Manning is sitting in a solitary cell for 23 hours a day for 200 days now even though he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.
He is being tortured by the US gov't, who is interested in one thing: find a way to charge Julian Assange with some sort of conspiracy, so they can prosecute him.
The torture of solitary confinement will lead to Manning's psychological health being compromised, this is a human rights violation right there and WHO in the US 'real media' is challenging the US gov't?
Manning is being tortured, he is not guilty of anything yet, he is being psychologically and also physically tortured, you can't hold a person hostage for 200 days in solitary confinement, deny them the right even to exercise in his own cell and expect him to be OK after that.
The Nazi government of US of A has turned completely bat-shit insane. All it does is taking away personal freedoms from people:
Freedoms to speak (wikileaks), freedoms to think (public schools funded and guided by the dep't of education), freedoms to fair trial (Irwin Schiff, Guantanamo, private Manning...), freedoms to do business without harassment (Patriot Act, IRS, CIA, all the regulations and rules and subsidies and taxes), freedoms to deal in real money (Fed printing, 0% interest setting, destruction of currency).
The entire thing is rotten to the core, whether you agree with me on every point or not, but I am not interested in any consensus. My consensus is simple: gov't is cancer and it's killing the society through killing the economy and taking away people's freedoms.
Some justify the US federal gov't in what it does by bringing up the commerce clause, the general welfare clause etc., but since the gov't can justify anything it wants with those clauses right now it's time to ask yourself a question:
Is there a PURPOSE to the Constitution and what IS the purpose? Isn't the purpose of the Constitution to LIMIT the gov't in what it can do? If the commerce/welfare clauses allow the gov't to do whatever it wants, what is then the real purpose of the Constitution and why not just say: gov't can do whatever the fuck it wants and be done with the pretenses?
Computer Science as a college major or whatever other type of degree one may be getting, is about expressing ideas algorithmically, it's about calculating the best approaches to solve problems, calculating time it would take to solve problems to be able to come up with reasonable solutions or to give an unpleasant answer: this will not be possible and/or feasible, so that time wouldn't be wasted trying to build something that's just not going to work.
I have a B.Sc. from UofT from over a decade ago now, I decided to get the degree in mid-nineties even though I was already a decent programmer (well, at least based on salary possibilities and on the interesting types of project I got to work on, which I completed successfully).
It was a huge help for me to be able to code while taking Computer Science courses, but most of the students never coded before in their lives and at least half of the problems given in classes were about coding, not about just algorithms and run time computations or vector math. But I can tell you that having completed the degree has given me something I didn't have before the college. It was various stuff, including exposure to the kinds of problems I haven't seen before IRL, I got much more understanding of hardware and logic, math that goes into solving hard problems or figuring out that the problems are too hard to be feasible.
In fact the education did make me a better programmer, I can definitely say that because I can compare the before and the after. Also understanding how to approach problems formally allowed me to prevent very expensive mistakes for a couple of large clients I had since then (contractor), they wanted to do things that were clearly not feasible at all (well, it's clear if you can count and understand where the numbers are leading.)
I do believe that most employers do NOT understand what computer science is, most schools do not understand it but also I think most programmers do not understand it either unfortunately. Those who do end up doing pretty well for themselves I think.
Financial institutions are still one of the last places where we expect people to put some effort into their appearance. Even geeks like myself who cringe when they have to put on a tie tend to expect the people dealing with our savings to look the part. If the guy I’m greeted by has a nose ring, I’m out of there. Yay for double standards I guess.
- I agree. If somebody is going to steal my money, they better look good doing it, otherwise I'd be majorly pissed (I mean, I'd be quite pissed if some bum with a nose ring took my cash.)
The real problem with college education is that it is so expensive. How many people now owe not only tens, but HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars in government college loans? And BTW, those are not tax deductible, you'll have to pay taxes on your income first and pay the debt out in after-tax money.
The true culprit in this is the gov't giving loans to people who shouldn't be getting them in the first place and gov't regulating the entire market of education and education loans.
How can 200K USD loan be justified to a 'social studies' major? How can a 200K loan be given to somebody with no collateral of any kind? How can 200K loan be given to a kid really?
Sure, the kids have some of the blame, they clearly aren't calculating what the repayment would look like after graduation, but who can blame them? Nobody is teaching them even the basics of economics and nobody is explaining to them anything about money or work, the school system is not doing it and it looks like the parents aren't doing it either.
Once you start giving tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to kids as loans to give the money to universities/colleges, the universities/colleges will then expect that kids CAN rake up that debt and transfer that dough to the universities coffers. This has to stop. The gov't must stop destroying the future of young generations by giving them rope to hang themselves with.
Of-course the gov't must also stop doing all kinds of other things hurting the future generations, like borrowing money, which is taxes on those future generations (taxes with interest). The gov't must stop printing dollars, as this will destroy the currency and gov't and economy altogether and what are those future generations going to do then? How much time will it take them to restore all of that?
--
So actually, somebody saying: drop out and do your own thing, this somebody may just be right. If you drop out and DO something else, you may get more experience by doing it and you may end up better off financially, as you'd be working before your peers would be and you wouldn't have all that insane debt paid for very questionable education.
Monopolies are created by gov't intervention, you'll find it nearly impossible to find a monopoly that didn't get its status due to gov't subsidies/other types of interventions and preferential treatment all based on corruption and which is not a natural monopoly - you own Mona Lisa original? Then you have a natural monopoly on it.
All gov't intervention (including anti-trust) dealt with companies, which either weren't monopolies at the time (Standard Oil, which had plenty of competitors by the time it was broken up and which gained its power due to an unhealthy amount of gov't help) or they were extremely efficient at what they did (Alcoa Aluminum, was producing the stuff so cheaply, others couldn't compete on price, so they got the gov't involved and broke a more efficient system to form less efficient ones) or they were gov't created monsters in the first place (AT&T)
As to market failures, are you calling what is observed today a success of any kind? Note that since the 1913 and the creation of the Fed, the first Fed mandate was price stability and it failed miserably at it. The fact is that in the 19 century the Free Market caused prices to go down and dollar to strengthen by a factor of 2, while in the 20th century after the Fed was created, the dollar fell by over a factor of 20.
Gov't is worse in market resource allocation than trade.
Price discovery is the main mechanism by which market economy works, the efficiencies of resource allocation are dealt with through market based price discovery, which is based on individual choices on what to do with their time, money, how to invest and what and when to spend on whatever.
Price discovery is the main point of market, gov't on the other hand breaks this mechanism and introduces inefficiencies through policy, which is based on the threat of violence and not on any principles based on sound economy.
What an incredibly sexist thing to say. What makes you think I'm male to begin with?
- exactly. Grow a penis if you want to argue here.
The Supreme Court has NEVER said that corporations were people!
It has never happened.
The sentence in question was added YEARS after the decision on that case was made, it was added by a clerk who did that on purpose in order to change the law all by himself.
Market failure would imply that the price forming function of market stopped working for some reason, no such thing happened.
You are just as ignorant of basic terminology on the subject of economy, as you are ignorant on what economy actually is.
Boom and bust cycles are not market failures, they are inevitable opposite ends of the spectrum - growth of some market segments, overheating and the resulting bust.
However since the Fed was created the gov't has turned a normal boom/bust cycle, which is fundamentally sound and makes good economy (build segments up/cut excesses/restructure/build other segments out/...) into an ever inflating monetary bubble, which has first resulted in the recession of 1920, which was recovered from in 1 year because gov't cut its spending by 70% and let the markets restructure (released the credit to the private sector, stopped pumping money into a deflating market, which is fundamentally what is needed to rebuild savings and restart investments and create new jobs) and then the 1929 Great Depression - the result of Fed monetary and then the Keynesian policies of never letting the hot air out of the inflated bubble. And now the Fed and the gov't have destroyed so much of the US economy, that there is no production left in US due to the excessive regulations/taxes/gov't subsidies to monopolies/spending/inflation of the dollar and non-existing interest rates.
You mean, you're secure in your own little world.
- my world is very large, it includes companies in Europe, Asia and my old North American ones as well.
USA was fine being libertarian in the 19 century, the prices were falling, the production was increasing, the wealth was growing, the USD was strengthening. The only thing that makes it 'unattainable' today is the ability of US to still get into more debt to finance its lavish lifestyle without producing anything in return.
As to being moded as 'troll', I don't pay attention to such inconsequential things, I am secure enough in my view of the world, if you need/. to 'come to your defense', that's your problem.
Oh, and you think a working justice system must there to protect the rich? !
THAT is funny. The justice system is only a working system if it is in fact 'blind'. A gov't as it stands today has the justice system by the balls and you are talking about a hypothetical situation where the gov't is only there to provide 2 services and that gov't you imply would even fail miserably at those only 2 services?
So if you are THAT suspicious of gov'ts ability to provide a working justice system then how dumb are you to believe they can provide other million working services at all?
That's stupid. The rich do not need a gov't paid security, the rich can afford their own security and it is true for most places where gov't does NOT provide any security at all.
"Public Option" would be still a money losing proposition, like with everything else gov't does, so it would end up being funded by taxes, or more precisely, it would end up being funded by debt, which is taxes for the future generations + interest. Even more precisely, it would end up being funded by debt that would never be paid back, as US is going to print the dollar into oblivion, so the Chinese who are providing the US with all that credit would never see a return on that ridiculous speculation (I do not dare to call it an investment.)
The real way to fix the health care system is to completely an fully de-regulate it, completely remove the gov't from making any decisions on it, completely remove the gov't from subsidizing any part of it.
Return it to the pre-Nixon era, when insurance was insurance, it was cheap ($25/year/family 4/with $500 deductible/up to $50K year) when most doctor expenses were paid out of pocket, doctor visits cost $5 and a day in hospital cost $100.
The prices need to fall, the only way for them to fall is to reverse the trend of gov't pushing the prices up with everything gov't does.
How is federal gov't forcing everybody to buy insurance from one single source (the gov't in this case) any more constitutional than the gov't mandating that insurance must be bought from existing insurance companies?
I am as libertarian as humanly possible, (that's answer to you 'as liberal as humanly possible' obviously), AFAIC the gov't is not supposed to do anything at all except minimum military and the justice system.
Saying that because a judge found that the federal gov't can't enforce people buying insurance from companies is less a violation of US Constitution as it would be if the gov't forced people to buy same insurance from only the gov't sounds preposterous.
Maybe you should relax a bit, sounds like you are on the edge, analyzing every word in the post.. do you get enough sleep? Are your Zink and vitamin D levels OK?
The real myth that should be tested is that President Obama is actually a progressive or a liberal kind of a politician.
I am a libertarian and I can't stand any other approach - socially liberal and completely free market fiscally, but to me it is obvious that Obama is actually not very socially liberal and definitely not free market oriented at all (*I think he has no clue about economics, period), but so many people believe that he is actually a liberal and yet so many believe that he is the Devil, etc. that there seems to be a good bunch of myths that could be busted about this guy, while some may just be confirmed. Maybe he is a Muslim/atheist/communist/fascist/Maoist/devil worshiper born in Kenya, I kind of hope he is all of those things at once, at least that would be interesting.
Can you tell me what would I personally gain from unionization with you or anybody?
15 years of experience, 10 years as a contractor, last year working on my own business.
Salary in the first 5 years came close to the maximum that could be made in the field in a permanent position, the contract rates were in the top percentile, probably in the 85th percentile or more, I cannot be certain but since it is done as a corporation and the corporate taxes are lower than personal and there is a way to write things off against taxes and there is a way to invest through the year before paying taxes...
You have to explain to me how unionization would have helped and what would it have helped with.
Really, would it make me MORE money? Would it allows me to keep MORE cash in the pocket (the only true measure of the job, at least for a contractor, who had contracts as long as 5 years and as short as 2 weeks.)
WHAT would it give me?
I knew plenty of people who clearly would have benefited from a union, but seriously speaking, you wouldn't want those people working for you, so why would you want to force those people as workers upon anybody?
Also what exactly would a union do for me if I am trying to get my own business going?
Slashdot Mirror
But why would you discard the general sentiment that is increasing in the political scene in US towards the Muslim population?
After all, Jews then and Muslims now, they are all still Semites.
You - FUCK YOU
Manning is sitting in a solitary cell for 23 hours a day for 200 days now even though he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.
He is being tortured by the US gov't, who is interested in one thing: find a way to charge Julian Assange with some sort of conspiracy, so they can prosecute him.
The torture of solitary confinement will lead to Manning's psychological health being compromised, this is a human rights violation right there and WHO in the US 'real media' is challenging the US gov't?
MSNBC did an interview that's about the scope of it.
Manning is being tortured, he is not guilty of anything yet, he is being psychologically and also physically tortured, you can't hold a person hostage for 200 days in solitary confinement, deny them the right even to exercise in his own cell and expect him to be OK after that.
So
Good slave.
The Nazi government of US of A has turned completely bat-shit insane. All it does is taking away personal freedoms from people:
Freedoms to speak (wikileaks), freedoms to think (public schools funded and guided by the dep't of education), freedoms to fair trial (Irwin Schiff, Guantanamo, private Manning...), freedoms to do business without harassment (Patriot Act, IRS, CIA, all the regulations and rules and subsidies and taxes), freedoms to deal in real money (Fed printing, 0% interest setting, destruction of currency).
The entire thing is rotten to the core, whether you agree with me on every point or not, but I am not interested in any consensus. My consensus is simple: gov't is cancer and it's killing the society through killing the economy and taking away people's freedoms.
Some justify the US federal gov't in what it does by bringing up the commerce clause, the general welfare clause etc., but since the gov't can justify anything it wants with those clauses right now it's time to ask yourself a question:
Is there a PURPOSE to the Constitution and what IS the purpose? Isn't the purpose of the Constitution to LIMIT the gov't in what it can do? If the commerce/welfare clauses allow the gov't to do whatever it wants, what is then the real purpose of the Constitution and why not just say: gov't can do whatever the fuck it wants and be done with the pretenses?
The only true money is the kind of stuff that has been used as money for thousands of years and can always be traded for.
Gold, silver, platinum, nickel, copper, uranium, all of it is good.
But I prefer gold personally, it doesn't rot.
Computer Science as a college major or whatever other type of degree one may be getting, is about expressing ideas algorithmically, it's about calculating the best approaches to solve problems, calculating time it would take to solve problems to be able to come up with reasonable solutions or to give an unpleasant answer: this will not be possible and/or feasible, so that time wouldn't be wasted trying to build something that's just not going to work.
I have a B.Sc. from UofT from over a decade ago now, I decided to get the degree in mid-nineties even though I was already a decent programmer (well, at least based on salary possibilities and on the interesting types of project I got to work on, which I completed successfully).
It was a huge help for me to be able to code while taking Computer Science courses, but most of the students never coded before in their lives and at least half of the problems given in classes were about coding, not about just algorithms and run time computations or vector math. But I can tell you that having completed the degree has given me something I didn't have before the college. It was various stuff, including exposure to the kinds of problems I haven't seen before IRL, I got much more understanding of hardware and logic, math that goes into solving hard problems or figuring out that the problems are too hard to be feasible.
In fact the education did make me a better programmer, I can definitely say that because I can compare the before and the after. Also understanding how to approach problems formally allowed me to prevent very expensive mistakes for a couple of large clients I had since then (contractor), they wanted to do things that were clearly not feasible at all (well, it's clear if you can count and understand where the numbers are leading.)
I do believe that most employers do NOT understand what computer science is, most schools do not understand it but also I think most programmers do not understand it either unfortunately. Those who do end up doing pretty well for themselves I think.
Financial institutions are still one of the last places where we expect people to put some effort into their appearance. Even geeks like myself who cringe when they have to put on a tie tend to expect the people dealing with our savings to look the part. If the guy I’m greeted by has a nose ring, I’m out of there. Yay for double standards I guess.
- I agree. If somebody is going to steal my money, they better look good doing it, otherwise I'd be majorly pissed (I mean, I'd be quite pissed if some bum with a nose ring took my cash.)
Do High Schools Know What 'Computer Science' Is?
- No.
Do your employers know?
The real problem with college education is that it is so expensive. How many people now owe not only tens, but HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars in government college loans? And BTW, those are not tax deductible, you'll have to pay taxes on your income first and pay the debt out in after-tax money.
The true culprit in this is the gov't giving loans to people who shouldn't be getting them in the first place and gov't regulating the entire market of education and education loans.
How can 200K USD loan be justified to a 'social studies' major? How can a 200K loan be given to somebody with no collateral of any kind? How can 200K loan be given to a kid really?
Sure, the kids have some of the blame, they clearly aren't calculating what the repayment would look like after graduation, but who can blame them? Nobody is teaching them even the basics of economics and nobody is explaining to them anything about money or work, the school system is not doing it and it looks like the parents aren't doing it either.
Once you start giving tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to kids as loans to give the money to universities/colleges, the universities/colleges will then expect that kids CAN rake up that debt and transfer that dough to the universities coffers. This has to stop. The gov't must stop destroying the future of young generations by giving them rope to hang themselves with.
Of-course the gov't must also stop doing all kinds of other things hurting the future generations, like borrowing money, which is taxes on those future generations (taxes with interest). The gov't must stop printing dollars, as this will destroy the currency and gov't and economy altogether and what are those future generations going to do then? How much time will it take them to restore all of that?
--
So actually, somebody saying: drop out and do your own thing, this somebody may just be right. If you drop out and DO something else, you may get more experience by doing it and you may end up better off financially, as you'd be working before your peers would be and you wouldn't have all that insane debt paid for very questionable education.
Monopolies are created by gov't intervention, you'll find it nearly impossible to find a monopoly that didn't get its status due to gov't subsidies/other types of interventions and preferential treatment all based on corruption and which is not a natural monopoly - you own Mona Lisa original? Then you have a natural monopoly on it.
All gov't intervention (including anti-trust) dealt with companies, which either weren't monopolies at the time (Standard Oil, which had plenty of competitors by the time it was broken up and which gained its power due to an unhealthy amount of gov't help) or they were extremely efficient at what they did (Alcoa Aluminum, was producing the stuff so cheaply, others couldn't compete on price, so they got the gov't involved and broke a more efficient system to form less efficient ones) or they were gov't created monsters in the first place (AT&T)
As to market failures, are you calling what is observed today a success of any kind? Note that since the 1913 and the creation of the Fed, the first Fed mandate was price stability and it failed miserably at it. The fact is that in the 19 century the Free Market caused prices to go down and dollar to strengthen by a factor of 2, while in the 20th century after the Fed was created, the dollar fell by over a factor of 20.
Gov't is worse in market resource allocation than trade.
Price discovery is the main mechanism by which market economy works, the efficiencies of resource allocation are dealt with through market based price discovery, which is based on individual choices on what to do with their time, money, how to invest and what and when to spend on whatever.
Price discovery is the main point of market, gov't on the other hand breaks this mechanism and introduces inefficiencies through policy, which is based on the threat of violence and not on any principles based on sound economy.
What an incredibly sexist thing to say. What makes you think I'm male to begin with?
- exactly. Grow a penis if you want to argue here.
Oh, jeez, and I wanted to moderate this story.
Well, not anymore I won't.
Here is a huge correction to your statement:
The Supreme Court has NEVER said that corporations were people!
It has never happened.
The sentence in question was added YEARS after the decision on that case was made, it was added by a clerk who did that on purpose in order to change the law all by himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHmGEkzhhfQ - skip to minute 5 in the video and listen for a couple of minutes.
And market failures were frequent.
- false. Not a single 'market failure'.
Market failure would imply that the price forming function of market stopped working for some reason, no such thing happened.
You are just as ignorant of basic terminology on the subject of economy, as you are ignorant on what economy actually is.
Boom and bust cycles are not market failures, they are inevitable opposite ends of the spectrum - growth of some market segments, overheating and the resulting bust.
However since the Fed was created the gov't has turned a normal boom/bust cycle, which is fundamentally sound and makes good economy (build segments up/cut excesses/restructure/build other segments out/...) into an ever inflating monetary bubble, which has first resulted in the recession of 1920, which was recovered from in 1 year because gov't cut its spending by 70% and let the markets restructure (released the credit to the private sector, stopped pumping money into a deflating market, which is fundamentally what is needed to rebuild savings and restart investments and create new jobs) and then the 1929 Great Depression - the result of Fed monetary and then the Keynesian policies of never letting the hot air out of the inflated bubble. And now the Fed and the gov't have destroyed so much of the US economy, that there is no production left in US due to the excessive regulations/taxes/gov't subsidies to monopolies/spending/inflation of the dollar and non-existing interest rates.
You mean, you're secure in your own little world.
- my world is very large, it includes companies in Europe, Asia and my old North American ones as well.
0--
As to the rest of your comment - grow a penis.
USA was fine being libertarian in the 19 century, the prices were falling, the production was increasing, the wealth was growing, the USD was strengthening. The only thing that makes it 'unattainable' today is the ability of US to still get into more debt to finance its lavish lifestyle without producing anything in return.
As to being moded as 'troll', I don't pay attention to such inconsequential things, I am secure enough in my view of the world, if you need /. to 'come to your defense', that's your problem.
Oh, and you think a working justice system must there to protect the rich? !
THAT is funny. The justice system is only a working system if it is in fact 'blind'. A gov't as it stands today has the justice system by the balls and you are talking about a hypothetical situation where the gov't is only there to provide 2 services and that gov't you imply would even fail miserably at those only 2 services?
So if you are THAT suspicious of gov'ts ability to provide a working justice system then how dumb are you to believe they can provide other million working services at all?
What an idiocy.
That's stupid. The rich do not need a gov't paid security, the rich can afford their own security and it is true for most places where gov't does NOT provide any security at all.
And it should not be, and it was not intended to be for anything beyond military and justice system.
"Public Option" would be still a money losing proposition, like with everything else gov't does, so it would end up being funded by taxes, or more precisely, it would end up being funded by debt, which is taxes for the future generations + interest. Even more precisely, it would end up being funded by debt that would never be paid back, as US is going to print the dollar into oblivion, so the Chinese who are providing the US with all that credit would never see a return on that ridiculous speculation (I do not dare to call it an investment.)
The real way to fix the health care system is to completely an fully de-regulate it, completely remove the gov't from making any decisions on it, completely remove the gov't from subsidizing any part of it.
Return it to the pre-Nixon era, when insurance was insurance, it was cheap ($25/year/family 4/with $500 deductible/up to $50K year) when most doctor expenses were paid out of pocket, doctor visits cost $5 and a day in hospital cost $100.
The prices need to fall, the only way for them to fall is to reverse the trend of gov't pushing the prices up with everything gov't does.
How is federal gov't forcing everybody to buy insurance from one single source (the gov't in this case) any more constitutional than the gov't mandating that insurance must be bought from existing insurance companies?
I am as libertarian as humanly possible, (that's answer to you 'as liberal as humanly possible' obviously), AFAIC the gov't is not supposed to do anything at all except minimum military and the justice system.
Saying that because a judge found that the federal gov't can't enforce people buying insurance from companies is less a violation of US Constitution as it would be if the gov't forced people to buy same insurance from only the gov't sounds preposterous.
Will the bloody thing survive a thorough blending?
Oh, what a moron you are, and that's not any ad hominem, it's just an observation, maybe you can work on that.
This:
Well, you're a Libertarian. No one is free-market-oriented enough for you.
- THAT is loaded with fallacies, if you want to go that road.
The rest - you are just a social retard and have trouble parsing sentences.
You don't need to assume everybody is out to get you, you know, relax, you'll leave a healthier life.
Maybe you should relax a bit, sounds like you are on the edge, analyzing every word in the post.. do you get enough sleep? Are your Zink and vitamin D levels OK?
The real myth that should be tested is that President Obama is actually a progressive or a liberal kind of a politician.
I am a libertarian and I can't stand any other approach - socially liberal and completely free market fiscally, but to me it is obvious that Obama is actually not very socially liberal and definitely not free market oriented at all (*I think he has no clue about economics, period), but so many people believe that he is actually a liberal and yet so many believe that he is the Devil, etc. that there seems to be a good bunch of myths that could be busted about this guy, while some may just be confirmed. Maybe he is a Muslim/atheist/communist/fascist/Maoist/devil worshiper born in Kenya, I kind of hope he is all of those things at once, at least that would be interesting.
Can you tell me what would I personally gain from unionization with you or anybody?
15 years of experience, 10 years as a contractor, last year working on my own business.
Salary in the first 5 years came close to the maximum that could be made in the field in a permanent position, the contract rates were in the top percentile, probably in the 85th percentile or more, I cannot be certain but since it is done as a corporation and the corporate taxes are lower than personal and there is a way to write things off against taxes and there is a way to invest through the year before paying taxes...
You have to explain to me how unionization would have helped and what would it have helped with.
Really, would it make me MORE money? Would it allows me to keep MORE cash in the pocket (the only true measure of the job, at least for a contractor, who had contracts as long as 5 years and as short as 2 weeks.)
WHAT would it give me?
I knew plenty of people who clearly would have benefited from a union, but seriously speaking, you wouldn't want those people working for you, so why would you want to force those people as workers upon anybody?
Also what exactly would a union do for me if I am trying to get my own business going?
Just how DO they do it? All those tubes, the paste, it's all over !