A free country and a free labor force (aren’t the terms synonymous?) would accept such immoral actions on the part of Big Labor Unions if the results were positive. Let’s examine those results:

For the companies:

• Higher labor costs without increased productivity
• Higher costs translate to higher prices without a competitive advantage
• Antagonistic work force
• Mediocrity instead of a meritocracy

For workers:

So who exactly benefits from all this? In the long run, nobody benefits. But there is a seductive appeal in Unions, one that the bosses exploit. Its not unlike the seductive appeal of socialism to those who believe that you can have your cake and eat it, too.

Some people report their own positive personal experiences with their unions as a justification for maintaining Unions in general.

However, we have to consider the role of Unions in a macroeconomic sense.

For example, there are no doubt some great teachers in our public education system - and a few high-performing schools. That doesn't take away from the fact that in a 'macro' sense, public education in the US is a failure.

What should worry all of us about Unions is that their purported benefits have always come at the cost of less productivity, because Unions constitute an anti-market force. And, they are coercive (both to workers and companies), since they squeeze on both ends of the balloon simultaneously.

In the past, the US could get away with anything, being the world leader in almost all markets. The additional costs caused by anti-productive, feel-good policies could be buried in the profit margins. With globalization comes more competition, leading to shrinking margins. Our well-intentioned mistakes can now make the difference between profit and loss. Previously profitable companies become marginal - and that costs all of us our standard of living.

Observe the mess in which companies like Ford (and some of the major airlines) find themselves. Policies that were framed decades ago are now killing the company. The balloon that is being squeezed on both ends (employers and workers) is about to pop!

Can Unions help restore productivity to these companies? Only if they stop squeezing - and by going the way of the dinosaurs!

Most advocates of 'single payer healthcare' (a euphemism for Nationalized Health Insurance) tout the Medicare model.

That takes a particular brand of brass-balled chutzpah!

Before Medicare, most medical care in America was the old-fashioned kind. You went to the doctor when needed, s/he treated you, you paid for the services.

Medicare - which was introduced in the 1960s with much fanfare - relieved a significant portion of the population (age 65+) of the burden of worrying about paying for health care.

Although it was well-intentioned, here are the unintended consequences:

* More demand for health care - after all, why NOT visit your doctor when you have the sniffles? There's no cost involved (to the patient)?

* Higher prices for those who are not eligible for Medicare

Here is an interesting analogy that someone used to describe the harmful effects of such 'feel-good' policies - note, this isn't original, I read it in a published essay!

Imagine a law, that allows everyone with last names beginning A-D to send their restaurant bills to Uncle Sam.

If your name is Donald Duck, life is great! You eat all you want, at the best restaurants. Caviar, pate foie gras and filet mignon - no worries, just send the bill to Uncle Sam!

If you are a restaurant owner, great! Keep raising prices, inventing new exotic dishes - life is good, because you have a guaranteed demand, and a good, creditworthy customer.

Prices go up - but, why should you care, if your name is Donald Duck, or if you own a restaurant?

The increased prices impact those with last names beginning E-Z.

In the Medicare application of this analogy, everyone EVENTUALLY gets to partake of the free feast - and that is why it has such appeal.

But, it does raise the cost of healthcare. So, what do the proponents of Medicare suggest - more of the same! Medicare for EVERYONE!

Many suggest that this type of policy will reduce prices. They forget that the prices will actually be driven higher by the laws of supply and demand. However, Nationalized Health Care can keep prices under check ONLY by reducing the quality of services!

Racism is a form of Collectivism.

A racist doesn't see an individual, but sees his/her 'group', and infers that the individual must possess the characteristics (real or perceived) of the group (or collective).

Racism (and all other forms of collectivism) are incompatible with American concepts of individual freedom. However, one can't deny that it exists.

Does affirmative action help eliminate racism? No, it actually increases racism - as seen in some well-intentioned (but racist sounding) posts on this site, written by people that have suffered 'reverse' discrimination.

How do we eliminate racism? Not by using unfair and weakness-inspiring practices like affirmative action, but by using the 'strength' of our laissez faire C A P I T A L I S M.

Here are some steps that can be contemplated:

* eliminate welfare

* eliminate affirmative action

* privatize education

* drastically reduce the employment sectors in which ABILITY is no longer the criterion. Examples include Govt employment, unionized labor etc.

Racism is inconsistent with the concept of 'individual rights' that is the philosophical basis of Capitalism. If the US were to adopt a truly Capitalist model (sans affirmative action, welfare, public education, bloated public sector etc), racism would die out after a few generations.