[moneyrunner]

I have just finished reading the replies to Ann Coulter’s article on the Kiddie Porn issue. There seem to be an extraordinary number of posters who will jump to the defense of pornographers. Why, to hear some go on if we ban Hustler, next thing you know we’ll be imprisoned for going to church. Well, freedom lovers, how about a defense of the teachers union? Nowhere does the constitution give the federal government the power to compel a union from disclosing its political contributions.

Mind you, I support the suppression of pornography as well as the law requiring union disclosure. But I would like to hear from the La_La Land Libertarians on this issue.

[weikel]

A) Unions only exist because of special legal privleges unions have which prevent employers from firing the lot of them when they form or join a union and teachers have that reinforced by "tenure" B) I'm an objectivist not a libertarian( we are extremely pro war unlike Raimondo you know) C) It would be better if public education was abolished anyway.

[anniegetyourgun]

These are the same types who would claim THIS operation was also "free speech." You see, in a libertine worldview, nothing is right or wrong, good or evil, no standards - everyone is "free" to choose their definitions of those.

Leave them to their campaigns to eliminate stop signs and traffic lights. They aren't worth the time and effort.

[Teacher317]

It is against the law for them to take my money and use it for purposes that I do not support. That is Constitutionally proper. The ONLY purposes that are legal for NEA use of my money are salary arbitration, contract negotiation, and administrative costs. Donating to political campaigns is most certainly not, and yet it is often their BIGGEST expense (in presidential election years). Give me my illegally-used money back, and punish those who approved the illegal expenditures with anything but fines (which would just be paid with MORE of my dues).

[flim-flam]

Unions are supposed to be free associations. Under the various unconstitutional statutes, they are anything but. If I don't pay my agency fee, I lose my job. I have no desire to voluntarily fund radical union political objectives, which I rarely agree with. Given current realities, disclosure is a necessary evil. On top of this, it is still easy to bury corrupt activity on their disclosure forms mainly due to lax enforcement.

[Rule of Law]

I have just finished reading the replies to Ann Coulter’s article on the Kiddie Porn issue. There seem to be an extraordinary number of posters who will jump to the defense of pornographers. Why, to hear some go on if we ban Hustler, next thing you know we’ll be imprisoned for going to church. Well, freedom lovers, how about a defense of the teachers union? Nowhere does the constitution give the federal government the power to compel a union from disclosing its political contributions.

First of all, you appear to misunderstand my position -- and the position of many others. We are not defending porn. We are defending the Constitution.

The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to do anything that is not specifically contained in Article I, section 8. (And a few of the amendments have minor grants of autority.) That means they cannot pass laws banning porn or making any disclose political contributions.

[bvw]

Weikel answers you in reply 5. However if the NEA was just an association, not seeking the special labor union privledges or tax exemptions, yes, I agree, this would then be an intrusion.

[amused]

I have just finished reading the replies to Ann Coulter’s article on the Kiddie Porn issue. There seem to be an extraordinary number of posters who will jump to the defense of pornographers. Why, to hear some go on if we ban Hustler, next thing you know we’ll be imprisoned for going to church. Well, freedom lovers, how about a defense of the teachers union? Nowhere does the constitution give the federal government the power to compel a union from disclosing its political contributions.

Mind you, I support the suppression of pornography as well as the law requiring union disclosure. But I would like to hear from the La_La Land Libertarians on this issue.

This interesting considering the political climate the founders operated in back in the day. Who was funding who, who wrote what, much of it was mysterious and cloaked. From my understanding, many of our founders submitted editorials to newspapers under pseudonyms. Funding of newspapers and campaign activities were routinely done "under the table". Perhaps this harkened to a gentleman's era when one did not sling mud(or at least in the open). That said, I like full disclosure laws because I want to know who is paying for what. But I would like to think a bit more deeply about this for awhile.

I don't think you'll find many "defenders" of the NEA...LOL.