It was abolished because it was considered too expensive.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The reason I mentioned it is that there is a not-so-subtle subtext to the "too expensive" argument:
As you seem to agree, paying people a fair compensation for signing away their right to strike is not actually too expensive by any reasonable cost-benefit accounting. So the real thrust of the "too expensive" argument is that paying people a fair compensation for partially signing away their human rights is more expensive than using the bully pulpit to intimidate them into not exercising those rights.
The point here is not that contracts that temporarily and conditionally restrict our exercise of fundamental rights are odious - far from it - the point is that such clauses must be compensated in reasonable proportion to the restriction they place on your rights.
Signing away the right to strike means signing away a very important political tool, as well as a considerable part of your leverage against your employer, so it should be used sparingly and compensated generously.
I find it better to vote every 2-3-4 years and let the guys work. Big countries cannot practically be governed, say, by referendum, or other associative means. Just a pragmatic view. Is it possible? I think not, except Liechtenstein and such. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
An ideological view. I find it better to vote every 2-3-4 years and let the guys work.
I find it better to vote every 2-3-4 years and let the guys work.
What do you think they do, when they work? Politics is a neverending power struggle between different groups for different changes in society. If ordinary people and their organisations leave walk over after the vote has been cast, that just means that their interests will not be considered until you approach the next election. Left on the scene will be the media owners, the lobbyists, the internal wrangling for position in the parties etc. Of course, if you prefer the results that would yield, you would prefer to "let the guys work".
So I guess you mistyped.
An ideological view: I find it better to vote every 2-3-4 years and let the guys work.
There, fixed it for you. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Parliamentarian democracy introduces a level of indirection. It is them who bother about it, and are responsible for it. I prefer delegation to direct democracy, I'm not ready or competent to vote on every issue, and I'm not sure we can devise a system of certification of any social organization, their own interests, their own competences and so on.
Bref, the case is far more complicated than just labeling today's democracy as inherently ideological. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
But hey, what does Jefferson know about democracy anyway :-P
