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.