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,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: FORCE, Democracy and Libertarianism
Message-ID: <406@klipper.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 16:07:04 EST
Article-I.D.: klipper.406
Posted: Mon Jan  7 16:07:04 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 00:22:40 EST
References: <408@whuxl.UUCP> <811@ariel.UUCP>
Reply-To: biep@klipper.UUCP
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath net.politics:6719 net.philosophy:1345

[]
	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). My second question
	(do parents have the right to abandon their dependent children
	so that they will die "because they didn't take the appropriate
	measures") wasn't answered at all, I guess because it was 
	"hidden "in a satirical article. Now I would like a third
	question, taken from reality. I will not say whom it concerns,
	however, since that might have bad effects.
	The situation:

	A labo[u]r union almost controls an industry. Many years ago
	a man looking for work (which was scarce) came at that industry.
	Three and two years ago two of his sons did the same. All three
	had more or less the same experience.
	They weren't communists and didn't want to be. However, the union
	was. So they didn't want to share the union. I will leave away the
	physical threats, since I assume the Libertarians will agree with
	me on that point. I want to jump to the next step. The board of
	directors of the industry was told: "There are non-unionists in 
	this industry. Choose: either tell them to either go away or become
	a union member, or we'll go on strike." Now all three are union
	member, and pay to the communist party.

	I guess that, according to Libertarian standards, the "unionists"
	didn't initiate force (I'm not talking about the threats), so
	it was their right to do so: They had the right of strike, and
	anyone may decide not to want to work with anyone he doesn't
	want to work with. After all, for each of the unionists, the
	board of directors could have fired him. They only could not
	fire *all* of them.

	At the moment, the go[u]vernment tries to break the labo[u]r
	union force, but it's difficult.

	P.S.: This history is situated in France.

-- 

							  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