Coming out of very good conversation at George’s with old friend and liberal Dick, I think of something I might have said, namely that I don’t have positions on everything and the positions I have range from certain to perplexed.  Dick peppered me with qq about what I think about various issues.  I think I did make the point that on this or that I have no more than leanings.  Haven’t studied this one, nor that one, I said, and I think he got my point.  But it’s an important one, that we ought to look before we leap and not be too facile in adopting and defending this or that.

I did mention what I’m reading (when he asked), namely Friederich Hayek on individualism, the good and the bad kind, British and Euro.  More later on this.

He mentioned days long ago when we agreed on everything.  But those were days when I did more leaping than looking, as a young priest teacher at St. Ignatius, for instance.  But even then we probably had disagreements, and he was wrong to assume otherwise.  This is it with people: if they agree wholly, there’s something wrong.  It means they are buying too much and should put the brakes on conviction-forming.  Anyhow, too much agreement makes for boring conversation, which mine with Dick wasn’t.

Good, clear comment here on big box/living wage legislation by Chi city council:

The “big-box” wage law represents one of the major problems with Chicago politics, and it is not a new one: the domination of unions and their obvious use of politicians to transfer money from our pockets to theirs.

Mayor Daley is right to fear what such a law might do to the development of large retail stores and their accompanying employment in the city. Beyond this specific worry, we should all shudder at the idea of union-owned politicians claiming to have power over employment contracts in the marketplace. A minimum wage is interference enough, but trying to legislate high wages and benefits for their union masters is an intolerable power grab into the private sector.

Luckily, even if a Daley veto does not happen or is overridden, this law is likely to be thrown out in court, just as the Maryland Wal-Mart law was. The law violates ERISA and probably the 14th Amendment as well. So, while we should be horrified that this “Big-Box law” was even attempted, a judge will likely crush it with the vehemence it deserves.