If You Dug Our Coverage of the Democratic National Convention, Where We Found Out Just How "Pro-Choice" Democrats Really Are, Then Donate to Reason!

Today's the second day of our annual webathon, during which we ask our readers to give tax-deductible contributions to Reason Foundation, the 501(c)3 nonprofit that publishes Reason.com, Reason TV, and Reason magazine.

Your contributions are absolutely crucial to our ability to be your voice for "Free Minds and Free Markets" in public debates over politics, culture, and ideas.

Your contributions allow us to cover events such as this summer's Republican and Democratic National Conventions and produce videos such as the classic one above.

In "How Pro-Choice are Democrats?," Zach Weissmueller (with mic above) and Paul Detrick tossed a libertarian perspective into an event that was generally hostile to the idea of individual autonomy outside the narrow issue of abortion. Hilarity - and ideological clarity - ensues.

This is the sort of story that only Reason is going to bring you. No other media outfit will - and no other free-market-loving, pro-drug-legalization, anti-overseas-and-domestic-war, pro-freedom organization will either. Since the founding of the magazine in 1968, Reason has functioned as a uniquely journalistic platform for libertarian ideas. We pushed into cyberspace early (Reason.com was among the first websites hosted by a politics-and-culture magazine) and since 2007, we've been turning videos that are by turns exhilirating and infuriating.

Nobody can bring you the mix of news, commentary, and analysis that Reason can.

So please donate and help us do even more for limited government and unlimited freedom in 2013. Give what you can (and see your name in the scroll bar at the top of the site) but if you can give $100, we'll send you a classic black Reason T and a free subscription. For $250, you'll get that, plus a Reason bag and an extra sub for a friend. At $666 (yes, we know), you'll get all that plus a chance to ask Matt Welch and me a question during our next "Ask a Libertarian" vid series. $1,000 gets your a private lunch in D.C. with a Reason editor. For a full list of giving levels and associated swag, go here.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

If I donate, can I request a change of color for a day? Instead of orange, maybe reason.com can switch to nice shade of beige, or perhaps robin egg blue. Also, more threading.

[A Mathematician]

If I donate, when would the lunch be? The next time I'll be in DC will be between christmans and new years and people tend to be busy at that time.

[Juice]

Every point was great, except for the right-to-work point. RTW laws restrict the choices of employers to make certain types of contracts. The employee has the choice to take the job or not.

disclaimer: I do not generally support the actions of unions, especially in their present state and I've even left a (low paying part time) job because a union harassed me to join, telling me I had to join. I'm just making the point about what's pro or anti choice.

[Cdr Lytton]

RTW laws don't affect the employer (directly), only the union. The employer negotiates contracts with unions just the same as in non-RTW states if it's a unionized workplace. The only difference is that employees are not required to pay dues or dues equivalent agency fees.

[Juice]

So the employer is not allowed to choose these types of contracts with a union, ones that would require employees to pay dues?

[Cdr Lytton]

An employer (rather than a union) would want to negotiate that? Really?

As a practical matter, contracts in RTW can be written with union security clauses.

[Juice]

On the outside chance that an employer finds himself with his best option being to run a closed shop, then he would want to negotiate that.

I thought union security clauses were outlawed by RTW.

[Cdr Lytton]

Just not enforceable. They're still put into contracts on the chance that RTW laws are repealed or multistate contracts covering non-RTW states.

Closed shops were prohibited by Taft-Hartley in 1947.

[darius404]

But an employer being prohibited from negotiating separately with non-union members is alright? The employer isn't CHOOSING to offer a job with union-due strings attached, they're FORCED to. They're not allowed to offer a job without that string. Replacing an abrogation of contract freedom with a different abrogation that at least affords employees the choice of dues is better than the status quo.

[Hyperion]

I am for choice, except for when I am against it, which is when the gubmint tells me I am against it.

No nation ever has, can, or ever will survive this level of stupidity for long. R.I.P. USA, we are doomed.

[Cdr Lytton]

Dear squirrels,

Your webathon pop up is screwing up the mobile version of HyR. Both the close/X and donate buttons are off screen. When that doesn't appear, the banner at the top causes the rest of the page not to fit to the screen width. Please use my donation to fix this.

[Anonymous Coward]

People should make the choice that leads to good results.

Circular argument is circular.

[KPres]

I'm not donating until I see Lucy doing these videos again.