[forgingahead]

> I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity

So, what are your opinions on mandatory union dues, and on whether recipients of government assistance should be allowed to vote?

[ljf]

Ouch, I doubt (for example) the farmers would be pleased about that. And they are a pretty huge voting block! Or do you just mean welfare?

[bluedanieru]

How are the union dues made mandatory? That's important. And, if there is government involvement in that, is there also some regulation involving how unions are expected to behave? Also important.

I don't have a problem with recipients of government assistance giving up their right to vote in principal, although America would cease to be a democracy at that point. However I don't think the likely outcome (disenfranchisement of the poor, eventual oppression without any means of placation of said poor, probable rebellion) would be good for society, so I don't think we should do it.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying "corporations receive special treatment and so shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns". I'm saying "corporations receive special treatment, and I have no problem with putting stipulations on that". All I'm arguing against here is the meme that a corporation is "just a group of people". It is not.

[littlegiantcap]

If you've ever worked in a union shop in a state that isn't right to work, you have no say in the matter of union dues. If 50% + 1 vote to enact a union you're required to pay the dues.This is of course different in right to work states where you can have so called split shops.