Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: FORCE, Democracy and Libertarian
Message-ID: <1881@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 04:06:22 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1881
Posted: Mon Jan 14 04:06:22 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 15:51:53 EST
Lines: 112
Nf-ID: #R:klipper:-40600:inmet:7800267:000:5598
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jan 10 20:07:00 1985

>***** 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?)
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)".

>	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.
>

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.

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).  

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.

	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.

>	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 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.