. I can even see lively and healthy debate over if a particular union is doing more harm than good for it's members. I find generally speaking people hone in on those last two subjects, but they are somewhat different than discussing if unions themselves should be allowed.
 

Or what would it take for you to want to join a union?

 

 
It would take what they offer, short-term and long-term, to be equal to or greater than the investment (monetary and time) they would require of me. In short, they must offer a net value.
Edited by Dravin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I studied with a fellow engineer at BYU that has a most interesting story.  He showed me his house plans that he was going to build when he finished school.  I questioned how he could afford such a house – his response was family.  I was interested and I will tell you his family story.

 

When the church was trying to live the United Order there were some failures but there were also some successes.  The Church abandoned the order because it was not universal.  One of the successes was a cattle ranch in Snowflake Arizona.  When the church ended the United Order it sold off the assists – mostly to members.  The cattle ranch in Snowflake was sold to the family of my friend a couple of generations back.  That family continued to run the ranch on the principles of the United Order but ran as a family business.  Over 3 generations the family business had significantly grown and included businesses such as lumber, hardware as well as other businesses including doctors, lawyers, dentists, and sever types of stores including groceries.

 

When it came time for my friend to go to college he reviewed the family business needs – which included engineering.  He then agreed to go to college under full ride family scholarship in turn taking the engineering position in the family business.  All the materials for his home would be supplied at cost from the family business and the family construction business would build the house with free labor from many family members.  In addition the family savings and loan would provide a mortgagee at 1% interest (12% was the going rate at the time).  The bottom line is that he could easily afford the fantastic house he had planned.

 

Come to find out – his family also group toys.  Like boats, 4 wheelers, horses and a couple or airplanes.   All of which were accessible for a small maintenance fee.   Since everything was involved in the family business all the extras were tax deductable.  I was impressed – Smart I thought.

 

I immediately went to my father to talk to him about setting up a family business with the vast capital he was growing.  My father listened to all I had to say and then said he was not interested is such a family business.  His reason – he believed that one of the worse elements of society are kids with rich parents that provide too much for their spoiled children that were not willing to work hard to have and care for their things because it was too easy to get it all from the parents.  Wealth is a blessing to those that love and enjoy hard work – but wealth is also a curse to those that think and believe that wealth is a brilliant, easy and sufficient substitute for hard work.

 

The economic and social advantage is to those that love to work hard but the opposite is true for those that employ their efforts in avoiding hard work.  Or as my father would say – the world is full of two kinds of willing people.  Those that are willing to work and those that are willing to let them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this