Is Wisconsin Close to a State of Anarchy?

>Finally, what do you feel will come out of all this?

If our owners are able to destroy "public" unions then industrial unions are next. Our owners, the international corporations, could not care less about US workers. They want labor at the lowest possible cost.

>Furthermore, is the loss of collective bargaining really that big a thing, especially in light of that states financial crisis? Was there another road for the legislature to take?

The financial crisis was a sham. The unions were willing to negotiate to solve the budget problem. The Gov was more interested in breaking all unions.

 

That is untrue. They've been claiming that, but the fact is that for the past two weeks local unions across the state have seen where this was going and have been ramrodding contract votes through to beat the clock. If they were truly willing to help, they'd wait.

 

It is not the standing (or sitting) government that is advocating any anarchistic position. It is those who have decided to abdicate their elected responsibility, and the unions who have supported them in their actions. The very thought that legislators could or would disrupt the due process of law and the legislative process by fleeing their state is anarchistic, nihilistic, and utterly selfish, even if they understood that they would eventually loose the vote. In a sense, they gave up their right to say something about the situation by vacating their seat.

I am of a mind that we cannot have "too much freedom" and that the market (in this case, including the political system) will repair the wrongs eventually as people have a chance to exercise their right to term limits via the ballot box.

The very nature of "protest" is to introduce chaos, and like ad hominem attacks here on this board (and other places) the idea of protest is to "bully" or otherwise "get one's way" by by-passing due process. What we witnessed in Wisconsin and other similar places is very un-American, and it is not our way of handling difficult issues in government.

I wonder why the other side did not do likewise when all those laws supporting collective bargaining were put into place -- and they WERE put into place -- they are not part of the "rights" granted by the Constitution of either Federal or State government. They sat in their seats and took what came in the votes, until the PEOPLE decided to change the nature of the elected body by giving the other side a majority.

Of course they could have. But, they not only did not, they called in the big guns like George Soros of moveon.com, and filled the state with out-of-state protesters.

See above -- yes! There may have been an in ital protest, but not the level that we're seeing now.

One should check out a map of "right to work" states where this level of collective bargaining is already dismissed. Wisconsin is not a trend-setter in this regard, and the "rights" of the people in states with "right to work" are not less, and in many cases are more than Wisconsin.

Here is a link to a map of right to work states:

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

 

I'm confident that the sun will still rise tomorrow. Public-sector employees will still have jobs. Nobody will be eating dog food, and grandma's walker won't need to be sold. Basically life won't change much.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by righteousdude2
Could the Democrats, who left the state have helped to disperse this ugly protesting by remaining and going through the democratic process, even though the handwriting was on the wall?

glfrederick-
Of course they could have. But, they not only did not, they called in the big guns like George Soros of moveon.com, and filled the state with out-of-state protesters.


The kicker is, had the 14 dems done their duty and stayed, they could have negotiated and received some concessions. They didn't and got absolutely nothing.