Texas Fred broached the subject wonderfully here.

I wish to briefly add to the discussion, by submitting a pointed quote by Walter Williams, who summarizes best in two concise sentences:

(In a Democracy) “the restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.”

Look at the photo above.  I found that in the cab of a Union Pacific locomotive.  Where UNIONS are dominant.

I didn’t draw it.  I didn’t make it up.

Base wisdom.

BZ

As you carve the turkey with your family and friends, please be aware that your freedoms are being protected by our American soldiers overseas, and by American peace officers and emergency responders domestically who don’t get holidays off.

Give thanks for your individual and collective blessings.

BZ

From CBSSanFrancisco.com:

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — San Francisco’s building code got downsized Tuesday with the Board of Supervisor’s approval of a pilot program that will build efficiency units, or apartments with reduced square footage requirements.

The board, in a 10-1 vote at Tuesday afternoon’s board meeting, approved the ordinance that will change the definition of an efficiency dwelling unit to include units that are as small as 220 square feet, including the bathroom and closets.

There you go, Leftists: LIVE IT.  And LOVE IT.

Your “imprint” upon this earth?  Minimal.  Possess nothing.  Because you will have nothing.  Because the government upon which you rely will ensure that you have nothing.  Except perhaps a water closet as a domain.

The legislation, introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener, was touted as a way to address the housing crisis in San Francisco where one bedroom apartments and studios can run up to $3,000 per month in rent.

Right.  $3,000 per month for a 220-square-foot shoebox — ?

Wiener said the small apartments will offer people an option to live on their own at more affordable prices, with the figure of about $1,500 per month rent discussed as an average rate.

Just one question: in YOUR area, what does $1,500 a month get you?  A minimalist apartment?  Or an actual home?

The storage shed I built on my property is slightly less than 220 square feet.

The sole dissenting vote came from John Avalos, who said the micro-units don’t seem like the proper solution to alleviate the city’s housing problems, especially for working class families getting priced out of their neighborhoods.

“This overall does not make sense for the San Francisco that I know,” Avalos said.

Avalos cited his own situation as part of a family of four living in the southern part of the city in District 11 in a 950-square-foot home, maxing out all the available space and unrealistically able to move into an efficiency unit.

Squeeze thousands into minimalistic imprints.  Make sacrifices.  Take mass transit.  Shove thousands and then millions into postage stamps.  Good for you.  Better for me.  Experience blackouts first.  Experience weather problems first.  Experience supply problems first.  Experience diffidence first.  Experience the lack of independence first.  Because you acquiesced to worse than lesser forms.  Because you were stupid.  Because you were smarter than anyone in “flyover states.”  When epidemics break out, you’ll be the first affected.  This makes me joyful.  You jubilant dupes.  Frankly, you’ll be the first to die in massive numbers from any number of problematic issues.  GREAT!

Raise your children — your multiple children — in 220 square feet.  Insist upon entitlements.

You are now entitled to 220 square feet.

Paid for by the government, of course.

By me: the American Taxpayer.

I’m sure you’ll do SO well in 220 square feet.

BZ

As people who read me already know, I am a member of an “association” which is, of course, essentially a union.  They negotiate for our contracts.  Our contract expires in 2014 and I shall, with much luck, be retired before its expiration.  And no, upon retirement, I don’t get “medical for life.”  As a matter of fact, my medical coverage stops completely when I retire.

I don’t, however, get to throttle the county into bankruptcy if everyone in my department were to engage in a strike (which won’t occur for a myriad of reasons, lawfully).

Precisely as a number of unions did against Hostess Brands, Inc.  And with that, the company shut down its plants, laid off 18,000+ workers and stopped baking.

From back in April of 2012:

A union official representing workers at Hostess Brands Inc. said Monday that he isn’t optimistic the two sides will come to an agreement over workers’ contracts before the dispute lands in bankruptcy court.

Hostess has said it will ask the court this week to toss out its existing union contracts if its workers don’t accept cost-cutting proposals in its “final” offer. The company filed for bankruptcy protection in January, citing rising competition and pension and medical costs.

Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer of the Teamsters union, says his union’s members will walk off the job if the court throws out the contracts. CEO Greg Rayburn says a strike will force the company to shut down and liquidate.

The court threw out the contracts.  The unions struck.  And the company shut down

Hostess is going through a liquidation hearing today, as a matter of fact, regarding its 33 nationwide plants, one of which is in Sacramento where I work.  There were 300 workers laid off in Sacramento, and about 1,850 in the state of Fornicalia.

A bit of a final notation: how can one company function competently and efficiently under the 12 unions and 327 separate contracts formerly operating at Hostess Brands?

Apparently: it cannot.

BZ