Tag Archives: contract

Illegal Organizations Operate Legally, But Why?

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

I wish to lay out some hypothetical arguments to consider before identifying my point in making them—please don’t jump ahead.

  • Let’s imagine that Walmart, K-Mart, Kohl’s, et al. decided they weren’t making enough profit. The companies met and agreed to hike their prices by 10% across the board to address the issue. If they unite together, they can all raise their prices equally, make more money, and the consumer is left no choice but to pay the increased costs. It’s a genius idea for the stores of course, but there is one problem. There’s a name for such shenanigans—it’s called collusion. It is highly illegal because it violates the competitive principle of free-market capitalism.
  • In the world of contract law, in order for a contract to be valid, it must have a quid pro quo. Meaning that if I write a contract that simply said I’d give you a million dollars with nothing in the contract I get in return, that contract is unenforceable—a contract must be beneficial to both parties. Why? Because there’s no logical reason for a person to sign a contract where only the other party benefits. It either implies something illegal that is unwritten,  or someone who is mentally disadvantaged in such a way that they cannot fully understand what they are agreeing to.
  • Standard Oil Common Stock
    Standard Oil Common Stock

    In the 1800’s, as Standard Oil rose to be arguably the most powerful company the world has ever seen, they kept buying up all the smaller oil companies who dared compete with them, making it so no one could get oil unless they got it from Standard. As a result, Standard could charge whatever they wanted, they could treat employees like dirt, and they didn’t have to concern themselves with the quality of their product. Why? Because there was no competition for consumers or employees to force Standard to be better. This is called a monopoly, and is also highly illegal—now. Mostly because of Standard Oil.

  • If I owned an automotive chassis manufacturing business but needed to find an engine builder to help me produce a car I want to bring to market, I would meet with several and begin to work on deciding who best suits my needs. After picking a few who show promise, I’d choose the one I liked best from the group and enter into contract negotiations with them. If none of them were to my liking, no contract would be agreed upon. I’d be back to square one and they’d be out of a job, but at least neither of us entered into an agreement we didn’t want—that’s how contract negotiations work. But more importantly, the option for both parties to walk away is the one and only thing that ensures contract negotiations are fair and mutually beneficial.
  • John Gotti - Famous Racketeer
    John Gotti – Famous Racketeer

    In an illegal tactic known as a protection racket, if I were to say, “You pay me to protect your business or else…” you would either do it, or you risk me destroying your business’ property or physically attacking you. It’s a tactic made famous by organized crime. Such a contract would be a contract signed under duress, also highly illegal and unenforceable. It is similar to the quid pro quo issue, but the people doing the threatening present the act of not harming you as the thing they are giving you in return.

So now that we’ve covered these tactics, why do I mention all of them? Because labor unions violate each one.

How is this possible?

Government officials over time, courting the unions and the powers they possess to help them get elected, have carved out laws to allow these otherwise illegal practices to be employed by unions. In doing so, it gives the impression they are helping the populace, even though the large majority of Americans are actually non-union.

There was a quid pro quo here, but it wasn’t between the unions and the employers who have a contract with each other, it was between the unions and the politicians. The people and the employers merely got the shaft.Bribe

So how do they violate these rules?

Collusion, protection racket, and contracts signed under duress: Union employees unite together to force employers to pay them more instead of competing with each other in a free employment market. They don’t ask for a raise on their individual merits, they demand them as a collective “or else.”

No quid pro quo: They force companies to sign contracts that are beneficial to the union at the detriment of the employer. They insinuate that their quid pro quo is that they provide a good work force to the employer, but if you asked any employer if they wanted a union versus a non-union workforce off the record, I defy you to find employers who would prefer union-workers. Let there be no doubt that if any unionized business was given the option to get out of a union contract and peacefully hire a new non-union workforce, they’d do it without hesitation. The idea that unions provide a service to the employer is a myth perpetuated by unions to overcome the fact that there is not a proper quid pro quo in their contracts. There is no logical argument one can make whereby a contract between an employer and a labor union is mutually beneficial.

Monopoly: No business or employee gets to choose between which union it deals with, nor are there multiple unions competing with each other in an industry. The applicable union a business is compelled to do business with merely dictate they are the ones to be dealt with whether you like it or not. In non-right to work states, they don’t even have a choice as to whether or not to participate as a condition of employment.

Contracts signed under duress: A business owner has no option to just walk away. This is called union-busting, and there are actually laws to prevent it, which effectively strong-arm business into making a deal by legislative force, also a form of duress. Union workers don’t just threaten to quit and find employment elsewhere if their demands aren’t met, they stand outside your business and prevent, deter, and/or interfere with customers and other workers from going in and doing business there. It’s not a Let’s-Do-Business-Together contract, it’s a Do-Business-With-Us-Or-Else contact. 

The list of companies that were made healthier and more profitable by the addition of a unionized work force is so minimal as to be non-existent. Much like socialism, it’s sold as a system designed to serve the greater good, but also much like socialism, I have yet to see an effective example where the greater good has truly been served. Until labor unions are forced to operate under the same rules as everyone else, they continue to be illegal enterprises only made legal by selective legislation—our economy will suffer until American’s elect honorable politicians who care more about the moral high ground than election results and put an end to this.

Marriage and government need a divorce

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

Straight people being opposed to gay marriage makes as much sense as someone who is on a diet being upset that the person next to them is eating a doughnut. ~ Anonymous

I love the simplicity of this quote. Because I am heterosexual, the gay-marriage issue doesn’t personally affect me, but as a libertarian who considers liberty the single most important thing mankind should have behind food, air, and water; I am furious when people think it’s their right to dictate the behavior of others; especially when that behavior doesn’t infringe on their own rights in any way.

Blog1
United States Constitution

The U.S. Constitution, to an atheist patriotic libertarian like me, is the closest thing I have to a bible, as it ensures my freedom.

The religious-right wing of the GOP have proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Republicans present themselves as the party that loves the Constitution, and many prominent Republicans even carry around a miniature copy in their pocket to consult whenever the desire strikes them.

Kudos to them for loving the Constitution—it’s a pretty amazing document. What concerns me is they don’t seem to comprehend or understand the sentiment behind it. There’s an underlying theme in our constitution that is often lost on people proposing such changes.

The U.S. Constitution was specifically drafted to establish a government, then restrain it. Let’s look at the 1st amendment for instance:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says, Congress shall make no law… not The people may…

This distinction means that the Constitution is a set of limits to government as demanded by the people who have the power, not permissions granted to the people by a government that has the power. Our rights are ingrained within us, not given to us by government.

Our forefathers were all oppressed by their respective homeland’s monarchies, something modern day Americans have had the good fortune to not know (Thanks veterans!), and they weren’t about to let such oppression happen here. We the people should never tolerate a government that feels it has the right to tell us what we can do. We the people decided that we wanted to create a system of government solely to protect our rights, and that’s it.

Aside from prohibition, which we rightly fixed later, the Constitution has never placed limits on the people, only the government.

So the idea of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage is specifically out of character for that document—a polar opposite to the rest of it.

Republicans complain about losing the White House; many claiming it’s because people want free stuff and are willing to vote themselves handouts. While this is certainly a part of it, Republicans also lost because many of them are mired in religious ideology that a majority of Americans, including many Christians, think the government shouldn’t be legislating. We are not a theocracy, and those wanting to legislate religion-based morals scare reasonable Americans.

The issue is much bigger than this proposed amendment however, as Government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage in the first place. Let’s go back and think about what marriage is.

Long term, it’s a commitment between two people; a contract of love, which is generally followed by a ceremony among friends and family to celebrate that union.

I defy anyone to name one good reason why government needs to be involved in any of this. The process should be pretty simple.

Marriage License
Unnecessary nonsense in a free country: AKA Marriage Licensthe process should be simple.
  • Two or more people decide they want to commit to each other.
  • They find a venue willing to perform a ceremony of their choosing.
  • They sign a contract with terms that they all agree to.
  • Done.

The only thing the government should do is enforce the contract in the event of a dispute. Meaning, if someone breaches that contract, leaves the union, and the parties can’t come to terms on how to settle their assets, a court settles it for them.

Some of you might be thinking I’m crazy—I’ve been called worse. But guess what; everything I’m proposing is already legal. It’s just that we don’t call it marriage. I could rent a hall somewhere and perform a “Love ceremony” or something like that, then enter into a contract with someone where we give power of attorney to each other and agree to some sort of legal partnership. This is basically what a marriage is, and the law will enforce that contract as it is written. The only thing I’m proposing is that the government has no business requiring you to get a license to do it, and subject you to regulations, if you want to call this contract “marriage.”

All that being said, to be fair, there should also be similar protections for the various religious entities (churches, mosques, etc.) that do not wish to perform such ceremonies, so that they indemnified from legal action if they decline to perform the service.

If the couple wants liberty, the church must have it too; otherwise it’s a hypocritical infringement of rights on the church instead of the non-traditional wedding party.

So when someone asks me whether I support legalization of gay marriage? To me, it’s just an illogical question. Government and marriage have no business being married in the first place.