Mike reminded me of how floored I was when I heard about the Virginia
legislature passing laws about where to sleep in the house you own... To
make matters even more hypocritical, Virginia is a right to work state --
because unions interfere in the market place. So it's o.k. to stamp out
living wages, but we can't have people falling asleep in front of the TV in
the living room. To add to this, right now Virginia and Maryland are
cooperating on rebuilding a bridge which is the main passage between the
states and DC where most white Virginians work. Bushites are talking about
stopping the contracting on the bridge because Virginia had to agree to
union rules which Maryland upholds. So the bushites are going to try and
force Maryland to accept non-union labor in the bridge construction. My
question is, what happened to state's rights? Why are Virginia's states
rights to be a right to work state better than Maryland's states rights to
promote unionism? Well, that's a rhetorical question. maggie coleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just glanced at a journal of political economy article in condemning
> mandates. Mandates are bad, except you want to force schools to get
> standardized tests. Local control is good, except when inconveniences
> corporations. Then it has to be overruled. Individuals know what is
> best, but then Virginia legislates that people must sleep in their
> bedrooms. How do get away with such hypocrisy? And who figures out the
> names of their political campaigns -- paycheck protection, death taxes,
> and the like?
> --
> Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico,
> CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
