Pay Secrecy and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935

 

Click, open in new tab or window,

and/or download, to see in full resolution

Created and published on July 7th, 2021
Edited on July 21st, 2021

Links to All of My Videos About Medicare for All From Late 2020 and Early 2021

Author's Note

     (written August 4th, 2021):

     The links below used to lead to videos I made about Medicare for All in 2020 and 2021.

     However, my YouTube channel (JoeKopsick4Congress) was removed in early 2021, so the links below do not currently work.

     These videos were saved, and will be uploaded to the internet a later point. When that occurs, the links below will be replaced with active links.

- Jimmy Dore Doesn't Go Far Enough: Demand MORE Than Medicare for All! (2020)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-ckQApU4nk

- Medicare for All Isn't the Only Health Care Proposal You Need to Know About (2021)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKe9eH-H8Hg

- Forcing the Vote on Medicare for All Would Give Pelosi Another Chance (2021)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIhzhIp64Dw

- Message to African-American Voters on Forcing the Vote and Trusting Government (2021)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn23TDByRkA

Compiled and Published on January 17th, 2021

Author's Note added on August 4th, 2021

How to Simplify and Streamline the United States Code

     The following is a set of recommendations regarding how to best reorganize the U.S. Code. The U.S. Code currently contains 48 titles; Title 6 and Title 34 have been removed and are no longer active. A list of the sections of the U.S. Code is available at the following link: http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

     I have made these recommendations as a way to: 1) decrease the number of titles in the Code; 2) simplify the law in general; 3) remove eight titles of the U.S. Code, thus transferring those duties to the states or to the people, and restoring the set of federal powers to within (or closer to) the confines established in the Enumerated Powers; 4) re-organize the Code in a manner which flows more logically; and 5) re-structure the Code in a way that reflects the order of federal authorities listed in the Enumerated Powers, in the order in which they appear.

     My hope is that these recommendations could help guide federal legislative policy, going forward, regarding the continuation of a federal government power shrinking policy. For example, if ever a law were to be passed which would provide that all proposed federal laws must contain a specific explanation of why they are constitutional – which I hope would include which passage in the Constitution authorizes federal power in that policy area – then I hope that the following recommendations help set up the order in which federal authorities appear in the Enumerated Powers as a sort of “backbone” upon which a new re-ordering of the titles of the U.S. Code can be built.

     From that point, those seeking to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, should compare the Enumerated Powers (and the main enabling powers in the Constitution) side by side with the list of 30 titles found at the end of this article, determine whether the Enumerated Powers justify the exercise of federal power in those policy areas, and use their findings to determine which fields of federal purview should be eliminated next. My first recommendation would be to look at which powers the government has under “public health” (in Title 42: The Public Health and Welfare), since health is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but welfare is.
     Next, I would recommend examining which types of laws on "Transportation" (if any) are specifically authorized under the only presumable clause which could possibly authorize federal involvement in transportation; namely, the clause authorizing the establishment of Post Roads (Clause 7 of the Enumerated Powers). And so on, should that idea and method be applied, to the other titles, until the contents of the U.S. Code reflect only those federal powers which were specifically authorized in the U.S. Constitution. I would suggest that the title on "Labor" be reviewed before it is removed, so that whichever portions of that title pertain to labor by federal workers can be retained (and, I would suggest, incorporated into Title 8 (Government Organization and Employees) and/or Title 9 (Public Contracts).

     I also hope that this article will help educate the populace as to precisely where in our immense federal code of law, some of the laws we like and don't like, can be found. If the following 31 proposals can ever be passed into law, then I hope that that popular education will become even easier, given the new simplification and streamlining of the Code which I have proposed.
     Here are my proposals about how to reform the order of titles in the U.S. Code:

Proposal #1. Keep Title 1 where it is.
Proposal #2. Make Title 4 into Title 2.
Proposal #3. Make Title 36 into Title 3.
Proposal #4. Make Title 2 into Title 4.
Proposal #5. Make Title 3 into Title 5.
Proposal #6. Make Title 28 into Title 6.
Proposal #7. Make Title 9 into Title 7.
Proposal #8. Make Title 5 into Title 8.
Proposal #9. Make Title 41 into Title 9. Proposal #10. Make Title 13 into Title 10. Proposal #11. Make Title 42 into Title 11. Proposal #12. Make Title 26 into Title 12.
Proposal #13. Make Title 19 into Title 13.
Proposal #14. Combine Titles 11 and 12 into a single title; Title 14.
Proposal #15. Make Title 15 into Title 15.
Proposal #16. Make Title 22 into Title 16.
Proposal #17. Make Title 25 into Title 17.
Proposal #18. Make Title 31 into Title 18.
Proposal #19. Make Title 39 into Title 19.
Proposal #20. Make Title 23 into Title 20. Proposal #21. Make Title 49 into Title 21. Proposal #22. Combine Titles 17 and 35 into a single title; Title 22.
Proposal #23. Make Title 18 into Title 23.
Proposal #24. Make Title 10 into Title 24.
Proposal #25. Make Title 14 into Title 25.
Proposal #26. Make Title 32 into Title 26.
Proposal #27. Make Title 33 into Title 27.
Proposal #28. Combine Titles 37 and 38 into a single title; Title 28.
Proposal #29. Make Title 40 into Title 29.
Proposal #30. Make Title 43 into Title 30. 
Proposal #31. Eliminate Titles 16, 20, 21, 24, 29, 30, 45, and 47.

     Proposal #31 would eliminate eight titles of the U.S. Code, thus “devolving” (or returning) those policy areas to the states or to the people, where they rightfully belong.

     Those policy areas are, respectively: Conservation (Title 16), Education (Title 20), Food and Drugs (Title 21), Hospitals and Asylums (Title 24), Labor (Title 29), Mineral Lands and Mining (Title 30), Railroads (Title 25). and Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs (Title 47).

     Proposals #1-30 would cause the now 50- (or 48-) title U.S. Code to have only 30 titles, causing the list of titles to appear the way it does below:

(Arguably Authorized Under Various Basic Enabling Clauses of Government)

     Title 1. General Provisions
     Title 2. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States
     Title 3. Patriotic Societies and Observances
     Title 4. The Congress
     Title 5. The President
     Title 6. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
     Title 7. Arbitration
     Title 8. Government Organization and Employees
     Title 9. Public Contracts
     Title 10. Census

(Arguably Authorized Under Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1-3)
     Title 11. The Public Health and Welfare
     Title 12. Internal Revenue Code
     Title 13. Customs Duties
     Title 14. Bankruptcy, Banks, and Banking
     Title 15. Commerce and Trade
     Title 16. Foreign Relations and Intercourse
     Title 17. Indians
     Title 18. Money and Finance

(Arguably Authorized Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7)
     Title 19. Postal Service
     Title 20. Highways
     Title 21. Transportation

(Arguably Authorized Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8)
     Title 22. Copyrights and Patents

(Arguably Authorized Under Article I Section 8 Clause 10)
     Title 23. Crimes and Criminal Procedures

(Arguably Authorized Under Article I Section 8 Clauses 11 through 16)
     Title 24. Armed Forces
     Title 25. Coast Guard
     Title 26. National Guard
     Title 27. Navigation and Navigable Waters
     Title 28. Pay and Allowances of Uniformed Services, and Veterans' Benefits

(Arguably Authorized Under Article I Section 8 Clause 17)
     Title 29. Public Buildings, Property, and Works
     Title 30. Public Lands

Written on August 18^th, 2019
Originally Published on August 18^th, 2019
Edited on August 18th and 19th, 2019

When the Law Does the Opposite of What it Intends to Do: One Hundred Twelve Theses on Government Failure (Incomplete)

When the Law Does the Opposite of What it Intends to Do:
One Hundred Twelve Theses on Government Failure

First Table of Contents

Part 1: Introduction (Including Eighteen Bad Basic Laws of Government)

I. First Introduction: Government Failure

II. Second Introduction: Five Reasons Why We Shouldn't Trust the Government

III. Three Clauses That Enable Legislative Action, But Are Used to Excuse Government Overreach

IV. Six Laws with Deceptive Names

V. Eight Self-Defeating Amendments (Plus the Draft)

Part 2: The Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Poverty (Including Seventy Bad Laws)

VI. The War on Terror: Fourteen Laws That Fail to Protect People from War, Terrorism, and Violent Crime

VII. The Wars on Drugs and Our Health: Twenty-One Laws That Failed to Achieve Affordable Health Care, Failed to Ensure the Legal Sale of Safe Drugs, or Failed to Protect the Environment

VIII. The War on Poverty, Part 1: Eleven Laws That Fail to Protect Workers' Rights and the Interests of Labor Unions
IX. The War on Poverty, Part 2: Seven Laws That Intended to Protect Minorities and/or Property, But Failed
X. The War on Poverty, Part 3: Six Budgetary and Monetary Policies That Have Led to Economic Ruin
XI. The War on Poverty, Part 4: Ten Laws That Intended to Make the Markets Free, But Rigged Them Instead


Part 3: Other Topics (Including Twenty-Five Bad Laws, and a Conclusion)

XII. Five Failed Laws and Policies Related to Insurance
XIII. Four Laws That Tried to Prevent Frivolous Lawsuits, But Go Too Far
XIV. Five Laws That Tried to Protect the Rights or Safety of Women and Homosexuals, But Failed
XV. Eight Laws and Programs That Fail to Protect Children
XVI. Three More Terrible Laws
XVII. Conclusion: New Laws Don't Work

Second Table of Contents

Part 1: Introduction (Including Eighteen Bad Basic Laws of Government)

I. First Introduction: Government Failure

II. Second Introduction: Five Reasons Why We Shouldn't Trust the Government

III. Three Clauses That Enable Legislative Action, But Are Used to Excuse Government Overreach

     1. The General Welfare Clause
     2. The Necessary and Proper Clause
     3. The interstate Commerce Clause

IV. Six Laws with Deceptive Names
     4. The Citizens United decision
     5. N.A.F.T.A. (The North American Free Trade Agreement)
     6. The 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (E.E.S.A)
     7. The Protect Life Act
     8. The Restoring Internet Freedom Act
     9. The Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.)

V. Eight Self-Defeating Amendments (Plus the Draft)
     10. Amendment I
     11. Amendment II
     12. The military draft
     13. Amendment III
     14. Amendment V
     15. Amendment VIII
     16. Amendment X
     17. Amendment XIII
     18. Amendment XIV



Part 2: The Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Poverty (Including Seventy Bad Laws)

VI. The War on Terror: Fourteen Laws That Fail to Protect People from War, Terrorism, and Violent Crime
     19. Incarceration in jails and prisons
     20. The death penalty
     21. Life sentences
     22. Gun-free zones
     23. Laws requiring publication of gun owners' home addresses
     24. Gun personalization requirements
     25. Gun buyback programs
     26. The War Powers Act of 1973
     27. The state's monopoly on violence
     28. The War on Terror
     29. The 2001 A.U.M.F.
     30. The U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act
     31. Laws allowing warrantless searches and wiretaps
     32. The Whistleblowers Protection Act

VII. The Wars on Drugs and Our Health: Twenty Laws That Failed to Achieve Affordable Health Care, Failed to Ensure the Legal Sale of Safe Drugs, or Failed to Protect the Environment

     33. The taxation of health goods and services
     34. Federal negotiation of drug prices
     35. Subsidization of pharmaceutical companies
     36. The ban on denying emergency room treatment
     37. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
     38. Ecstasy prohibition
     39. Heroin prohibition
     40. Marijuana prohibition
     41. Marijuana legalization
     42. Alcohol prohibition
     43. Corn subsidies
     44. The criminalization of purchasing alcohol for minors
     45. The criminalization of purchasing tobacco for minors
     46. Laws authorizing the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) to approve or deny pharmaceutical drugs
     47. Laws authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.)
     48. Federal vehicle emissions standards
     48. The Clean Air Act
     50. The Clean Water Act
     51. Bans on tree-line thinning
     52. The "Roadless Rule"
     53. Superfund sites

VIII. The War on Poverty, Part 1: Eleven Laws That Fail to Protect Workers' Rights and the Interests of Labor Unions
     54. The law that established Labor Day
     55. The Department of Labor and Commerce
     56. The McCarran-Ferguson Act
     57. The Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act of 1935)
     58. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947
     59. State Right-to-Work laws
     60. Overtime pay laws
     61. The Federal Reserve's "dual mandate" on interest rates and unemployment
     62. Laws that established the U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 unemployment measurements
     63. The Employee Free Choice Act, and the Card Check bill
     64. Disability and Medicaid provisions which limit people's ability to be employed and receive benefits at the same time

IX. The War on Poverty, Part 2: Seven Laws That Intended to Protect Minorities and/or Property, But Failed
     65. The federal minimum wage law
     66. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
     67. Redistricting laws
     68. Laws against sagging pants
     69. The Clinton omnibus crime bill
     70. Laws establishing racial quotas for police
     71. The Homestead Act

X. The War on Poverty, Part 3: Six Budgetary and Monetary Policies That Have Led to Economic Ruin
     72. The Agricultural Adjustment Act
     73. Laws establishing natural resource extraction permits
     74. Property tax laws
     75. Sales tax laws
     76. Income tax laws
     77. Laws providing for Unconditional Basic Income programs

XI. The War on Poverty, Part 4: Ten Laws That Intended to Make the Markets Free, But Rigged Them Instead
     78. The Enumerated Power which authorizes Congress to coin and regulate money
     79. Laws limiting usury
     80. The Sherman Antitrust Act
     81. Laws enabling the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

     82. Executive Order 6102 (which enabled gold confiscations)

     83. The Emergency Banking Act of 1933
     84. Laws authorizing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (F.D.I.C.)
     85. Laws enabling the Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.)
     86. The Glass-Steagall Act
     87. Laws authorizing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (C.F.P.B.)


Part 3: Other Topics (Including Twenty-Five Bad Laws, and a Conclusion)


XII. Five Failed Laws and Policies Related to Insurance
     88. Insurance regulations
     89. Home insurance regulations, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.)
     90. Laws establishing public firefighting forces
     91. Insurance regulations regarding emergency medical care
     92. Insurance regulations regarding public school students' medications

XIII. Four Laws That Tried to Prevent Frivolous Lawsuits, But Go Too Far

     93. Legal immunity for gun manufacturers
     94. Legal immunity for the military and police

     95. Laws enabling the granting of L.L.C. designation

     96. Statutes of limitations on reporting rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment

XIV. Five Laws That Tried to Protect the Rights or Safety of Women and Homosexuals, But Failed
     97. Laws requiring fees and licenses to get married
     98. The Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision
     99. Legal limitations and prohibitions on abortion
     100. The Violence Against Women Act (V.A.W.A.) of 1994
     101. Legislative proposals to require women to register for the draft

XV. Eight Laws and Programs That Fail to Protect Children
     102. Laws establishing minimum ages for consent to sex
     103. Laws establishing minimum ages for consent to marriage
     104. The federal law establishing a minimum age for consent to sex
     105. Laws requiring registration as a sex offender
     106. Laws establishing Child Protective Services -type agencies
     107. The federal law which established the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
     108. Policies against establishing laws requiring minimum ages for tattooing and piercing
     109. Social Security Title IV-D (child support)

XVI. Three More Terrible Laws
     110. The Enumerated Power which authorizes Congress to "fix the standard of weights and measurements"
     111. Laws which regulate identity theft, in regards to banks' and credit agencies' customer information
     112. Laws which regulate identity theft, in regards to immigrants' Social Security

XVII. Conclusion: New Laws Don't Work 

Content

Part 1: Introduction (Including Seventeen Bad Basic Laws of Government)

I. First Introduction: Government Failure

     Can you name a law that has ever worked? A law that has worked the way it was intended?

     In our society, we're used to talking about market failures; high prices, high profits, price manipulation, monopolies, etc.. But I submit that we're not talking enough about government failures. Things like regulatory capture, and the erection of corporate privilege. Those things are every bit as important to talk about as market failures, because they cause most of those market failures in the first place (giving businesses power by handing them taxpayer money and/or writing special privileges for them into the law).

     In this essay, I will name ninety-five laws (or types of laws) in the United States – most of them federal laws – and explain how they achieve the exact opposite of their desired or intended effect. In explaining this, I will defend the idea that most attempts by the voting American public, to secure some equal liberty or new positive right – in many different policy arenas – have historically resulted in surrendering more decision-making power to the government regarding those policy issues, instead of resulting in more freedom or equality for the people.

     I will focus on two basic sets of policy areas:

     1) general constitutional powers which enable or limit government; and

     2) the failures of the “War on Terror”, the “War on Drugs”, and the “War on Poverty”.

In discussing the failures of those “wars”, I will explain how putting too much trust in the government to solve problems, has led to disastrous declines in the quality of policy regarding the military, policing, health care, legal and illegal drugs, and various economic issues pertaining to relations between workers and employers (and the government).

     And all of these issues are interrelated, I might add. Our police and military enforce not only the “War on Terror”, but they also defend (or decline to defend) ourselves and our property, enforce the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Poverty”, they enforce the financial and business and labor regulations.

     Whether it is constitutional that those agents enforce those laws – that is, whether the enforcement of these laws, is itself “legal” in the first place – should be considered an issue of extreme importance. So should the issues of whether the police, or other government officials, publicly-protected companies, should do what they're told; as well as the matter of whether the policy works in the first place; and, at that, works they way it was intended to work.

     [Note: The fact that I have included a specific law, or types of law, below, should not necessarily be construed to mean that I believe that such laws, or types of laws, could never work, nor that I believe they do never work. In many cases, I do doubt whether such laws could ever work; but in some of the cases listed below, I am merely criticizing the manner in which those laws have been historically implemented, and saying that the laws did not work as they were intended to work.]

II. Second Introduction: Five Reasons Why We Shouldn't Trust the Government

     There is a popular libertarian saying whose author is unknown. It was popularized by Barry Goldwater, often mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, and began circulating in 1950s American newspapers. It goes like this: “A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take it all away.” Whomever said it, it certainly seems true.

     We should not trust the government to solve our problems, for five main reasons; because of:

     1) the government's power to regulate ­ or not regulate – corporations (and to break up, or not break up, monopolies);

     2) the government's power to create monopolies and to create corporations;

     3) the corruptibility of the licensing and permit systems;

     4) the moral hazard involved in trusting the government and only government to solve our problems; and

     5) regulatory capture (the process whereby an industry comes to be “regulated” by the same people who work in that industry).

     If we trust the government to regulate corrupt companies, and tax owners who profit off of the public dime, then the government will do exactly that. I'm not doubting the government's ability, nor its will, to do those things. But shouldn't corrupt C.E.O.s, and people who embezzle taxpayer money, go to jail, instead of just having their taxes raised, and new “restraints” placed on them?

     But the issue isn't just that we're not jailing criminals if they happen to be wealthy; it's also that the government usually incentivizes wealthy criminals to commit their crimes. It does this through giving them special legal and financial protections, and devoting more money and police resources towards protecting the rich and their investments than the poor and their homes.

     Why should we trust the government to break up or regulate companies, or tax them adequately, or decline to abuse their privileges? For two simple reasons: 1) Government cannot be trusted to regulate nor break-up monopolies, because government (that is, state government) is a monopoly. 2) Why would government want to limit the power of corporations, when it's the government that's creating all of these corporations in the first place?

     Another endemic problem with our government is political; the manner in which large companies manage to secure taxpayer money and privileges for themselves, having asked for those things as a consolation for being taxed and regulated. Those companies and their lobbyists make it impossible to pass meaningful economic reforms that help the poor, because wealthy companies get away with insisting to legislators that all laws designed to help the poor, help them less than they help the rich.

     For all of these reasons, and the following, trusting government is a terrible idea, and here are ninety-two reasons why.

III. Three Clauses That Enable Legislative Action, But Are Used to Excuse Government Overreach

     The first three laws I will discuss, enable government but intend to severely limit it. They do the opposite of what they intend to do, because their language is abused by legislators, so as to excuse more government overreach and more distortion of the meaning of the law, instead of abiding by the limitation originally intended.

     These three laws are the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Interstate Commerce Clause.

     1. The General Welfare Clause.

     The General Welfare Clause is a part of the Taxing and Spending Clause (found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution). It is the first clause of the “Enumerated Powers”; the eighteen specifically authorized powers of Congress.

     The General Welfare Clause empowers Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”.

The General Welfare Clause does the opposite of what it intends to do, because the meanings of “general” and “welfare” in “General Welfare” Clause are being distorted.

     “General” means that duties, imposts, and excise taxes shall be uniform throughout the country. Basically, it means that the burden of taxation must be equal (at least in regards to those types of taxes). However, even if the burden of income taxation fell on states equally (which it doesn't), there is no proof that income taxation is good policy even when it can be done constitutionally.

     Additionally, “welfare” meant “well-being” when the Constitution was written, so it is arguable as to whether something like a “Department of Health, Education, and Welfare”, or modern welfare programs, are permissible under this clause of the Constitution.

     Thus, distortion of the terms “general” and “welfare” has permitted an uneven income tax burden across the states, in order to spend that money on - not the general welfare (which really just means the equal benefit of all people across the country), but – the vague or specific welfare. Any and every type of spending is allowed, to benefit any and every particular social safety net project or corporate welfare giveaway. And so, with no rationale as to why we're spending this money on these particular people and causes, we justify taxing people with no rationale as to whether we're taxing them equally.

     The General Welfare Clause enables government overreach, although its intent was to limit government. But I say “its intent”; the law doesn't have any intent. I mean to refer to the intent of the legislators who wrote it. And they, of course, worked for the government. We should expect no less, for as Thrasymachus explained, justice always serves “the advantage of the stronger”. This is to say that any government we can elect, will always rule in its own benefit; in favor of incumbents, and in favor of continuing the same style and structure of government.

     The General Welfare Clause would better be called the “Specific Welfare Clause”, the “Vague Welfare Clause”, or the “General Harm Clause”.

     2. The Necessary and Proper Clause
     The final clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, empowers the Congress “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States...”.

     The Necessary and Proper Clause is often used to excuse doing whatever people think is necessary and proper for the government to do. But the term, as used in the Constitution, does not mean that at all. What is “necessary and proper” here, is not for the government to do whatever it wants, nor whatever the people wants; the intent here is to limit government's ability to do anything other than what is necessary and proper to execute “the foregoing Powers”.

     And what are “the foregoing Powers”? The Enumerated Powers. The preceding seventeen powers of Congress which are named before that sentence in the Constitution. The powers to create military and diplomatic policy, and monetary and treasury policy, and to punish piracy and regulate slavery, protect scientific discoveries, designate post roads, and little else.

     Congress was never intended to have the authority to do anything other than the seventeen things listed in Article I, Section 8, and the eighteenth congressional power enables Congress to do what is necessary to do those other seventeen things, and nothing else.

     The Necessary and Proper Clause would better be called the “Unnecessary and Improper Clause”, or the “Do What You Feel Clause”.

     3. The Interstate Commerce Clause
     The third clause in Article I, Section 8, empowers the Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”

     Today, this clause is used to justify regulating not only business activity which substantially affects interstate commerce, but also anything that could remotely be described as economic activity, which could theoretically be construed as subtly affecting interstate commerce in any small way.

     The power to regulate interstate Commerce Clause is not even used; much less as intended. The clause intended to restrict economic regulation to what is necessary to prevent states from passing preferential laws that unduly favor the domestic commerce occurring within those states, over commerce from other states. Today, states are allowed to propose laws like this – for example, a law proposed in Minnesota that would have imposed a tax on craft beers from out-of-state - without anyone noticing that they violate the interstate Commerce Clause.

     The Commerce Clause thus enables Congress to regulate any and all economic activity, and enables states to consider laws that violate the Constitution and destroy the fairness of the American free trade zone, when the clause originally intended to strictly limit the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, and to limit the power of the state governments to pass laws that protect local state business interests over the interests of other states.

     The interstate Commerce Clause would more appropriately be called the “Let the States Unfairly Protect Their Own Companies Clause” or the "Let the Federal Government Regulate Whatever it Wants Clause".

IV. Six Laws with Deceptive Names

     There are many laws in America – the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, for example (which I'll get to later) – which have deceptive names. These deceptive names reveal precisely how the law does the opposite of what it states it is trying to do.

     4. Citizens United

     The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision allows unlimited campaign donations; on the basis of the idea that donations to political campaigns are a form of free expression which is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The ruling has divided the country.

     “Citizens United” would better be called “Citizens Divided”.

     5. N.A.F.T.A. (The North American Free Trade Agreement)

     The 1993/1994 North American Free Trade Agreement was a multilateral trade compact (or treaty) between several national governments. Its intention was to promote free trade, but it only worked towards a zero-tariff scenario and real free trade.

     Furthermore, N.A.F.T.A. went backwards on protecting property, the environment, and the sovereignty of foreign countries. It did this by allowing the Mexican Constitution to be amended so as to allow the exploitation of native land in Mexico by international property developers (among other negative consequences of the deal).

     Moreover, trade deals can be negotiated without governments, and they are probably even best negotiated without governments. Thus, N.A.F.T.A. achieved the opposite of free trade; it was a government-managed trade deal.

     Some criticize N.A.F.T.A. for creating a “North American free trade zone” that threatens to flood America with cheap products, cheap labor, or both. But that is to criticize the deal for making trade “too free”. I criticize it because it makes trade too unfree.

     The North American Free Trade Agreement would more appropriately be called “the North American Unfree Trade Agreement” or the “Make North America Submit Economically to the United States Agreement”.

     6. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

     The 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (E.E.S.A) was a congressional bailout measure intended to mitigate the damage of the 2007-08 financial crisis. While its stated intention was to “stabilize the economy”, what it actually did was authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to buy up to $700 billion in troubled assets.

     The E.E.S.A. was just the first in a series of bailouts, which affected nine major companies. Financial analysts have argued as to whether the total cost of the bailouts and restructuring ended up amounting to $10, $12, or even $29.6 trillion dollars, as opposed to the initial $700 billion troubled asset purchase authorization which made the Troubled Asset Relief Program “necessary” to create.

     Thus, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act would better be called the “Emergency Economic Destabilization Act”, because it was a risky piece of legislation that put the economy in further peril.

     7. The Protect Life Act

The Protect Life Act, which was passed by Congress in 2011 but not signed into law, would have prohibited Obamacare funding from being spent on abortion. Its express purpose would have been to protect the life of the unborn fetus.

     However, that proposed law also would have made it legal for hospitals to deny abortions to pregnant women even if they have life-threatening conditions.

     Thus, the Protect Life Act would more appropriately be called the “Protect Fetus' Lives Only Act” or the “Let Women Die in Childbirth Act”.

     8. The Restoring Internet Freedom Act

     The Restoring Internet Freedom Act, enacted in 2018, destroys the freedom of the internet - its open-source, collaborative commons, peer-to-peer nature - because it prohibits the F.C.C. (Federal Communication Corporation) from classifying I.S.P.s (internet service providers) as common carriers. The law also prohibits the F.C.C. from “imposing certain regulations on providers of such service”.

     Thus, the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, would more appropriately be called “the Destroying Internet Freedom Act”.

     9. The Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.)

     The Defense of Marriage Act, which was federal law from 1996 to 2015, prohibited married same-sex couples from collecting federal benefits.

     Thus, the Defense of Marriage Act defended solely the marriages of heterosexuals, in treating same-sex couples in a discriminatory manner. So it doesn't defend marriages; if it did, then it would defend all marriages (between consenting adults), and it would want there to be more marriages. But the people who wrote and approved D.O.M.A. didn't want that.

     That's why the Defense of Marriage Act would better be termed the “Defend Straight Marriages Only Act”, the “Destruction of Marriage Act”, the “Preferential Treatment for Straight Couples Act”, or the “Offend Gay Marriages Act”.

[Explanations for examples of government failure #10-#110 will appear on this page at a later date.]

Written on July 27^th, 2019

Based on Notes Taken in June and July 2019

Written for the Bughouse Square Debates, held in Chicago, Illinois on July 27^th, 2019
and delivered in part at the debates

Edited on August 13th, 2019

Majority Unionism, Compulsory Unionism, and Compulsory Voting Hurt Workers

     Some on the left speak of Right to Work laws as “right to work for less” laws. While statistically it is true that pay is nominally lower in Right to Work states than in non- Right-to-Work states, the interstate differences in consumer preferences, styles of economizing purchasing, and economic and social values, may account for Red-Staters' desire to live in more conservative economies.

     Also, the value of freedom – meaning liberty from coercion and compulsion, in addition to free choice from among many alternatives – is immeasurable. The freedom to choose a union is as important as the freedom to choose one's employer.

     Additionally, the reputation that Right to Work laws have for being “union-busting laws” is unfounded. Right to Work laws do not eliminate collective bargaining, nor unions entirely. They merely invalidate union shop agreements, which permit the hiring of union members alongside non-members, but with the requirement that non-union workers eventually join the union and pay dues as a condition of getting hired or keeping their jobs.

     Right-to-Work laws would do nothing to reverse the illegality of closed-shop union security agreements (in which only union members in good standing may be hired), which are outlawed by the Taft-Hartley Act.

     Although compromise between labor and capital seems a distant dream, I contend that the solution to compromise on the Right to Work vs. Compulsory Unionism issue is remarkably simple.

     On September 5^th, 1989, Reed Larson, the head of the National Right to Work Legal Committee, appeared on The Mike Scinto Show, on WHIO-TV in Ohio, to discuss the merits of Right to Work laws. Wes Wells, a Dayton-area labor leader with the American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Organizations (A.F.L.-C.I.O.), called in to the show.

     Reed Larson defended Right to Work laws, and Wes Wells explained that the A.F.L.-C.I.O. is opposed to the principles of the Right to Work Committee. However, they both agreed that it is due to federal labor law of the 1930s and 1940s (specifically, the majority unionism provision of the 1935 Wagner Act, which created the National Labor Relations Board) that free riders are created and covered.

     Before reading the exchange, it will be necessary to understand the majority unionism provision of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. According to this act (which is still in effect, and enshrined into law in Section 9 of the U.S. Code), there can be only one exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of employees (that is, the people elected by a majority of the workforce have the right to become the exclusive representatives of workers in collective bargaining with the employer), and employers are compelled to bargain with the representative [singular] of its employees.

     Majority unionism, compulsory unionism, and the compulsory and secretive election procedures required of unions by the N.L.R.B., are all consequences of the Wagner Act, and yet Right to Work laws take the rap for creating free riders.

     The following is a transcript of part of the exchange between Larson and Wells. The video can be viewed at this address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoXv6eKY1gE

Scinto: Do you think it's fair that if … I come to work for … Chrysler, or for … General Motors, that if I don't want to belong to a union, that I should have to be represented by that union?

Wells: Well, absolutely. When we take... a look at the average wage rate … of those Right to Work states, and take a look at the wage rates in this … state, for example, and take a look at the tax structure, and who pays the taxes, we don't think that there should be free-riders. If an individual enjoys the same wage and benefits – health, medical, and all those services – then we don't think … that they should be able to free-ride on other members that … pay union dues.

Scinto: Reed?

Larson: Well, I don't think that they should be able to free-ride either, and I don't that you should be required … to represent anybody who doesn't voluntarily join and pay dues to the union. Now just tell us, right on the air, do you want to represent those non-members? Would you support a change in the law that says you support only the people that want to be represented?

Wells: Reed, you know that by federal law, that we are required to represent those free riders.

Scinto: And he's [Larson is] saying he … wants that changed.

Larson: … We've got a bill in … Congress to change that. Would you support it? …

Scinto: Would you support the bill to … eliminate that federal law, Wes?

Wells: I'd have to take a look at the bill. I don't even know what bill he's talking about.

Scinto: OK... Let me... ask you, Wes, if ... we came up with a … theoretical bill or an actual bill that would eliminate the … mandatory support for people who didn't pay their dues and didn't belong to the union, could you at least … be open to the consideration of a Right to Work law?

Wells: Well, I, you know, I think we need to take a look at any legislation, but … you know, to buy a pig in a poke, absolutely not, and the things that Reed and the Right to Work Committee stand for, you know, we are directly opposed to those principles. And Reed is, you know, pretty much aware of that.

Scinto: Alright...

Larson: Just remember this: unions want to represent those non-members, and they fight bitterly for the right and the privilege of doing that, and then they want to tax those people.

     The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation – the 501(c)3 arm of the National Right to Work Committee, a 501(c)4 - primarily defends people who object to being compelled to pay union dues. It has also defended people who wanted to form new, alternative unions. The practices of having more than one union in a workplace are called dual unionism and minority unionism.

     In non-Right-to-Work states (otherwise known as Compulsory Unionism states, which allow closed-shop and union-shop union security agreements), unions compel non-consenting workers to pay union dues, even if they think the union doesn't do anything for them, or even agrees to limit their wages, raises, and benefits in order to keep the union contract with management/owners, and in order to keep the power to monopolize worker representation in the workplace.

     Agreeing to limit workers' wages is especially deleterious to the improvement of workers' living standards, because such contracts between unions and management were often written as long as decades before modern workers are hired. This, of course, means that wages and raises were written before all of the inflation and consumer price index increases that have accumulated since then.

     In addition to the fact that, in Compulsory Unionism states, inadvertent free-riders receive undeserved benefits (which they don't even consider to be actually beneficial to themselves, and therefore don't want, and also don't want to pay for), the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 -also known as the Wagner Act – allows employers to refuse to recognize the union.

     When the employer recognizes the union, the union can become the lone representative of workers in the workplace, provided that the union collect union authorization cards signed by a simple majority of the workers. But when the employer refuses to recognize the union, the union can only be certified through secret-ballot elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.

     To reiterate, the majority unionism provision of the Wagner Act requires that if a majority of workers do not authorize the certification of the union as the sole representative of workers in negotiation with management, a secret-ballot election must take place.

     These elections, aside from being secret-ballot (which Lysander Spooner argued are secretive, and remove all traces of voter privity) – are compulsory upon unions (rather than the rules of the elections being left up to the concordance of the workers themselves), and supervised and conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.

     Aside from all this secrecy, compulsion, and tyranny of the simple majority, such elections may be required to take place on a frequent basis. As a consequence of Scott Walker's Act 10 - passed in Wisconsin in 2011 - public sector unions working in education and health are now required to participate in annual votes on whether to keep their union. [Note: although the Wagner Act pertains to (most) private sector unions, it does not apply to public sector unions.]

     Aside from being required to frequently vote in secret ballot elections on whether to renew their unions' certifications, individual union members may be required to vote in union elections, even if they want to stay neutral. When this occurs, it is because the simple majority of the vote is based on a majority of the total number of workers, rather than on the number of workers consenting to participate in the election.

     Compulsory voting in union elections compounds the risk that a union will be required to cease representing workers. This is because when more people are compelled to pay dues against their will, more people will vote against renewing the certification of that union when such a vote occurs. This is especially so when the vote is compulsory on top of the compulsory dues payments, which bred the resentment that led workers to resist conscription into the union in the first place.

     This is the essence of the all-or-nothing system that the N.L.R.A. set up. It is difficult to imagine how many Americans assume that federal law compels employers to negotiate with unions, in an unconditional manner. This is to say that majority status through federally-supervised secret-ballot elections, is the necessary condition to invoke government responsibility to ensure that employers negotiate.

     If federal law required employers to negotiate with anyone engaging in concerted activity with fellow workers (in order to engage in union behavior, or in order to invoke their right not to), then majority unionism and compulsory voting in union elections would be obsolete.

     The interconnected web of aforementioned problems is the reason why I am strongly opposed to compulsory voting, whether in union or political elections. And now that we see the damage which compulsory voting can cause unions, we must understand that compulsory voting has the exact same effect in political elections.

     To any progressive or liberal who argues that voting should be compulsory in political elections - including on the premise that "more people would vote in a progressive or liberal way" - I say “then to be fair, we must also forcibly educate people about all of their options”.

     There should be no compulsory voting without compulsory education about all of the choices. This is why I feel that employers requiring workers to watch anti-union propaganda is an acceptable consequence of all the union compulsion I have described; it is an effort to provide a counter-balance. When such union compulsion ceases to exist, I would oppose all efforts to compulsorily educate workers.

     But compulsory education aside, if the public knows that disaffected progressives and liberals will be required to vote, and that they will be voting in droves, then those who oppose progressives and liberals the most strongly will also show up to the polls (especially since they'd be required to do so) in order to create a counter-balance to the electoral power of their political rivals. We must remember Newton's 3^rd Law of Motion - “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” - and apply it to political action.

     In my opinion, all of this demonstrates why putting bargaining rights on the table for sacrifice on the corrupt altar of representative democracy - which could vote those rights away, instead of being required to protect them as natural and inalienable, and protect our right to contract - was the first mistake of the labor movement.

     This is why I believe that on the labor issue, the federal government should do little more than protect each worker's unlimited right to enter into a contract and to negotiate (this right is limited by labor laws and long-standing labor contracts), protect the right of individuals to engage in concerted activity (or not to), and compel employers to bargain with employees (unconditionally, and regardless of the existence of a simple majority's approval).

     These rights should be seen as, and are, corollaries to all other rights in the workplace. As the International Workers of the World say, “an injury to one is an injury to all”. As Karl Marx wrote, “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.

     The needs of individuals and minorities must be protected from the will of the simple majority, which is unstable due to its potential to change instantaneously and change rules for light and transient causes. Majority status should not be anywhere near as meaningful and consequential as simply engaging in concerted activity with other workers for the purpose of prompting negotiation obligations on the part of management.

     On top of that subjugation, some union dues support political purposes, and/or have their funding buttressed by taxpayers. Compulsorily extracted union dues that fund the remainder of unions' pursuit of voluntary contributions, are what is known as soft money, as opposed to the hard money that is raised voluntarily.

     It is this tangled mess of coercive taxation (to bail-out what consumers will not voluntarily pay for), compulsory dues payments, compulsory voting, tyranny of the simple majority, and employer freedom to refuse to recognize unions (if they don't get a simple majority), which render it paradoxical to support unions in Compulsory Unionism states; and which invite all the unlimited and secretive spending by corporations, unions, and political action committees, many of whose goals are questionably constitutional.

     It is violence in the workplace begetting a politically violent response, which - as I explained above - would be entirely called for, if only capitalists did not also collude to force workers to watch anti-union propaganda (on top of limiting and interfering with bargaining, and intimidating and exploiting workers).

     This mess is the fault of the citizens; for allowing the federal government to unconstitutionally legislate on matters of labor in the first place. Federal intervention in labor and commerce were never authorized by the Constitution. The Department of Labor and the Department of Commerce were originally fused together into one, when Theodore Roosevelt's government created them. I suspect that they were separated in order to keep labor's nose out of the corporate welfare books.

     This is why we must be wary that compromise may bring concessions, and that more secrecy may result due to only illusorily separated new powers such as these. Such departments are unconstitutional, and should either work with other cabinet agencies in a manner that provides checks and balances, or they should be constitutionally re-authorized, or else cease existing permanently.

     Big Labor and federal law create half of labor's problems. There is no reason why the labor movement and the limited government movement cannot work together; I assert that there are plenty of federal and state laws – and types of union security agreement practices (some of which are practically laws, because they are complex contracts that have been frequently updated and repeatedly allowed legal standing by the courts) – that can and should be found invalid and unconstitutional.

     As I stated earlier, these contracts and laws interfere with the people's unlimited right to contract. This right cannot and should not be voted away.

     Repealing the entire Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (then dubbed "the slave labor bill" by labor leaders), amending or abolishing the monopolistic representation provision of the Wagner Act of 1935, and amending or abolishing much of the remainder of the Wagner Act, would be perfect places to start fixing the union bosses' mess. These are antiquated laws, in twenty years the Wagner Act will be a century old, and the Democratic Party can and should do much better.

     Right-to-Work laws must be re-presented in order to appeal to progressives and liberals. Here's how it's done: "Right to Work laws empower state governments to stop the federal government from requiring anti-union workers to derive free benefits - without paying dues - that result from the negotiation of union members who agreed to work for and pay dues to their unions". I could add "and willingly participate in, and vote in", if Right to Work laws could, of themselves, end compulsory and majority unionism. But that could only be done through a National Right to Work Amendment.

     There is no reason why labor should keep obeying the federal government's demands that it continue to work harder to support the free-riders that the government creates, giving more benefits than requested to workers who may despise the dominant union. This only begets more resentment, politicization of the workplace, political divisiveness, and spiteful policy-making.

     Constitutionally limited government, members-only collective bargaining, dual and minority unionism, and some of the goals of Franklin D. Roosevelt's unconstitutional 1933 National Recovery Administration (i.e., promoting boycotts and fostering fair competition) can reverse most of the aforementioned contradictions of organized labor. Right-to-Work laws and/or the abolition of the National Labor Relations Board (to be replaced by more direct negotiation between workers, owners, consumers, and investors) can solve much of the rest.

     In the 1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that workers may be compelled to pay a minimum amount of union dues to cover their fair share of collective bargaining, but they may not be compelled to become full members of a union.

     In my opinion, something close to this precedent should be recognized in Compulsory Unionism states, along with two requirements: (1) workers are given adequate warning – during the job interview, or at least before filing one's employment tax information - that they will have to join a union in order to keep their jobs, and (2) workers may only be compelled to pay union dues that cover those benefits of negotiation, of which individuals cannot help but receive the benefits.

     That is to say, any fair share fee that would be compulsory, would cover only those benefits that substantially improve the physical health and safety conditions of the workplace (the unavoidable consequences of working in a unionized workplace). Wages and benefits, however, would not be covered by fair share fees, but instead be negotiated on an individual basis (or, at least, wages and benefits could be allocated in a manner which is uniform with respect to individuals, but individuals would be free to opt-out of those full benefits).

     There is no good reason why the fair share fees which would normally be paid to the union, should not be paid to management and ownership, in order to cover the costs of the share of the health and safety improvements to the workplace which is incurred by workers not belonging to the majority union.

     Requiring ownership/management to collect fair share fees under these conditions, would eliminate the system of fair share fees as we know it, and allow workers to completely opt-out of paying dues to any union if that is their wish.

     It would also help ensure compliance with Section 19 of the Wagner Act, which provides that people with religious convictions against joining a union are entitled to not associate with or financially support it. Additionally, it would also help ensure that labor and capital each contribute something in regards to improving the physical conditions of the workplace.

     A twenty-year-old with no family to support, who goes to a hiring and staffing agency to find a job pushing a broom, should immediately be informed that “the union can get you fired for not paying dues.”

     “The union will resist any attempts to put non-unionized workers in the workplace, even on a temporary basis [for example, if you're a substitute for a unionized worker who is out recuperating from health problems]. No 'non-union' workers will not work here, not even if they want to form their own union, and especially not if they want to form that union in order to sue the majority union for agreeing to limit your pay and wage increases, in order to secure its contract, and under-bid any union that would have fought to secure higher wages. No job that doesn't require a license or full-time hours will be permitted to exist.”

     Furthermore, such a person should be allowed to earn less than the union would wish him or her to earn. If they go to work pushing a broom at a school, they should not be expected to join the combination teachers' and janitors' unions, and be paid as well as teachers, if they don't want to. In such combination unions, more skilled employees (in this instance, teachers) must stop pretending that allowing less skilled employees (here, janitors) to volunteer to earn less, threatens the skilled employees' bottom line, or their jobs altogether.

     The charade that paying low-skilled workers less, threaten the jobs of higher-wage earners, is a despicable lie that comes from unions, and absurdly threatens the jobs of both sets of workers. These lies may help garner sympathy for labor's cause, but they do not help individual workers whatsoever.

     Big Labor shoots itself in the foot using an enthusiastically registered gun made out of century-old federal laws. It no longer seems absurd to me to suggest that federal labor laws were designed to limit the freedom of several workers to demand negotiation, and the freedom of many unions to flourish, even several per workplace. This is in addition to the freedom to engage in sympathy strikes, which unions have to contend with aside from already needing majority votes and/or the union leader's agreement about whether and when a strike will take place.

     Essentially, I am arguing that union negotiation and its benefits must be treated as club goods; excludable and non-rivalrous. The market for union negotiation must be perfected, and its competition completed. Free riding is an externality which must be internalized in order to preserve the closed club nature of the union. Government created this problem; labor and capital did not.

     Unionists should not assume that a federal labor law benefits workers overall, simply because it is a long-standing labor law supported by Democrats (of eighty years ago, mind you). Liberalism has changed, and conservatism has changed. Labor must be revisited as a national issue, but the working public must be made to understand that our freedom and our power in the workplace are fundamental and inalienable rights, that we do not need permission to exercise them, and that we look to government (which we create and hire) only to protect these natural rights.

     To say what I hope is obvious, the problem is not that unions are inherently bad, it's just that many of them agree to abide by profoundly unjust and exploitative laws, and some are hungry for money, and for control in the workplace and in politics. I, for one, cannot agree to support most unionization in Compulsory Unionism states, because supporting unions would paradoxically lead to the destruction of unions (as I have demonstrated throughout this article). This is why I maintain that the left and the right agree on this issue; they just don't know it yet.

     I believe that there should be a National Right to Work Amendment, that the Supreme Court should invalidate and find unconstitutional the federal and state laws which permit union-shop union security agreements, and that the federal government should intervene in the Compulsory Unionism states (if necessary) in order to protect workers' rights to freely plan to form unions, strike, and demand negotiation. All other federal labor laws should be repealed, except laws requiring employers to negotiate, laws that protect the right of two or more workers to engage in concerted activity with intent to unionize, and laws that directly affect the federal government's own public-sector workers.

     I recommend that laws be passed requiring that no union be allowed to prevent other unions from going into competition with it. It should still be possible for unions to appeal to government to break up unions that use coercion and compulsion. But workers should not be left with no alternatives to an only union; if government destroys workers' only alternative, it should create an alternative, or at least allow any innocent workers to create something new. Either way, concerted activity must be strongly protected, in order for that to remain a possibility.

     To reject Right-to-Work laws, dual and minority unionism, members-only collective bargaining and open-shop union security agreements, is essentially to diminish the importance of federally protected concerted activity between several workers (as opposed to many workers agreeing to exist as a union, existing on majority status, following federal law and obeying the N.L.R.B.).

     Additionally, it is to assert that “unions are good because they help get the worker the full product of his labor, but to be truly excellent, unions should imitate the worst aspects of capitalism" - such as monopoly, coercion/compulsion, majoritarianism, representative democracy, and property ownership [albeit collective ownership in form] – and that unions should imitate the worst aspects of capitalist management and ownership, by having the power to fire people [keep in mind, we're talking about the power to fire people who don't even agree to work for them, and may have no idea that they'll be expected to start working for the union leadership's benefit until weeks after they are hired].

     Whether and how unions may or may not exist or strike, should not be left up to distant bureaucrats in Washington, but the freedom of decision on this matter should be recognized as a fundamental natural right, and protected. So let us not speak of “reining in the unions”; instead, it is time to rein in the powers of majority, monopoly, coercion, compulsion, ownership, politicization, polarization, and firing - which federal and state laws have permitted unions to exercise - so that collective bargaining with capital may be diverse, fair and equal, and both free and freeing.

     Perhaps it is even time to thoroughly end the power of the tyranny of the simple majority to vote away our inalienable individual rights to use our personal property (i.e., our bodies) to have an unlimited right to contract, and engage in concerted activity, and practice our natural, fundamental (albeit extra-constitutional) right to bargain with our employers (and our unions).

     I suggest that we may do that by constitutionally limiting government. This will have several positive effects: (1) the government would not be free to pile on government bureaus and the employee rolls and contracts and public sector unions that come with it. This would help ensure that the costs of government never get so high that it appears that taxes will have to be made compulsory upon everyone. It would additionally allow willing customers to make the choices about which companies and unions win and lose in the marketplace, rather than those choices being made by government bureaucrats and union bosses who have the power to steal the property (i.e., income) of taxpayers and workers.

Edited in December 2014

Thanks to Terry R. Gray for his assistance