The government became involved in the early days of unionization, when groups (employers, union leaders, and in the 1920s,Communist agitators) were accused of strong-arming employees into voting whichever way. The secret-ballot and union card system were established as a way to create a valid process.

This is why many "average joes" are against the removal of the secret-ballot, as it will allow all groups to see how you voted - and act accordingly.

The definition of "Right": 1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval 2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.

Knowing now both the reasons, and that the secret-ballot has been established for decades, isn't it justified that an employee keep both the current system and his privacy?

Your argument was that things in the public arn't private. I pointed out that this relationship was not public, and now you're arguing that because it's private there's still no right to privacy? Case law disagrees with you in that direction. If your argument is that because it's private the government should have no say, I point out that people couldn't play nice and so the government was forced to get involved. (Blame Roosevelt) I agree with your seeming ideology that the government should not get involved, but a complete hands-off approach in this situation would have likely led to mass bloodshed.

Regarding the situation in your home. You have not, at any point, forced me to stop speaking unless you physically restrain me. If I am peacefully leaving and you hit me or otherwise force me, you yourself are committing the crime. I can remain speaking as I walk out, that is not disorderly in any way. You of course are welcome to scream and yell back at me, but beyond that and showing me the door you have no options.

As for your question, "why?":

Computers were a new emerging technology. Consider the concept and its market as its own self-expanding universe. There is no "competition" - for lack of a better term. The automobile industry was in the same situation in the early 20th century and continues as one of the largest industries in the world. Hybrid/smart/electric cars are not a new emerging technology. Instead they're just incremental refinements to existing technology - and much much less game-changing/innovative/holyshit.

Regarding electric vehicles, unfortunately there's still minimal gains in terms of pollution (batteries) and efficiency (energy-source costs + battery manufacture). It's more of a hocus-pocus ideal than anything - much like corn and ethanol. Don't get me wrong, I'd really like for the tech to work. But if the tech is that damn good and promising, then the government would be better served in getting bids for E-vehicles to replace the entire fleet rather than in open-ended subsidies (that we all know will just turn into a large entitlement program for another special group).

This brings me to a very important point. Customer =/= Subsidy. I feel there is a distinct difference to the government driving innovation through its own real demand, compared with an attempt to entice the population into adopting a new standard by dangling some carrots. FFS, we can't even get the population to accept metric. One can only assume subsidies as the cornerstone of a (obviously) long-term program to replace an entrenched industry will only breed waste and dependence whereas bidding, (or goal-setting, as in DARPA, X-prizes, and other programs) when done right, breeds innovation out of necessity.

Being a customer isn't the same as a government subsidy. Regardless, that was an emerging industry, not the attempt at wholesale replacement of an existing entrenched base. It doesn't seem different, it IS different.

I guess you missed the "did the crash hit you that hard or are you bored?" part - you know, the first sentence. Apparently you can read minds and don't need such information.

Really, did the crash hit you that hard or are you bored? I don't know if you understand the employment situation for programmers these days. You're going to be old in an industry noted for it's ageism, behind the curve technologically, and depending on where you do find a job, you're likely to be paid terribly for long hours and work under a clueless asshole boss.

I really hope you have other options, it's ugly out there these days.

Just curious, how much of that was government subsidized? This isn't against your post, but a number of posts above seem to think government subsidies for early-adopters are going to work regarding electric vehicles. Instead I think it's clearly a demand issue. As your post does point out, companies desperately needed storage space and the ability to transfer data from point to point quickly. They were willing to shell out $$$ for the tech to do it. This seems clearly different, as now we're trying to replace an old and established industry with a new one, whereas in your examples, these were emerging technologies from an emerging industry.

Are you seriously comparing eating lunch on your porch with deciding the fate of your money, life, and career? While you can tell me to shut up within your home, you have no power to actually force me to stop talking if I so choose, and therefore cannot actually infringe upon my right of free speech. You can only ask me to leave in which case I can stand on the sidewalk and continue to speak.

Your "in my house" argument doesn't apply anyway as we _are_ talking about the government - the issue at-hand is to change the LAW in order to forcibly remove the current secret-ballot system. It could be argued that the establishment of the secret-ballot system itself established the right of a private vote. Remember that the union is a 3rd party trying to insinuate itself into the relationship between the employee and employer. It has no power unless given so. Also the relationship between employee, employer, and/or the union are not public anyway.

I agree that some people misconstrue rights and privileges (driving is one example) but even Haliburton cannot restrict the rights of it's employees to practice religion.

So what if they sold it to him? If it's his, and they accessed it without permission (no matter what the password) then they broke the law.

Yes.

Maybe. These were "secret" documents, which just about damn near anyone has clearance to see. Most of them are simply just stuff that they hear and pass up, the vast majority of these could be completely false.

Bullshit.

He was detained, questioned, his receipts and laptop were inspected, and his 3 phones were confiscated. Didja miss that part?

So your argument is that he was detained, searched, and some of his stuff was confiscated but since he got to leave none of his rights were violated? What fucking planet are you on?

He didn't flee shit, and we don't know if the FBI agents were being genuine or condescending.

I think you need to pull your head out of the sand. For me this isn't about Bush, war, oil, etc. It's about the government keeping too many secrets and abusing power, and to me this incident stands as another example of such. Don't get me wrong, the government is right to keep investigating this leak, but messing with this guy seems more like harassment and the continuation of a witch-hunt.

Since when do rights have to be naturally occurring or god-given? A right is something that one considers as properly justified. If one has a justified right to privacy, then we have justification to keep how we vote secret. This is seen in our government/political voting system. Therefore removing privacy and doing away with the secret ballot for Unionization votes is indeed taking away a right that currently exists.

Of course, then we have the 9th amendment which is supposed to protect all other rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but the people have forgotten about it and it's been irreparably trampled upon.

As a conservative, to me the problem isn't with private unions of workers of private companies. In truth there should be no bailouts for a company that signs labor contracts that bankrupt themselves, nor for labor unions that force such companies to go under, and themselves out of a job with ever-increasing demands - Free Market demands that both are responsible for their own demise, no matter how they shift the blame. Unions that partner with their companies for mutual benefit (or unions that take significant ownership) will always make sense for everyone.

The problem is with public unions (Police, Fire, Teachers, Social Workers) who both get to write their own contracts and then tell their bosses (elected politicians) to approve them, or else. Have you seen the union-dictated pay-rates for federal road-construction contracts? Have you seen the pensions for your city employees? Did you know it takes government workers only 5 years of employment to be eligible for a pension at age 62? http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligibility.asp

Even Roosevelt was wary of the power of the public union. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

And one more thing: "Manufacturing in the US was healthiest when labor unions were healthiest."
Correlation =\= Causation. Manufacturing and Labor were both healthy at the same time because of large postwar demand and no outside competition. Once the markets started getting tough in the 70's and 80's Labor refused to bow to the cuts Manufacturers needed to stay competitive, Manufacturers couldn't force the issue because of those meddlesome kids in congress (more public union interference in the free-market) and, in the end, both have crashed.