234 – The fist of capitalism vs. the ass of socialism / national polygamy

  One Response to “234 – The fist of capitalism vs. the ass of socialism / national polygamy”

1. 

   Andrew Brannan says:

   February 1, 2012 at 8:31 am

   Hi guys,

   Here is a letter I sent to my Union.

   Retort to ONAs support for “Occupy”

   In the December 2011 issue of the Ontario Nurses Association’s publication Front Lines, the news story ONA supports Occupy Toronto’s ‘Message for All’ was printed on page 11.

   As an Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) member, whose union dues are (involuntarily) confiscated and distributed to political causes and activist groups that I consider abhorrent, this letter is a mandatory retort to ONA’s moral and financial support for the Occupy Movement.

   ONA President Linda Haslam-Stroud describes movement’s message, stating, “The Occupy movement is trying to bring attention to the corrosive powers of the major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse”.

   Putting aside Ms. Haslam-Stroud’s sophistry, let’s consider what the word occupy means in the relevant political-economic context: “To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.” (American Heritage dictionary.)

   In other words, occupation is what Poland suffered under the Nazis; “Occupier” is a smear-term used to denigrate Israelis; what violent and property destroying aboriginals did in places such as Caledonia, Ontario, was occupy a housing-development.

   True to form, the “occupiers”—which ONA supported by spending money on tents—disregarded property rights and acted like a group of opportunistic thugs, nihilists, slimy ingrates, and entitlement seeking wastrels. Sure there were many kind and innocent (albeit naive and ignorant) students who have been victimized by the fraud that “higher education” is a guarantee to a decent job (regardless how worthless a degree in Literary Deconstructionism actually is). But by-and-large, the “occupiers” are moral and intellectual filth that ONA unquestioningly funded.

   ONA and the supporters of Occupy claim that the movement was about “democracy”. But what exactly does ONA mean by democracy? It means majority rule. From the perspective of ONA and the “occupiers”, it means if someone earns more money than you—e.g., the undefined 1%—you can form a large mob, and demand the forceful confiscation of their wealth. Democracy—although often used interchangeably with the word “freedom”—is the opposite of a free society, whereby individual rights are protected by law.

   Rich people have rights too. They are the individuals who take the biggest risks, and are rewarded by an act of justice (keeping what you earn). But according to the bigotry of the “occupiers”, all those people “at the top” are evildoers who must live under the constant threat of force (i.e., wealth confiscation), because an envious mob demands “democracy”.

   Before biting the corporate-hand that feeds them, ONA should consider how the fiscal-sustainability of pensions and benefits, to be paid out from its members’ contributions, is created. It is only when banks and corporations are profitable—i.e., when there is an anticipated investment-return—that union members (and individuals), are able to financially secure their future. Otherwise, ONA members ought to be outraged that their union dues and financial contributions are wasted on unprofitable corporations.

   Contra Haslam-Stroud, it was the government—specifically through Community Reinvestment Act and subsequent regulations, along with Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the politically influenced Federal Reserve—that caused the economic crisis.

   ONA, just like any self-preserving organization (corporation or not) cares most about its long-term growth and perpetuating its dominance. However, unlike the “giant corporations” and the multi-million-dollar-earning CEOs of companies like Apple, Google, Suncor, Samsung, Pfizer, etc., ONAs dominance is guaranteed by the legal enforcement of anti-choice, pro-union legislation.

   Successful corporations dominate and profit because they create wonderful products that I voluntarily choose to buy; the richer they get, the better my life can get.

   A nurse might (or might not) choose to be a member of ONA, absent pro-union labour legislation. But that choice is denied, unless one quits employment by an ONA-represented hospital .

   It is time for all union members to demand a return to the principle that made organized-labour in free societies possible—the right to freedom of association—including its corollary: the freedom of disassociation.

   Andrew Brannan

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.