From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!houxm!hogpc!houti!trc
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Econ coercion and practicality
Article-I.D.: houti.256
Posted: Wed Apr 20 18:51:53 1983
Received: Fri Apr 22 06:43:54 1983

Response to Guy Harris:

1: The employer would generally be foolish to close his doors merely on 
	the basis of an election, and the workers would be foolish to
	believe that the employer would.  In all, a very weak coercion...

2: You say that "enough highly-paid lawyers" can prevent justice from
	being served.  First, there is a built in penalty (the cost)
	for using this tactic in trivial situations. Second, employees
	are generally smart enough to form unions in the face of unfair
	treatment, and so can afford lawyers as a group.  (The trouble
	is that they start from similarly bad premises - might makes right
	- and often turn around and treat employers unfairly.)  I am not
	trying to justify the TRULY coercive actions taken by either
	employers or employees back during the early years of unionization!

3: Finally, you state that a political philosophy that depends upon a
	just legal system is not practical.  That is, of course, stating
	it backwards - there is something wrong with a political system
	that does not insure a just legal system.  And I would heartily
	agree that there is something wrong with both our legal and
	political systems.  It is also a reversal to say that another
	system is impractical because a failure of the current system
	nullifies the good results of application of part of the other
	system.  Tell me - which is more practical for you - a system
	with a truly just legal system, or one that can be bought by
	those with more money than you?

	Tom Craver
	houti!trc