Comments on: The Assault On Contracts http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/04/01/the-assault-on-contracts/ I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in. Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:00:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: tfr http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/04/01/the-assault-on-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-293287 tfr Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:17:05 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=15594#comment-293287 I see big, big lawsuits in the near future. I see big, big lawsuits in the near future.

]]> By: James Young http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/04/01/the-assault-on-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-293011 James Young Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:03:20 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=15594#comment-293011 In the interests of credit where credit is due, he/she did approve it. In the interests of credit where credit is due, he/she did approve it.

]]> By: James Young http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/04/01/the-assault-on-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-293008 James Young Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:46:41 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=15594#comment-293008 Since I suspect the cowardly "Angry Potato" won't have the guts to post my rejoinder, I'm also posting it here: "Moron"!?!? I'll stack up my credentials against yours any day. That is, if you had the courage to crawl out from under your rock of anonymity. If you had any respectable credentials, you might have noticed that I didn't "call[] unions perverted." I called "the entire notion of a 'union contract' ... a perversion under the scheme of monopoly bargaining." There is a difference, but I guess you are incapable of discerning it. However, since you are offended by my use of the word "perversion" --- which Democrats apparently don't believe exists any more --- I'll refer you to this quotation: "it would be perverse to read it as allowing the union to charge to objecting nonmembers part of the costs of attempting to convince them to become members." Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U.S. 435, 452 n.13 (1984) (White, J.). "Moron," indeed! Since I suspect the cowardly “Angry Potato” won’t have the guts to post my rejoinder, I’m also posting it here:

“Moron”!?!? I’ll stack up my credentials against yours any day. That is, if you had the courage to crawl out from under your rock of anonymity.

If you had any respectable credentials, you might have noticed that I didn’t “call[] unions perverted.” I called “the entire notion of a ‘union contract’ … a perversion under the scheme of monopoly bargaining.” There is a difference, but I guess you are incapable of discerning it.

However, since you are offended by my use of the word “perversion” — which Democrats apparently don’t believe exists any more — I’ll refer you to this quotation: “it would be perverse to read it as allowing the union to charge to objecting nonmembers part of the costs of attempting to convince them to become members.” Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U.S. 435, 452 n.13 (1984) (White, J.).

“Moron,” indeed!

]]> By: Who is this Moron? « The Angry Potato http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/04/01/the-assault-on-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-292994 Who is this Moron? « The Angry Potato Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:20:58 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=15594#comment-292994 [...] inherent to going after contracts (and the effects of that action on the free market system). Read the post for yourself, it raises a few good points and is worth the time. However, in the comments, there is [...] [...] inherent to going after contracts (and the effects of that action on the free market system). Read the post for yourself, it raises a few good points and is worth the time. However, in the comments, there is [...]

]]> By: James Young http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/04/01/the-assault-on-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-292963 James Young Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:54:10 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=15594#comment-292963 While I tend to agree with your conclusion, remember this: the entire notion of a "union contract" is a perversion under the scheme of monopoly bargaining. All employees in a bargaining unit are subject to its provisions, and their right to contract individually is extinguished. Abrogating a contract in derogation of the free market is hardly an assault on the free market. While I tend to agree with your conclusion, remember this: the entire notion of a “union contract” is a perversion under the scheme of monopoly bargaining. All employees in a bargaining unit are subject to its provisions, and their right to contract individually is extinguished.

Abrogating a contract in derogation of the free market is hardly an assault on the free market.

]]>