That seems to be the lesson of the Great Revolt of the HuffPo Pawns, according to R.S. McCain, and I would agree:
The only requirement for membership in the “progressive community” is sufficient naivete to believe that your volunteer efforts accomplish anything other than enhancing the wealth, power and status of your so-called “leaders.”
McCain is talking about the labor organizer type who used to blog at HuffPo for free and – in typical Leftie fashion – has decided to claim for himself and other similarly situated bloggers a share of the windfall Arianna came upon in exchange for selling the website to AOL. This claim is being made via a class action, instead of with mere angry words.
And for that reason, perhaps, the plaintiffs’ complaint alleges deceptive business practices and unjust enrichment, not a right to profit sharing in and of itself. But were the volunteer bloggers in a business relationship with the HuffPo when they were mere volunteers? Can they in fact be cheated out of money that they were not expecting to receive? Was the site ever deceptive about the fact that it was making money? Who could ever be surprised about how valuable the site had become?
Unjust enrichment occurs – generally – when a party derives benefit from another unfairly. But what’s so unfair about willingly working for free for a company that never presented itself as a non-profit?
How could a volunteer ever be seen as a “modern-day slave” unless he or she was forced to volunteer? Who was cracking the whip other than the writers themselves and their drive to immanentize the Eschaton?
Closing thought: Lefties can’t seem to make up their mind about Wal-Mart:
This all could have been avoided had Arianna Huffington not acted like the Wal-Marts, the Waltons, Lloyd Blankfein, which is basically to say, ‘Go screw yourselves, this is my money.’
I thought Wal-Mart was all progressive and stuff…
UPDATE: McCain links. Thanks!