If the slaves begin to talk, whip them. 

If the slaves begin to organize, sell them. 

If the slaves begin to spread their message, ---- them. 

You can guess what that blank is. 

If the workers begin to talk, reprimand them. 

If the workers begin to organize, relocate them. 

If the workers begin to spread their message, ---- them. 

Again, I'll let you fill in the blank. 

I would be interested to see what right-wingers would say about this. It's the small gov't vs big gov't discussion. You want small gov't? Let's do unions and give the workers the right to address their concerns. You want big gov't? Let's regulate the ever-living f@#$ out of businesses. 

@ARikozuM

Big government or small government seems like a distraction to me when discussing unions (unless by big government you mean government effectively owns everything or nearly everything thus negates the negotiating power of the union).

Unions have their place in most markets. As long as the right to work is preserved (for people that don't want to join a union) and unions aren't given any exclusive benefits from the government (ie: same campaign finance laws as any other corporation) then I see no problem with them. It's just another form of free market organization at work.

Union busting is anti-consumer and anti-human. It's the product of corporate greed and shareholders. 

@DrMacintosh

I mostly agree, but not entirely. If a union theoretically gets too powerful it should face similar anti-trust regulations corporations are supposed to face when corporations grow big enough (for example, when working in a specific market without also being a union member is impossible).

Big gov't as in a minimum wage, non-discriminatory employment, etc.

Total control of the markets would be fascism on the right and communism on the left (both authoritarian regimes).

Small gov't is giving the employees the ability to organize into unions and giving them the right to negotiate with their company without retribution. 

Right to work is, to me, another word for lessening the force to which a union can fight. Unions should only be supported monetarily by the gov't. The gov't should not step in to help the union except on arbitration, thereby leaving the union members to fight for themselves. The funding would cover the exodus of union dues. 

Of course unions should be held to the same standard. We need to apply the law equally regardless of direction. If you don't want a min wage, we need unions and representation at the table. If you don't want unions, you should get a min wage. 

@ARikozuM

That's logical. The relationship of unions and small government you outlined above sounds like a happy medium, but I don't understand why a government must provide rights for unions to organize. They should be able to just organize themselves without a government "allowing" them to do so.

Side note: Why do people keep saying Fascism is right wing? What aspect of government sponsored corporatism is right wing? Corporations without any possible competition are effectively their own government without sovereignty (so not actually a government) within their own market(s). The Italians of the early 20th century don't stand out as bastions of "right wing" policy to me. I think we need to define "right" and "left" wing ideology in absence of authoritarian/libertarian tendencies.

To call any of these movements one or the other requires looking at them piece-meal. We could say that Hitler was left-leaning on some issues, and Stalin right-leaning on some issues, but overall they go right- and left-wing. 

This is the political compass or quadrant:

Stalin (communism) and Hitler (fascism, Nazism) are both authoritarian, but they both lean in different directions. 

In case you're wondering (I doubt most would even care): 

@ARikozuM @ATFink

Gandhi would nuke us all if he had the chance.

I played that game and never imagined something like that could happen. 

And they said we wanted to take guns away... #CivilLibertarian

@ARikozuM

In case you were wondering 

Notice how we land in the green square. Green is good, red is bad. 

@ARikozuM Gandhi, or "let me tell you your political stance"?

@DrMacintosh

So if green is good and red is bad, what's purple? lol

I used to be -0.25 right/left economically (green) last time I took this test (probably 2-3 years ago). Now I'm 0.5 (purple).

You can make a regulation saying that a union organizing cannot be quashed and still be impartial. How? I don't completely know, but it'd be interesting to experiment and find the right balance. 

Quote

Notice how we land in the green square. Green is good, red is bad. 

Muahaha!

Intel fanbois, rejoice!

@ATFink I think you're in a good spot. Did any of the questions confuse you like they did for me? 

@ARikozuM Green = Nvidia, red = AMD.

@DrMacintosh confirmed to be an Nvidia fanboy. 

Ahh shit. 

So, purple is... Power CPU?

@ARikozuM