Can we agree that it is a subject a lot of people are interested in and would like to see improved?
First, the issue is not removing the amendment, just adjusting making existing limitations more consistent. Second, if 90% of the country would be willing to vote “yes” to remove the second amendment, then that is what should happen (whether I personally agree with it our not).
Sure. I suppose the larger point here is “OK, if 90% want background checks, what specifically does that mean?”, understanding that as the specific proposal becomes more stringent, that 90% support level will start to shrink. If the proposal is strongly written, the people who are thinking in terms of some lightweight regulations will balk; if the proposal is lightweight, the people who would like the guns gone altogether will say “well, if THAT’S all you’re going to do, then why bother?”
What the poll tell us is that 90% of the people want some sort of background check law to firm up who has a gun. It doesn’t tell us anything about what sort of check law they are willing to accept.
It is definitely possible to have a, “union path” and a “non-union path” and let people decide for themselves.
I agree with this; I’ve always thought that the free rider argument was weak. The union should be able to cogently say “we’re going to do THIS and THIS and THAT for you, but we need your (reasonably priced) support to do it. If the goals are worthy and the price is reasonable, people will support you.
The reason I continue to “quibble” is that starting from a position of “free trade requires a government” is (IMO) disingenuous.
Well, it’s classic Adam Smith. If there’s no government, that’s anarchy.
Currently the power imbalance between the owners of capital and labor is so unbalanced in the US in the favor of capital, that capital is being subsidized by labor in the form of being able to pay a non-living wage, and have the collective (the government) pay the difference.
Well, I’ve already agreed that that’s a problem. The government is distorting the free market for labor by being overly generous to the employed.