Seriously, it's true that a state like Caifornia is a radically different thing from a "state" like Wyoming (with a population less than most California cities) but it's also not clear that merging Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana would make governance in that large area more rational.

If anything is missing, it's better regional government covering metro regions that are natural economic engines of growth, where states are often too large a jurisdiction to focus on those metro concerns and individual cities have only partial geographic governance.

But the broad point is that different levels of government end up with different focus, and it's a healthy interaction where voters can often express different concerns through those different levels.

The Predatory Lending Bubble and How the Feds Made it Worse

Any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of section 215 of this title shall upon conviction thereof be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000, or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.

Theft is very much the word to be used and not to be confused with employer doubletalk about "time theft." The employer also has the "job death penalty" at his disposal to punish such acts, but all workers have is that violating these laws is legal theft and punishable with fines, compensation and jail time applied to employers.

And you act as if inflation is an elite conspiracy foisted on the public, rather than a demand of that public to escape crushing deflation and debt. "I will not be crucified on a cross of gold" was a protest of government deflating the economy and destroying the livelihoods of farmers and others throughout the economy. Gold-based deflation is not a neutral policy but a transfer of wealth from much of the public to the rentier class.

But Glaivester pushes the faith that it was not mass underconsumption but that the working class had it too good in the Depression that was the problem. Yes, they were just living it up too well on those breadlines!

You almost admire the sheer tenacity and commitment to ideological propaganda represented by those now arguing that it was the unions, FDR and social spending that caused the Depression. Oh yeah, and Hoover was the left's mole now, doing our dirty work. Kind of silly, but just kind of intellectual teabagging-- Glen Beck rhetoric for the conservative book set.

As for no "pressure tactics", for the tiny number of shares I've owned in a few stocks, I've been repeatedly called on the phone to be pressured into sending in cards supporting the incumbent management's position. Not sure that counts as "intimidation" but then neither does anything usually alleged against unions.

As for corporations not being one person, one vote democracies, that's true but sort of irrelevent to the question of whether a secret ballot represents shareholder or employee voting intentions.

And are New England town meetings where people vote publicly violations of democracy?

And to add the key thing always worth emphasizing with the Employee Free Choice Act-- employees can always ask for a secret ballot. Since it only takes 30% of employees to get a secret ballot vote, the whole employer lobby argument is premised on the idea that unions are intimidating over 70% of the workplace against asking for a secret ballot vote, since even if 50% ask for card recognition of the union, those not signing the cards can always demand a regular election.

The only thing the Employee Free Choice Act removes is the ability of the EMPLOYER to demand a secret ballot election. The employees can always get one.

You're right that the purpose of the filibuster is to stop new laws, to stop progress, to keep in place existing inequalities and protect those with existing power. So to promote progress, of course progressives should oppose the filibuster.

And what is the principle of promoting the secret ballot? In fact, progressives demand disclosure of votes by our representatives all the time. In fact, secret ballots are often used to prevent accountability.

And if secret ballots are so sacred, why do corporations use card check to elect its board of directors? It usually goes by the term "proxies" but anyone with a single share of stock is perpetually petitioned to sign such cards to make an array of corporate decisions. So if card check is good enough for management, why do they oppose it for unions?