A Libertarian “Family Values” Solution to Fighting Gang Violence

     Between 3 P.M. on Friday, August 3^rd, and 6 A.M. on Monday, August 6^th, 2018, seventy-four people were shot in Chicago, Illinois. In the first three hours of that Sunday alone, thirty people were shot, in addition to another ten people within the few hours before and after that. Eleven or twelve of those 74 people reportedly died as the result of their injuries.

     As a response to the escalation in violence, hundreds of additional police officers have been put on patrol in the city. The rash of shootings has prompted calls for the resignation of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel, who served as Barack Obama's chief of staff during the first year and a half of his presidency, condemned the shootings, calling them “unacceptable in any neighborhood”. Chicagoans might have considered this number of shootings “normal” if they had occurred during the Fourth of July weekend, but given that they took place in early August, it just seems out of place.

     The shootings have also renewed public interest in calling-in the Illinois National Guard to help the Chicago Police Department patrol problematic areas of the city. Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner disagreed, saying “the national guard is not for neighborhood policing”. Rauner, who is up for re-election this November, added that improving economic opportunities would help to end the violence in the city.

     In November, Rauner faces re-election challenge from Democratic nominee and fellow billionaire J.B. Pritzker, Conservative Party nominee and state legislator Sam McCann, and Libertarian Party nominee Kash Jackson, as well as, possibly, various other independent, minor party, and write-in candidates.

     On March 3^rd, Kash Jackson was nominated for governor by the Libertarian Party of Illinois, defeating challengers Matthew C. Scaro and Jon Stewart. Although Stewart was the only one of the three candidates who was open to considering deploying the Illinois National Guard in Chicago, he articulated his own comprehensive plan to address gang violence during their campaigns, as did Mr. Scaro and Mr. Jackson. All three candidates agreed that economic opportunity would play a part in the solution to gang violence, as well as the decriminalization of non-violent drug offenses and gun possession. Jackson in particular would like to give inmates the opportunity to acquire skills while in jail that will help them become valued, contributing members of society and the labor force.

     The Libertarian Party and its candidates, of course, do not agree with Bruce Rauner on everything. If we liked Bruce Rauner, we wouldn't be running anyone against him. However, I, and many L.P. members, feel that Bruce Rauner and Kash Jackson are correct in their agreement on this particular issue. Economic opportunity should be part of the solution, and calling-in the National Guard should not.

     In my opinion, this is a position which fits in line perfectly with what libertarian-inspired public policy should look like. It also stands as an example of what moderate Republicans do right, as far as libertarians are concerned; looking to freedom, rather than brute strength, to fight gangs, gun crime, and violent behavior associated with the use and sale of drugs.

     You don't fix urban gang violence by calling the National Guard into cities, nor by imposing a curfew on adults. That would violate the freedoms of all people within the areas being patrolled; even adult citizens who vote and pay taxes, and who of right ought to be allowed to make their own decisions. To impose a curfew is to disregard people's natural freedom of locomotion (movement; travel), and makes them unfree to leave their homes. This is not Saudi Arabia, nor it is Egypt in 2011, where governments can get away with using brutal, uncivilized means to supposedly achieve civil “order” (which essentially amounts to a state of legalized terror over the public).

     The patrol of streets by police officers, who often watch and even follow people without warrants or reasonable suspicion, essentially create a standing threat against citizens. When supplemented by officers trained in military techniques, and especially when provided with military-grade weaponry and surveillance technology, police departments can be transformed into what essentially amounts to units of a standing army. That is what the second and third amendments to the U.S. Constitution were intended to prevent.

     Calling-in the National Guard sends the message that not just law-breakers, but also potential law-breakers, will be dealt with as if they were an invading army of foreign militants, posing an immediate threat to people. This makes people feel as if they are not at home in their own country. This treatment especially negatively affects people of color, and brings back bad historical memories (more than those whose relatives do not have stories of similar situations can imagine).

     Additionally, the ubiquitous presence of police results in what is called “the alienation of the will”, as well as the “Panopticon” effect. It causes people to worry that they are being watched, and change their behavior as a way to compensate. The motivation behind the Panopticon is to cause people to “police their own behavior”. Unfortunately, this has turned many of us into our own worst enemies. Thus, the Panopticon has done little other than to put a man's leash into his own hand, and to allow police to get away with shouting “fire” in a crowded theater with no fire, by shooting at people who they claim to be threats.

     This can have disastrous consequences, including 1) more secretive behavior on the part of citizens and law enforcement officers alike, 2) government encouraging citizens to spy on their neighbors, and 3) criminals killing more witnesses and police in order to get away with their crimes than they otherwise would have (a problem which is spurred-on by the harsh penalties involved). Moreover, 4) an environment of fear is created in the community, as well as the perception that one is being watched, and that privacy is impossible. Also, 5) some citizens begin to behave as if they were police officers. Not by protecting and serving, mind you, but by using the violation of petty infractions as an excuse to shoot people who are engaging in harmless behaviors which they personally don't like, and by extrajudicially detaining someone who “looks like a terrorist” in a grocery store for no reason, while they call the cops.

     Making people believe that they are being watched at all times, has more unintended consequences than we can anticipate. There is little evidence that creating an environment of Kafkaesque fear – fear that we'll be accused of anything and everything, and be on our own to defend ourselves against charges our accusers can't even articulate, and fear that we could be breaking some obscure law no matter where we go and what we do - has ever made people into better or more law-abiding citizens.

     This environment of fear has, thus far, only served to reproduce in the streets what the people of Pamplona feel every year; that of an approaching stampede shaking the ground, and of a public panic about to ensue, which, for everybody's safety, needs to be prevented.

     The “law of the instrument”, explained by a quotation whose origin has been attributed to many different people, states that “every problem looks like a nail if the only tool you have is a hammer”. Not all of our problems can be killed or destroyed; didn't we learn that from our failed war on the ideology of terrorism?

     I believe that it is impossible to solve gang violence by treating ordinary citizens as if they were standing threats to public order, even if they are supposedly walking in dangerous neighborhoods. We cannot put all of our potential “problems” in jail, just because we think that they might do something bad or harmful. Especially when our “problems” are human beings, who nearly always have perfectly rational motivations for the things they do.

     The idea that we can police our way into paradise, and that all we need is increased police presence on the ground, presumes people guilty until proven innocent, instead of innocent until proven guilty. It puts the responsibility upon the accused person, to defend himself against accusations which the accuser has little to no responsibility to even articulate, much less for which to provide evidence. All of this subverts our civil liberty to due process of law and fair legal proceedings. It plays into the idea of “thoughtcrime” (a term coined by George Orwell in his novel 1984) and “pre-crime” (a term used in the film Minority Report).

     Using this logic, we might as well put everyone in jail! But then, who would hold the keys?

     Willingness to violate a petty infraction does not make one a violent criminal, and failing to follow the law should not merit being treated like some sort of hostile foreign invader who is incapable of living in a civilized society.

     In Illinois, many Republicans want a more strict enforcement of the law, and say “make an example of small-time rule-breakers”. But ironically, some of them defend calls for Democratic former Illinois Rod Blagojevich to be pardoned, and prematurely released from prison, after being sentenced to 14 years in prison for corruption. Granted, political corruption is not technically a violent crime, but this is our government, and we ought to be holding our elected officials to higher standards than ordinary citizens.

     Why these Republicans are defending a corrupt Democrat is confusing enough as it is; but maybe they're just taking Trump's lead. Either way, the fact that they'd rather release Blagojevich (who isn't eligible for release until May 2024) than “small-time rule-breakers” is not only disturbing, but perhaps even shows a tinge of racism. Maybe these are the same people who chose to set Barabbas the murderer free instead of Jesus Christ.

     It amazes me; the lengths some Illinois Republicans are willing to go, to compare non-violent petty offenders to murderers, and to cast Rod Blagojevich as a faithful public servant who was unfairly targeted. The man offered to sell the vacated seat of the outgoing U.S. Senator who became president, and all but admitted it on audio tape.

     As we saw in Operation Iraqi Freedom, “shock and awe” failed to win the United States of America “the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people”. Likewise, the police should not expect to be able to win the public's trust.

     Especially not by simply making sure that most of the police officers who are arresting minorities, are themselves minorities, or “look like the neighborhoods they're policing”. Especially not if they are arresting their own families and neighbors for petty theft, minor drug charges, and the possession of weapons without permits and licenses.

     The only way the police can gain public trust is to make sure that people are less afraid of the police than they are of gangs. And one of the best ways you can do that is to decriminalize the non-violent possession of drugs and weapons, and decriminalize prostitution by consenting adults, and repeal laws against victimless crimes. Fortunately, it's also one of the easiest ways to deal with the problem, because the police would have less work to do, and therefore less resources would be expended, leading to lower taxes.

     Why shouldn't legalizing harmless, peaceful, non-violent market activity – even if it is supposedly “black-market” activity - be part of extending economic opportunity to these often poor, overlooked neighborhoods experiencing gang violence? We should be careful to avoid confusing non-violent “black market” behavior, which is technically illegal but harmless; with violent “red markets”, which involve crime for profit, such as murder-for-hire, robbery and burglary, and coerced prostitution. The longer we pretend that the black and red markets are the same, the longer they will work together to avoid their mutual enemy the state.

     Of course, selling drugs and becoming a prostitute is by no means the only type of “economic opportunity” which would help struggling neighborhoods. Bootlegging could be decriminalized. Jurisdictions could reduce fines on becoming a food vendor without applying for a permit, or they could get rid of the permits, or reduce the fees or requirements therefor, or they could re-evaluate which professions need strict permits altogether.

     Job opportunities aside, minor traffic and parking infractions which result in no harm to person or property could be dealt with more fairly; and in a more lenient fashion; and without relying on the impossible dream of an omnipresent state, to make all behavior everywhere to conform to what the state wants.

     When the people are not constantly antagonized - and overregulated, tracked, and spied on – in their places of business (legitimate or not) and elsewhere, then the prospect of citizens and police getting along, and working together against violent crime, will become possible. Only when that happens, will the people be less afraid of the cops than they are of the gangs.

     To expect people to “snitch” on members of criminal gangs that would want them dead for doing such a thing, is patently absurd. But it is nowhere near as absurd as the idea that one set of violent criminals (the state) is qualified to crack down on another set of violent criminals who help them enforce the drug cartel. The state has just as much of a history threatening and intimidating peaceful people as organized criminal gangs do; maybe even more. Considering how much material support Al Capone's gang provided to needy people, I almost want to recommend that people turn-in problematic police officers to their local gangs.

     To many people, to snitch on a criminal is a “turn in a friend, get a free plea deal” situation; it's a no-win situation. This is to say that small-time drug dealers are afraid to turn-in drug dealers who steal, kill, or poison the drugs they sell; and that prostitutes are afraid to call the cops on pimps and johns who abuse them. Not only are prostitutes and small-time drug dealers not criminals; if they are reporting any of the offenses I have mentioned, they are victims of crime. To prosecute such people is to send a clear message that the police have no interest in protecting and serving vulnerable members of society.

     It's not that co-conspirators, accomplices, and accessories to the crime shouldn't be prosecuted; what I'm saying is that people who break laws against victimless crimes, such as vice laws, should not be perceived as criminals, simply because they have broken some petty infractions. Harming “the public” is impossible, because what “the public” is, is a social construct. It is a fantastical, made-up thing, which does not tangibly exist, and thus cannot be physically harmed, much less called to testify in open court. When the public is the accuser, a fair trial is all but impossible, since one cannot confront one's accuser, except through a duly authorized representative (and what makes that representative acceptable is a matter of debate).

     Whether we're talking about decriminalizing non-violent black market activity, or legalizing under-the-table work in “gray markets”, or just getting rid of some of the many laws that ordinary people violate every day without even knowing it (several felonies per day, by one estimate); the point is to rid ourselves of the need to create laws whose enforcement results in the police unnecessarily antagonizing the people.

     Through liberalization, legalization, and decriminalization of non-violent behaviors, the need for police to enforce the law can be diminished, and the presence of police in neighborhoods will diminish due to that lessened need. Perhaps it helps to think of the police as an occupation force, like the United States was, and still is, in Iraq and Afghanistan: as the people rise up to defend their homeland, the police will draw-down their level of active duty assistance in policing those neighborhoods.

     But of course, people are only governable if the set of laws by which they're expected to abide are reasonable, and are limited to the protection of people and justly acquired property. Otherwise, a system of officers of the peace (who may not go on patrols), citizen militias (who may not forcibly recruit), and deputized citizens (whose arrest powers must be limited), would burst through those constraints, and collapse into an occupying army. “Mission creep” would set in, and many people would be coerced into becoming Stalinist “see something, say something” spies on their neighbors - volunteer snitches who do police bidding without caring whether the laws they're enforcing are just in the first place – in order to survive through currying favor with the authorities.

     But no army, nor police force, can survive long, if it is itself itself occupied with enforcing unjust laws that are impossible to obey, and which are undesired by the people. It is only through the efforts of people, who put up with and sometimes even help enforce unjust laws, that the legitimacy and finance of the occupying police army are maintained (or else destroyed).

     While we, as libertarians, may feel the impulse to reject calls to resolve the problem of gang violence by “restoring family” as socially conservative, traditionalist, or outmoded. However, the gubernatorial nominee of the Libertarian Party of Illinois, Kash Jackson, believes that fatherless homes are a major contributing factor leading to increased likelihood of youth drug use and involvement in gangs. The statistics prove him right on that.

     Jackson believes that family values are a potential solution to gang violence, but he does not promote family values in the manner in which Republicans are apt to promote family values. His is a “family values” platform which avoids that control-freak fantasy of an omnipotent, state that can make criminals into law-abiding citizens by locking them in cells and depriving them of opportunities, nor that it can make peaceful citizens into better people by treating them as criminal suspects.

     Nor does he stoop to paternalism; his platform supports equality of the sexes, as the Libertarian Party has since its formation in 1971. When you listen to Kash Jackson, you will not hear any judgmental, dog-whistle-laden talk about minority fathers in urban areas being deadbeats, nor talk about single mothers leading immoral lifestyles. Rich or poor, white or black, whichever gender; Jackson and his supporters in Illinois are following through on their promises to treat individuals the same, regardless of their demographic differences, and regardless of what they can do to benefit the candidates personally.

     On June 29^th, 2018, after the Libertarian Party of Illinois turned in tens of thousands of signatures to the Illinois State Board of Elections in Springfield, the candidates and several state party officials held a press conference. At that press conference, Kash Jackson criticized Social Security Title IV-D (child support), saying that “Illinois sets support orders that exceed double of the national recommendations.” Kash Jackson recognizes that it is the Social Security system, not necessarily moral failings on the part of parents, that has created the mess that families are in (especially in Illinois).

     Like Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Jackson has also criticized what Ryan called “the poverty trap in welfare”; something that is a key factor contributing to the difficulty of transitioning from welfare to work. In this “poverty trap”, people are cut-off from government assistance as soon as they become required to report new income. As a result, people who receive government assistance are effectively given a disincentive to get off of welfare. While Ryan criticized this problem more generally, Jackson has criticized it in regards to the fact that single-parent households are more likely to need some form of supplemental income than two-parent households, whether from government or through child support. But then, of course, Jackson emphasizes in his speeches that the government of Illinois gets paid by the federal government every time it helps to collect on child support orders. That aside, the point is that not only does Social Security offer this perverse incentive; other government assistance programs do too.

     It would not be unfair to conclude that a two-parent household – with parents of any gender, sex, or sexual orientation – can do a better job of raising a child than the state can.

     The Libertarian Party joins those conservatives who recognize that, at least in Illinois, child support is an extortion racket, which all too often assumes fathers to be at fault, and which hurts good parents as well as “deadbeat” and abusive parents.

     But the Libertarian Party also joins those liberals and progressives who know that parents also shouldn't have their children taken away, nor their right to become parents, simply because they are an undocumented immigrant, or gay, or unwed either.

     At the Libertarian Party of Illinois's June 29^th press conference, Jackson stated, “No Illinois citizen should be kicked out, and separated from their children. The exact same thing that happens to the kids on the border, that's been happening to American citizens with child protective services and with our family court system, should be ended today, because it's Draconian, it's archaic, and it shouldn't happen.”

     And all the evidence we have seen – from the concentration camps at the border (which, for all we know, are operating on a for-profit basis) and the separation of children from their parents (at the border and internally); to the jailing of first-time and petty offenders who then learn criminal lifestyles while in jail; to the failed wars on crime, drugs, terrorism, and poverty – points to Jackson and the Libertarians being right.

     It's just too bad that Libertarians want to defund public schools. Without public schools, who would teach your children that all of these catastrophic failures of leadership are just the price we pay for living in a civilized society, and that the community and the government know better than parents what's right for their children anyway?

Written Between August 8^th and 11^th, and 14^th, 2018

Published on August 14^th, 2018

Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law

     The title of this speech is “Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law”. This title alludes to the Roman god Janus, the two-faced god of duality, transitions, gates, beginnings and endings, passages and doorways. I make this reference because, in my study of labor policy, I have discovered that numerous false dichotomies and false choices exist, and persist, about multiple topics in labor law, which cloud the way we think about what fair and free association with unions ought to look like.

     Recently, the Supreme Court handed-down its ruling in the case of Janus v. A.F.S.C.M.E. Council 31. The plaintiff in that case - an Illinois public employee and child support specialist named Mark Janus - sued the public-sector union A.F.S.C.M.E. (the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees), as well as various departments of the Illinois state government.

     Mr. Janus and his attorneys argued that it violated his First Amendment rights to be compelled to pay what are called “fair share” dues. “Fair share” dues (also called agency fees) cover the costs of the expenses incurred by the union. These expenses include engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of workers, and administering contracts.

     According to Janus, unions are private, independent organizations which are third parties to the employer-employee relationship; and therefore, his First Amendment -recognized freedom from association ought to preclude him from being compelled to pay to fund the transmission of political speech in which the union is involved (especially as a public-sector employee who has elected not to join a union). Mr. Janus felt that he was being compelled to pay a union that didn't represent him adequately, and as a result, was being compelled to pay to fund the transmission of political speech with which he disagreed.

     Janus also argued that, as a public sector employee, the government exerted an undue influence over him as an employee. Not only is the government his employer; when the government negotiates labor disputes involving public sector unions, it negotiates disputes which involve itself. This means that there is a potential conflict of interest, and so, the government's status as a neutral arbiter is questionable.

     Janus and his supporters say that, considering that it is a matter of public policy whether public employees are hired - and whether government agencies are created or abolished (as well as when, and how) - then it stands to reason that the collective bargaining in which public sector unions engage is innately political activity, and political speech. Also, that a non-unionized worker cannot rightfully be compelled to pay the union for anything it does.

     One month ago (on June 27^th, 2018), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Janus.

     This reversed the 1977 Supreme Court decision in D. Louis Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Janus also reversed the effects of the 2016 case Friedrichs v. California Teachers' Association, which allowed Abood to stand. As you may remember, that was due to a 4-to-4 deadlock, which resulted from the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, which prevented the court from coming to a majority ruling, resulting in the case's dismissal, allowing the lower court's ruling to stand.

     As a result of the Friedrichs case, the question of compulsory union dues for public sector workers was left unresolved for the subsequent two years. This allowed the continued collection of dues from non-unionized public-sector workers; essentially on the grounds that they could not logistically refuse the so-called “benefits” of union negotiation (which they, of course, do not consider to be benefits).

     To repeat, the decision in Janus reversed the decision in Abood. And what the Abood ruling did was set up a clear distinction between requiring workers to pay “fair share” fees, for the costs incurred by the union (to engage in collective bargaining, and to administer contracts), versus requiring workers to pay dues to the union to fund the transmission of political speech. This “speech” can include political activities in which the union is involved, and as far as the First Amendment is concerned, it amounts to petitioning, and, some would argue, lobbying. Under Abood, public sector employees could be compelled to pay for collective bargaining costs, but not to support the union's political speech (and any lobbying efforts it might be undertaking).

     In my opinion, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education was a wise ruling, and Janus v. A.F.S.C.M.E. was not; because the Janus decision shatters the distinction between collective bargaining costs, versus costs of political speech indirectly associated with bargaining. While it is true that collective bargaining by public sector unions is innately political activity, there are arguably some “benefits” of union negotiation which cannot logistically be refused or avoided by employees (unionized or not). Specifically, the expenses incurred by the union for engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of employees to secure and administer contracts which affect the quality of safety and health which are enjoyed equally by unionized and non-unionized employees who work at the same workplace.

     This is the so-called “free-rider problem” which many union supporters criticize; a situation in which employees who don't want to join a union, are given the benefits of collective bargaining, without being required to pay for them. To repeat, they don't think that those things actually help or benefit them; but you don't like that word, then let's just say “results”. But they might just be saying that the union doesn't help them, because they don't want to pay for it, or because they don't see how certain results of negotiation are unavoidable.

     And if they're unavoidable, then the decision in Abood was appropriate, and shouldn't have been overturned, because, as a result of Abood, for the last 41 years, public sector employees have been expected to pay “fair share” fees to compensate the union for the expenses it incurred in negotiating for those benefits.

     At worst, Janus was all wrong. At best, it solved half the problem, while allowing another problem to continue existing, and also created a new problem. What I mean by this, is that, while it was good to stop requiring public sector workers to pay to support the political speech of their union, but it was unwise to stop compelling non-unionized employees to pay fair share fees. That's because the union, as a majority union, cannot help but provide non-unionized workers with the results of the collective bargaining that the union has already engaged in on behalf of all workers at the workplace.

     The Wagner Act – the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 – requires the majority union to represent all workers in negotiations. This extends a right to private sector workers in a legal manner, what was already afforded to them by reality and reason; that is, the obligation to accept certain results of collective bargaining (like the workplace safety and health conditions they deal with every day), and to pay for it responsibly on a fee-for-service, user-fee -type model.

     The Wagner Act obligates the majority union to represent all workers. It sounds great, until you realize that it has to represent even the ones who don't pay dues, or that it has to represent people who don't want to be represented. Which could be because they hate unions, or it could be because they think the union doesn't do enough for them.

     The Wagner Act creates the free rider problem (for many, though not all, private sector workers), because it obligates the union receiving the majority vote to represent all employees (that is, all members of the collective bargaining unit, which is usually all workers at the workplace). In the private sector, the now 83-year-old Wagner Act created the free-rider problem, while Right-to-Work laws enable that problem to continue. Meanwhile, in the public sector, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia's 1958 “Little Wagner Act” - which allowed city worker unions to organize – enacted Wagner Act -type majority unionism for public workers (and inspired similar reforms across the country), while the Janus decision enable that problem to continue.

     This is what I mean by public policy on collective bargaining being two-faced.

     If you think about it, the Janus decision, Right-to-Work laws, and the Wagner Act all solve half of the problem, while creating another. Right-to-Work laws and the Janus decision are symptoms of the free rider problem which the Wagner Act created in the first place. If Right-to-Work laws are a Band-Aid on the problem, then the Janus decision is like replacing the Band-Aid with a smaller Band-Aid, without the wound having gotten any smaller.

     If you look up an organization called the National Right to Work Foundation, you'll find that not only do many of these free riders not want to be free riders, some of them actually want to form their own unions. Don't you think that if people were more free to form additional unions in their workplaces, more people would join unions? Maybe then, we'd have Eisenhower-era levels of 25 to 30 percent, instead of what we have now (something like 7 to 10 percent). Sure, we'd have more so-called “yellow unions” or “business unions” (unions which are complacent with management), but we'd have more radical unions too; and also a higher number of both unions, and of dues-paying union members.

     In an article entitled “When Non-Members in a Members-Only Non-Majority Union (MONMU) Want Weingarten Rights: How High Will the Blue Eagle Fly?”, researcher C. N. o'Brien explained that, according to labor law scholar and professor Charles Morris, 5 U.S. Code S 7114 (on the representation rights and duties of unions) does not mean to make a union's representation “exclusive” in the strictest sense possible, as many people assume.

     In Section 5a of 5 U.S. Code S 7114, it states that the rights of an exclusive union representative shall not preclude employees from “being represented by an attorney or representative other than the exclusive representative of the employee's own choosing, in any grievance or appeal action”. According to Morris, the duty to bargain with representatives of employees is not limited to exclusive majority unions.

     That would mean that management would be obligated to bargain with an exclusive bargaining representative of workers, not just the exclusive bargaining representative of workers. Which means it has to bargain with any and all bargaining representatives authorized to represent workers, as long as it is exclusive. This begs the question: What does “exclusive” mean in the context of this law? Does exclusive mean that the bargaining unit is the sole representative of workers in the union; or does exclusive mean that the bargaining unit's membership is exclusive, and it is funded solely by those workers who agree to support it? Professor Charles Morris and I hope that it's the latter.

     This practice of allowing two or more unions to exist in the same workplace or bargaining unit is referred to dual unionism, minority unionism, and members-only unionism. This type of practice is a common arrangement in Japan, and in my opinion, it stands a much better chance of achieving volunteerism, competition, and just rewards for honest efforts - on the part of the union and the employee alike - than what either the Democrats or the Republicans are proposing on union law.

     Until we consider amending or repealing the Taft-Hartley Act and the Wagner Act, there will be no serious discussion of protecting workers' rights. Those rights include the right to engage in concerted activity in the workplace, to unionize, to prompt negotiation (with or without a majority of workers' support), and to engage in strikes, boycotts, solidarity actions, and many types of ordinary, voluntary activities of private sector unions which have no reason to be illegal.

     That is how we achieve the general strike; by legalizing the general strike. By repealing the Taft-Hartley Act's prohibitions on solidarity actions; secondary boycotts, solidarity strikes, secondary picketing, and even wildcat strikes. Additionally, by legalizing cooperation between various organizations engaged in boycotts and strike actions; not only unions, but cooperatives, credit unions, public interest organizations, consumer interest organizations, non-profits and charities, etc..

     While the rights of public sector workers are important, there are only 22 million of them, and the rights of some 90 million private sector workers matter too. That's why we shouldn't let the public sector Janus decision distract us from making progress with private sector unions. Fortunately, solidarity actions will be easier to do in the private sector than in the public sector, especially while anti-union administrations are in power.

     Focused cooperation between unions is less politicized in the private sector than in the public sector, because it doesn't affect public policy. Cooperation between private sector unions is therefore less controversial, because it doesn't affect as many people's lives, nor the basic way society is run. Avoiding the politicization which cooperation between public sector unions entails, will help avoid the costs associated with standing idly by while anti-union governors and presidents use the legitimate political process to get away with firing large numbers of government employees, and with appointing anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board.

     However, boycotts are not possible until we can fully boycott companies we don't like. Not just by refraining from buying from them, but by stopping the flow of our tax money to fund the easy-credit loans, financial and legal protections, privileges, subsidies, and bailouts, that help them start their businesses, keep them afloat, and rescue them after they make bad decisions.

     In addition to being legal in the first place, and full so as to preclude subsidization, another important step is to make larger, wider, and more interconnected boycotts possible. This can be done by urging divestment from business alliances which disguise themselves as Chambers of Commerce, and encouraging them to instead join into independent business alliances. Especially into business alliances which unite partner firms on the basis of a common interest in cooperative management, environmental conservation or other ecological purposes, sustainable improvement, and non-discrimination against vulnerable members of society.

     Encouraging firms to join into independent business alliances, and into networks thereof, will increase the level of cooperation between owners and workers who share similar visions of a free and fair society. This will do wonders to align the interests of workers and management, leading to reduced demand for government to negotiate their disputes for them, and potentially to a significant increase in the number of firms running on cooperative models, and as E.L.M.F.s (egalitarian labor-managed firms).

     As long as we have a market economy; then cooperative enterprises; employee stock ownership plans, freelancers' unions; and full, legal, viable boycotts; can all help play a part in supplementing efforts to recognize workers' rights which focus on activity in which unions are directly involved.

Recognizing that workers' rights need to be augmented, and making it legal and possible for a more broad cooperation to occur among pro-worker causes in the private sector, will help reduce antipathy towards unions. So will amending the Wagner Act to make M.O.N.M.U.s (Members-Only Non-Majority Unions) more common.

     Maybe when M.O.N.M.U.s are more common, a single union could charge fair share fees for negotiating on the safety and health conditions that affect the whole workplace; while multiple unions could negotiate for wages and benefits, but solely for their own members; and union political speech not directly related to the services it provides, is paid for on a purely voluntary basis, after the worker receives his money.

Originally Written on July 28^th, 2018

Delivered on July 28^th, 2018

Edited and Expanded on July 29^th and 30th, and August 1^st, 2018

Originally Published on July 30^th, 2018

"Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law"

(A new article with the same title as another article on the same topic from June 2018.

Re-written for the 2018 Bughouse Square Debates, held in Chicago on July 28^th, 2018)

The original article on which this speech was based, can be read at:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/06/janus-decision-reveals-two-faced-nature.html

Interview with Illinois Lieutenant Governor Candidate David Earl Williams III

Joe Kopsick: Could you please introduce yourself, and tell us why you're running for lieutenant governor?

David Earl Williams III: I am an eight-time-decorated U.S. Navy war veteran, novelist, model/promoter, political activist, humanitarian, working American, and, most importantly, a libertarian.

I'm running for the nomination of lieutenant governor to represent the Libertarian Party because our current lieutenant governor doesn't do much. It makes the position look useless, as if it's a drain on the taxpayer.

I feel that if you're going to potentially be a replacement for a governor (if they're impeached, passed away or convicted), you damn well need to know how to do the job. So I plan on being an active lieutenant governor, and being an influence as much as possible.

David Earl Williams III, 33, of Chicago, IL
Illinois Lieutenant Governor Candidate, 2018

U.S. House Candidate (IL-9, Independent), 2016

U.S. House Candidate (IL-9, G.O.P.), 2014

JK: Could you tell us a little about your upbringing, professional background, Navy service, the book you wrote, and any hobbies you have outside politics?

            DEW: I served in the U.S. Navy, stationed in Yokosuka, Japan from 2002 to 2006 onboard the U.S.S Cowpens (CG 63). I've been all over Asia, Australia, the Middle East, and, once, the Antarctic.

My professional background includes dealing with over $2 billion worth of military aviation equipment, material management and budgeting.

In 2007, I wrote and published a book titled, "Valor Tale" with Xlibris publishing. It can be found on Amazon for purchase.

https://www.amazon.com/VALOR-TALE-David-Earl-Williams/dp/1425723195

My hobbies outside of politics include working out, boxing/MMA training, swing dancing, M.U.G.E.N (custom 2-D fighting engine), and drinking fine red wine and vodka.

JK: In the past, you were accused of stalking an ex-girlfriend, having a mental disorder, and being an Israeli nationalist, or an operative of the Democrat Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros. Is this true?

DEW: I was in a six-month long-distance relationship with this lady who lived in Washington, D.C.. That relationship ended after I found someone who lived much closer to me. She took offense to it, and lashed out at me. Not much came from that ordeal. No hard feelings on my part. Life is treating me well.

The only mental disorder I have ever had, was running as a Republican in the State of Illinois. What ever was I thinking?

The country of Israel has always been a friend to the United States in my eyes.

I've never been associated with the Democratic Party or George Soros. That rumor was started up by Invictus Augustus who was formerly with the Libertarian party until he was expelled for espousing Alt-Right sentiments.

JK: Could you tell us about your previous runs for office? What made you decide to leave the G.O.P. and run as a Libertarian?

DEW: In 2014, I ran for Congress in Illinois ninth congressional district as a Republican. I lost my primary by 1427 votes.

I decided to leave the Republican Party because their values did not match up with upholding the U.S Constitution. The state of Illinois G.O.P. was more concerned with quantity over quality. 
Seeing how out of touch they were when it came to the issues of dealing with the drug war, taxation, and the continuing warfare, the Libertarian Party, as welcoming as they were, was a good fit for me.

JK: The official duties of the lieutenant governor include serving as head of the Illinois Main Street Program, as well as chairman of the Governor's Rural Affairs Council, the Rural Bond Bank of Illinois, and the Illinois River Coordinating Council.

Are these major or minor duties of the position? What are your views on small business and downstate and rural issues?

DEW: All these positions are important, especially making sure that Southern Illinoisans know that their voices won't fall on deaf ears. The Department of Corrections in Illinois should not be giving out contracts to the state of Missouri, when our farmers and local persons should come first!

JK: What are the most important duties of the lieutenant governor? Does the lieutenant governor do too much, not enough, or just the right amount? Are there any capacities or expenses of the office that you'd like to see eliminated?

DEW: The most important duty of the lieutenant governor is to make sure that the governor doesn't get impeached or go to jail. You shouldn't be paid $110,000-$174,000 to ruin a state. Ha ha ha...

In all seriousness, it's about being a civilian legislator, not a career politician. Term limits would help as well. I think with all this, you'll get genuine common people to run for office, rather than those seeking 15 minutes of fame or a get-rich-quick scheme.

I like to see the entire executive branch, and the general assembly, take a huge pay cut. I think our salaries should be based on the state median income ($56,000 as of 2017). The only time any of us should get a raise is when people want to live in Illinois again, and more jobs are created.

JK: What are the most important issues facing the State of Illinois, and what powers does the lieutenant governor have to influence decision-making on these matters?

DEW: When it comes to matters of legislation between the Illinois house and senate, the lieutenant governor serves a tiebreaker. Since I'll be the governor's right-hand person, you bet I will be influencing a lot of things. I'll be closest to the people in the governor’s place.

JK: What are your thoughts on the pension crisis? Does the state's policy on public sector union negotiation need to change?

DEW: I have nothing against unions. I do feel that there should be a choice if you want to be a part of one or not. I do feel that this can be done locally when it comes to the pension funding, instead of leaving it up to the state government.

JK: Is the state headed towards bankruptcy, and how can that be avoided? Are there any circumstances under which you would support a federal bailout?

DEW: I will never be in favor of a federal bailout. A state cannot file for bankruptcy. It's the responsibility of our state government to fix this issue. It may suck that we have to clean up the mess of the previous administrations, but that's why the governor and I would be elected to do so.

JK: What are your thoughts on how state government ought to be funded? Should we be taxing property, income, sales, etc. more, or less? How can the money be used more efficiently and effectively?

DEW: Less taxes means more jobs created, and that means relief for the poor and middle class. In place of this, huge cuts to the state politicians’ salaries, and legalization of marijuana. With its revenues, this will help fund the schools to our roads.

JK: You and the three declared candidates for governor have each articulated a comprehensive approach to solving the gang violence problem in Chicago. Could you tell us about your 7-point plan? Also, in what capacity, if any, should the Illinois National Guard serve?

DEW: My 7-point plan is this:

#1. Legalize Concealed Carry in Chicago.

#2. School Choice.

State funds evenly distributed between public, private, charter, and homeschooling. The more competitive they are, the better results, more funding. It’s your children, your tax dollars.

#3. Full Legalization of Marijuana.

No fine for being caught with over 10 grams.

#4. Decriminalization of Hard Drugs.

Decriminalize harder drug substances, but fine them if caught with between $50 and $100, no jail time. But do offer state rehabilitation services if wanted.

#5. Economic Freedom Zones.

Installing “Economic Freedom Zones in urban areas will bring the small business state tax burden to 1.5%. More private-sector jobs will be created this way, by Illinoisans.

#6. Offer Former Gang Members a Second Chance.

Offer gang members who want a second chance in life, by providing them with a means to gain financial stability; through a state job, or encourage them to join the U.S. Military, or the Illinois National Guard. Proper training should be provided by instilling discipline and moral structure.

The National Guard will only be used if there’s a natural disaster, or large rioting that needs suppressing. In the case of Chicago gang violence, we will leave that up to the local police to take care of criminal justice reforms.

#7. Voting Rights for the Incarcerated.

In Illinois, ex-felons have a right to vote. Incarcerated ones do not. Many are unaware of this fact. We need to massively educate and encourage those ex-felons who have proven to turn their lives around, to take part in the political process, to vote for representatives who will further help fix their community issues.

JK: How would your lieutenant governorship be an improvement over the last several people who held the office?

DEW: I will be actively involved in the community, and people actually will know who I am. 

JK: What is your favorite music?

DEW: Classical, electronica, and jazz.

JK: What are your favorite TV shows, movies, and video games?

DEW: Gotham, The Flash, W.W.E., Star Wars, Tekken, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Robocop (1987), and Independence Day.

JK: Favorite actor and actress?

DEW: Robin Lord Taylor and Jennifer Lawrence.

            JK: Your favorite libertarian besides Ron Paul?

            DEW: Larry Sharpe

            JK: Your favorite season?

            DEW: Summer.

          JK: Finally, where can viewers see your official campaign website, find out more, and volunteer and donate? Also, any closing statements?

            DEW: I'm not running for 15 minutes of fame, or to get rich quick. I'm an average person who served this country for four years with valor.

          Our so-called "representatives" in Springfield, regardless if they are Democrats or Republicans, they're out of touch. If you want to elect people who are fiscally responsible and socially tolerant, who believe in economic freedom and personal liberty, vote libertarian in 2018.

            Please check out my website and other social media pages:

www.dewforpolitics.com

www.facebook.com/dewforpolitics

www.twitter.com/dewforpolitics

Thanks so much for the interview, and see you all very soon on the campaign trail.

Questions Asked by Joe Kopsick on September 26^th, 2017
Answers by David Earl Williams III on September 28^th, 2017

Edited and Published on September 30^th, 2017