Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site klipper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
From: biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: FORCE, Democracy and Libertarian
Message-ID: <416@klipper.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 15:52:11 EST
Article-I.D.: klipper.416
Posted: Thu Jan 17 15:52:11 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 02:34:10 EST
References: <1881@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 179

[WARNING: 175 line article ahead!!!]

In article <1881@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>***** inmet:net.politics / klipper!biep / 11:46 pm  Jan  9, 1985
>>[]
>>	The main thing which bothers me in Libertarianism is that they
>>	want me to fight. I have to forsee everything, and take my
>>	measures. I want to work and live *for* a society, not to
>>	fight *against* it. My first question (what if my neighbo[u]r
>>	buys all the land around me, or in another way controls all
>>	the resources I need) was answered in that way (you should
>>	have forseen that, and acted accordingly). 
>
>Well, now wait a minute.  The implication was pretty clear in your
>question that your neighbor was not being all that reasonable.  (would
>YOU buy up the land surrounding someone's plot and then deny them exit?)
	Well, perhaps ask a lot of money (how do you define "too much"?)
>If you posit a situation in which you're surrounded by contentious,
>unreasonable people, and then worry that a libertarian society wouldn't
>let you escape this fact, I think you're straw-manning (to coin a verb).
>The answers you got were consistent with the situation as you described
>it.  I, at least, assumed that you were worried about a neighbor who would
>NOT say, "Oh, sure.  Tell you what, you can use my driveway here for
>(very small fee)".

That's true, I *still* am talking about "bad" guys who try to control
my life for their profit, or for fun, or anything. I have been told
I should have forseen what they were trying, or at least what they *might*
do. That is, I should have taken my measures *against* society (= "the
others"), and if I have been as stupid as to trust them, well, pity.
For me, a reasonable society has something like what is called in Dutch
a "hardheidsclausule", a way of escaping consistency in extreme cases.
If some day a I find myself locked up (in any sense, so an unreasonable
monopoly will do), I should have a chance to to call to that "hardheids-
clausule", and some impartial, ultimate instance should look at my case
and decide what's reasonable.

(I think I didn't see the point you are making. Please explain if this
	response doesn't make any sense)

>>[I tell about three persons who were forced to join a communist union
	by their boss, who was forced to do so by threat of strike]
>
>The unionists do not, in a libertarian society, have the "right to
>strike" UNLESS they've negotiated this with the management.  Let me
>clarify this just a little: in a libertarian society, you are expected
>to keep your agreements, and if, for example, you tell your boss: "No,
>I'm not coming back to the mine, it's unsafe", you've no right to keep
>him from hiring someone else (unless having that right was part of your
>agreement with your boss).  Thus you've probably got the right to strike,
>(in the sense of everyone quitting at once) but probably not the right
>to keep others from being hired in your places.

But that was the whole point. They are working in a general utilily, (which
is making big losses due to the low population density and the mountainful(?),
rocky land, but it gets money from utilities which do make profit, in other
parts of France, so it can keep working), which cannot:
	- stop the production (for humanitary reasons, or doesn't that count?)
	- find enough skilled labo[u]r in a reasonably short time.
So the company would surely fire any unionist who stayed away from work,
*if he was the only one*. But since it cannot fire them all, it has to keep
them all, so it has to choose *for* the unionists, *against* the people
I'm talking about. That was what I meant with the difference between indivi-
duals and masses.

>In societies where
>governments give unions the right to keep others from taking up the work
>union members have abandoned (or "hiring scabs"), the governments 
>certainly should bear the blame for giving the unions the power to control
>an industry (though of course the unions bear the blame for abuse of this
>power).  

I don't know how the French go[u]vernment has done in this respect.

>Now consider a libertarian society.  Bear in mind that individuals and
>organizations have no pre-existing obligation, except not
>to initiate force or fraud against each other.
>
>	1. Unions are in a MUCH weaker position.  They cannot 
>	cause the government to protect them from foreign competition,
>	they cannot prevent management from hiring scabs should the
>	union strike, unless it is in the union contract that scabs
>	shall not be hired.  Unions would certainly exist, but
>	they would occupy a much less (artificially) powerful
>	position.

Why? Once they have enough influence somewhere they are not going to
loose it any more: they can force (is this "initiation of force"?) the
company to gradually fire non-unionist members, and to employ unionists.
By letting the most active opponents being fired first, I guess they can
actually prevent the forming of a counter-union, as long as they take
their time, so that most employees think "If I keep calm, I will be able
to stay until retirement".

[BTW, will there be retirement money? And money for the "lame and blind",
who cannot work? Will charity work in a society where one is taught to
consider his neighbo[u]r a possible opponent?]

>	2. A Union would almost certainly be able to completely
>	"control" an industry only by providing a valuable service to 
>	the companies involved.  People whom the unions *REJECTED*
>	such as non-communists in the example you give, and such
>	as blacks in various parts of US history, would be obvious
>	recruits for a new company entering that industry and
>	intending to be non-union -- it could
>	in your example, offer a wage greater than 
>
>		(the union wages - the communist contribution)
>
>	at less cost to itself than the union companies incur paying
>	their employees.  This would be a tremendous incentive for a
>	union that almost controlled an industry to give in on such
>	issues as the one you cite -- its "monopoly" is in great danger
>	of being broken.

I think the startup will cost too much (telephone and electricity
cables to those who decide to give the new company a try; the old
one refusing to connect the existing telephone net with the one
yet to be. 

>>	At the moment, the go[u]vernment tries to break the labo[u]r
>>	union force, but it's difficult.
>
>And why not?  The government created the situation in the first place,
>and if there's one thing harder than cleaning up someone else's mess,
>it is cleaning up the mess you make yourself.

As I said, I don'k know how the French go[u]vernment is/has_been involved
in the growth of union power.

>As for your other question, the one about parents being able to 
>abandon dependent children, I did not notice it (perhaps the
>article never reached here).  This is a subject of wide debate
>among libertarians today, but I suspect that it would not be 
>a more widespread problem in an operating libertarian society than
>it is in our society (even though our society has no clear 
>age limit for childhood).  If you can, please re-post (or mail me)
>the original and I'll let you know what *I* think of it, though
>I warn you in advance, no two libertarians seem to agree totally on
>the issue of childs' rights.

I don't have it any more. I'm not sure whether I posted it to net.politics
too. At least it went to net.philosophy and net.abortion. It went a bit
along this:

-One may kill a child before it's born
-Birth doesn't magically brew humans from fetuses
-So that cannot be the reasonable limit for the right to kill your child
-There are two limits:
	=The logical limit: when a person starts to be "mature" (whatever
		that may be) emotionally and intellectually
	=The natural limit: when a person, when abandoned, would be able
		to stay alive (which depends, of course on the environment)
-Libertarians will, I guess, keep the natural limit: killing a child is
	never allowed, removing alive from the womb is, and abandoning
	after birth is too.

[I suppose you understand this was satire]

A forth thing which I once have mentioned (in a light way):

If one considers the world countries being the owners of all their territory,
granting people right to live there as long as they kept to their laws, then
the world is a libertarian country (except that countries like the USSR don't
give their people a chance to leave, and there is no go[u]vernment.) Why
would it be different in a "true" Libertaria? Some people will acquire land,
and make laws for people who want to be on it. That people will have legal
power to do so, so one might call it a country. Perhaps the mistake liber-
tarians make is to suppose that "their" lot is *theirs*. It's not. It's
state property. You are born too late: all the land of the world is already
divided. In Libertaria this will happen too, sooner or later.
[ I am saying this with more certaincy than I intended ]
-- 
							  Biep.
	{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep

I utterly disagree with  everything  you are saying,  but I 
am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it.
							--Voltaire