What is the Libertarian view on unions?

[Ferocious]

EDITED:

Can't find anything recent. Has it changed?
From 2002 platform:

We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain. Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state Right-to-Work Laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions. We oppose all government back-to-work orders as the imposition of a form of forced labor.

Government-mandated waiting periods for closure of factories or businesses hurt, rather than help, the wage-earner. We support all efforts to benefit workers, owners, and management by keeping government out of this area.

Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary boycotts if they so choose. Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers, and innocent bystanders.

2002 National Platform of the Libertarian Party

 

[Rainsford]

I don't see how real libertarians could have changed their position all that much from what you posted. While collective bargaining is frowned upon by economic conservatives, it seems like a fundamental part of a LIBERTARIAN viewpoint. If companies are free to engage in equivalent activities, surely workers should also be free to support THEIR terms of employment any way they wish, and collective bargaining is a powerful tool from their point of view. Conservative economics are extremely pro-business (and anti-labor), but libertarian economics, by definition, don't take sides...I can't see how they wouldn't recognize the workers' right to form a union and still call themselves the Libertarian party.

 

[Craig234]

Libertarians are notorious for taking a delusional position, ignoring how the world works, e.g., viewing crack cocaine as simply a rational choice people will make one way or the other.

They'd claim to allow unions, but they'd be very anti-union by ending the legal protections aginast retaliation for organizers. It's about like if they said they're anti-murder and will keep the murder laws on the books but are getting rid of the police and courts. What's gonna happen?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't see how real libertarians could have changed their position all that much from what you posted. While collective bargaining is frowned upon by economic conservatives, it seems like a fundamental part of a LIBERTARIAN viewpoint. If companies are free to engage in equivalent activities, surely workers should also be free to support THEIR terms of employment any way they wish, and collective bargaining is a powerful tool from their point of view. Conservative economics are extremely pro-business (and anti-labor), but libertarian economics, by definition, don't take sides...I can't see how they wouldn't recognize the workers' right to form a union and still call themselves the Libertarian party.

I don't see how they could recognize a right to unionize and an employer's right not to recognize as anything but a joke.

 

[Moonbeam]

It looks to me like Libertarianism is the fiction that you are entitled to a claim to own things. We evolved for millions of years in a culture in which such a notion was absent. Weak people with brains convinced us they should have what the strong would claim for themselves without such legal fictions, no? Now the commons is destroyed by squatters sucking the world dry for their own economic purposes. The human disease of individuality and ownership is coming to term. The children who pick through garbage in India is our future.

 

[BlancoNino]

Sounds fair to me. Why should somebody take his time and effort to start a business, only to have a huge % of it's ownership forced to be surrendered to the government. Collective bargaining doesn't need legal support.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Has it changed recently? I can't find anything on their website now.

It seems to have been eliminated from the platform (along with a lot of other stuff).

EDIT: Do you think you could email me your older version of the platform if you get the chance? My address is hjo3 dot net at gmail dot com. (Would've PMed you, but it's turned off.)

 

[Vic]

It has not changed, and there is nothing delusional in voluntary association.
What Craig refers to is the result of his usual ignorance: the libertarian position is that if corporations should not be allowed to monopolize their products, then neither should unions. Remember that we're talking about voluntary associations. Which is no fiction, it's just what exists when you remove force and violence from the equation.
Moonbeam's ignorance (much as I otherwise like him) comes from the idea that property is a fiction. For that, I'm kicking him out of his house and taking his food from him. Hopefully, he won't freeze and starve to death. What is the fiction is his naivety that collectivism will automatically result in peace and good will, despite the fact that no attempt at collectivism in the past has ever resulted in such.

And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: Vic
And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

How so? It's not like they're anarchists.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: Vic
And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

How so? It's not like they're anarchists.

No, but the word "platform" is just another word for "groupthink" and true libertarians have nothing of the sort. It's one of the problems the LP has and why it's hard for it to gain any significant ground. Libertarians by nature are a diverse group with wildly varying ideas, and no single platform can encompass their political beliefs. Democrats and Republicans are easy, they're mostly mindless sheep who agree with whatever the party says. Just see Craig for instance.

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Has it changed recently? I can't find anything on their website now.

It seems to have been eliminated from the platform (along with a lot of other stuff).

EDIT: Do you think you could email me your older version of the platform if you get the chance? My address is hjo3 dot net at gmail dot com. (Would've PMed you, but it's turned off.)

I edited post and also put a link to 2002 platform....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: Vic
And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

How so? It's not like they're anarchists.

No, but the word "platform" is just another word for "groupthink" and true libertarians have nothing of the sort. It's one of the problems the LP has and why it's hard for it to gain any significant ground. Libertarians by nature are a diverse group with wildly varying ideas, and no single platform can encompass their political beliefs. Democrats and Republicans are easy, they're mostly mindless sheep who agree with whatever the party says. Just see Craig for instance.

Exactly.

And if I may elaborate on my earlier post, the crucial flaw in Moonie's argument is his bitterness about the squatting of the strong, while he apparently does not recognize that he's just talking about a new group of strong (in this case, his particular collective, which he imagines falsely to be everyone) to be doing the squatting instead of the old group of the strong (the current collectives in control).

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know how I got to be so bitter and violent. Who were the violent ones when all the land the Indians didn't own was stolen? Who sends in the police to deal with theft? You guys colluded together to create laws that entitle you to things you could never have without the force of your laws, no?

And for crap sakes, humans lived for millions of years without a concept of property rights so don't say such a system never works. It was good for millions of years and only just recently is humanity in danger of going extinct. All your bases are belong to us, you know, cause when you learn to own you open the door to getting owned.

Try to see reality as it really is. There is the sun the moon and the stars, the wind the feel of heat, the smell of roses, the silence of deep meditation when all that is becomes all that you are and your whole heart goes flooding out filling everything with joy and love. You own nothing compared to he who has become the universe and the universe has become he. "Oh, my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou!"

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
It has not changed, and there is nothing delusional in voluntary association.
What Craig refers to is the result of his usual ignorance: the libertarian position is that if corporations should not be allowed to monopolize their products, then neither should unions. Remember that we're talking about voluntary associations. Which is no fiction, it's just what exists when you remove force and violence from the equation.
Moonbeam's ignorance (much as I otherwise like him) comes from the idea that property is a fiction. For that, I'm kicking him out of his house and taking his food from him. Hopefully, he won't freeze and starve to death. What is the fiction is his naivety that collectivism will automatically result in peace and good will, despite the fact that no attempt at collectivism in the past has ever resulted in such.

And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

Never mind about my house. I heard about a much better real-estate deal by far. The home you want is owned by the Dad of some dude named Jesus. There are reports it's a house that contains many mansions, and unimaginably many at that.

 

[Vic]

Collectivism is inherently forceful, Moonie. Or how do you explain what happens to those who do not wish to be part of the collective? Such individualism is, in your own words, a disease of the weak that threatens us with extinction, is it not? Therefore they must be dealt with accordingly, right?

And humans have never lived without the concept of property. Neither do most animals, who routinely fight over territory (murder and warfare are the leading causes of death among male chimps). If we are in danger of extinction, it is only because we are slow in adopting peaceful practices for trading as opposed to the violent means we inherited from our animal ancestors.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic

And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

Pray tell, how else are you going to achieve your minarchism?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

Pray tell, how else are you going to achieve your minarchism?

How are you going to achieve your anarchism?

That's not an avoidance. Obviously, one cannot achieve a concept of voluntary association through force. So your question was meaningless, and you should already know that. People either want it, or they don't. The only way to encourage them to want to be free and able to act of their own volition as opposed to being subjected to force is through education. And even then, some will still reject it, either because they fear and don't trust themselves or because they fear and don't trust others. To use Moonie-speak, if they loved themselves and their neighbors, they'd set themselves and their neighbors free. But being just as human as my fellow humans, I could not force them to do that without hypocrisy. Which, incidentally, is why Moonie's collectivist idealism always fails when attempted. It is based on the assumption that the collective is somehow more than human, and that therefore it is capable and entitled to do things that individuals are not.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic
How are you going to achieve your anarchism?

I'm not. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have a prayer of a dream of becoming instituted in any part of the world within my lifetime (but neither does minarchism). This still does not preclude theorists within this school of thought from writing, speaking and thinking. We (or at least the vast majority of us) recognize that these theories will not be brought to light until long after we are dead. Anarcho-capitalism or any form of anarchism for that matter will only come about by a long process of evolution in thought, not revolution. Political philosophers of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries (mainly Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau) set the their fields back centuries, if not a thousand years plus. In the end I believe the damage will eventually be undone though and I believe that one day all state run institutions will eventually be dismantled and replaced by private run ones. The mere fact that such theories exist for that to be done is important in itself. Personally, starting off as a conservative Republican (influenced heavily by my family) and then becoming a full blown libertarian anarcho-capitalist would never have occurred had I not known of these theories. One well known commentator who also took this path is Joseph Sobran.

That's not an avoidance. Obviously, one cannot achieve a concept of voluntary association through force. So your question was meaningless, and you should already know that.

Why is it meaningless? Your philosophy entails merely significantly reducing the scope of government power, not getting rid of politics entirely. Who is going to deal with what is left over? Obviously there would still be disputes over who is going to run the police department and pave the roads. And hence some kind of political factions will form over these issues.

People either want it, or they don't. The only way to encourage them to want to be free and able to act of their own volition as opposed to being subjected to force is through education.

I agree. But some political institution would have to exist to get them there as well under your scheme.

And even then, some will still reject it, either because they fear and don't trust themselves or because they fear and don't trust others.

I would say that is why you aren't willing to get rid of the most sacred of government institutions: police and military. The myth of the Hobbesian state of nature still pervades your mode of thought.

To use Moonie-speak, if they loved themselves and their neighbors, they'd set themselves and their neighbors free. But being just as human as my fellow humans, I could not force them to do that without hypocrisy. Which, incidentally, is why Moonie's collectivist idealism always fails when attempted. It is based on the assumption that the collective is somehow more than human, and that therefore it is capable and entitled to do things that individuals are not.

So far in my discussions I have not done anything but offer people a choice. So far they have mostly chosen to give up freedom for either financial 'certainty' or physical 'security.' You on the other hand merely want to reduce the number of things in which I only have political 'choices,' not eliminate the political 'choice' mechanism altogether.

See:
The Most Crucial Gap in Politics

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

Pray tell, how else are you going to achieve your minarchism?

How are you going to achieve your anarchism?

That's not an avoidance. Obviously, one cannot achieve a concept of voluntary association through force. So your question was meaningless, and you should already know that. People either want it, or they don't. The only way to encourage them to want to be free and able to act of their own volition as opposed to being subjected to force is through education. And even then, some will still reject it, either because they fear and don't trust themselves or because they fear and don't trust others. To use Moonie-speak, if they loved themselves and their neighbors, they'd set themselves and their neighbors free. But being just as human as my fellow humans, I could not force them to do that without hypocrisy. Which, incidentally, is why Moonie's collectivist idealism always fails when attempted. It is based on the assumption that the collective is somehow more than human, and that therefore it is capable and entitled to do things that individuals are not.

Oh no, you mean that you can't own the answer or exchange it with another for a price that your voluntary association can be had only by those who have let go of things. And you tell me too, that those who have dropped all claims to the urgency for solutions would set their neighbors free? Hehe, isn't language funny. To be free is to be free of the need to set any body free, no?

And so we stumble here into the conflict of the mind and the heart, between instinctive reactions and wisdom, into the murky area where formula and law do not apply, where to be alive is to act. You say a group is composed of free individuals and I say free individuals form a group. We know of course that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. To want others to be free is one thing. It becomes a dynamic, however, when others also what that for you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
How are you going to achieve your anarchism?

I'm not. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have a prayer of a dream of becoming instituted in any part of the world within my lifetime (but neither does minarchism). This still does not preclude theorists within this school of thought from writing, speaking and thinking. We (or at least the vast majority of us) recognize that these theories will not be brought to light until long after we are dead. Anarcho-capitalism or any form of anarchism for that matter will only come about by a long process of evolution in thought, not revolution. Political philosophers of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries (mainly Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau) set the their fields back centuries, if not a thousand years plus. In the end I believe the damage will eventually be undone though and I believe that one day all state run institutions will eventually be dismantled and replaced by private run ones. The mere fact that such theories exist for that to be done is important in itself. Personally, starting off as a conservative Republican (influenced heavily by my family) and then becoming a full blown libertarian anarcho-capitalist would never have occurred had I not known of these theories. One well known commentator who also took this path is Joseph Sobran.

That's not an avoidance. Obviously, one cannot achieve a concept of voluntary association through force. So your question was meaningless, and you should already know that.

Why is it meaningless? Your philosophy entails merely significantly reducing the scope of government power, not getting rid of politics entirely. Who is going to deal with what is left over? Obviously there would still be disputes over who is going to run the police department and pave the roads. And hence some kind of political factions will form over these issues.

People either want it, or they don't. The only way to encourage them to want to be free and able to act of their own volition as opposed to being subjected to force is through education.

I agree. But some political institution would have to exist to get them there as well under your scheme.

And even then, some will still reject it, either because they fear and don't trust themselves or because they fear and don't trust others.

I would say that is why you aren't willing to get rid of the most sacred of government institutions: police and military. The myth of the Hobbesian state of nature still pervades your mode of thought.

To use Moonie-speak, if they loved themselves and their neighbors, they'd set themselves and their neighbors free. But being just as human as my fellow humans, I could not force them to do that without hypocrisy. Which, incidentally, is why Moonie's collectivist idealism always fails when attempted. It is based on the assumption that the collective is somehow more than human, and that therefore it is capable and entitled to do things that individuals are not.

So far in my discussions I have not done anything but offer people a choice. So far they have mostly chosen to give up freedom for either financial 'certainty' or physical 'security.' You on the other hand merely want to reduce the number of things in which I only have political 'choices,' not eliminate the political 'choice' mechanism altogether.

See:
The Most Crucial Gap in Politics

Your arguments are contradictory. If the use of violent force and coercion were removed from the government equation, then government would become a system of voluntary organization like any other. Would you eliminate the mechanism that allows people to work together in industry (by forming companies and corporations) too? Would you eliminate the use of mediums of exchange like currency? No? So then why, out of all the various systems of human organization, have you singled out government in particular for elimination?

Now, if you just want to discuss hypothetical abstracts that have no hope of implementation in reality, I'm really not interested. Communists like to talk about their "perfect" world, too, all the while ignoring the fact that perfection is an OPINION. If your anarchy is the same thing, I'm just not interested in arguing it. What's the point?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

Pray tell, how else are you going to achieve your minarchism?

How are you going to achieve your anarchism?

That's not an avoidance. Obviously, one cannot achieve a concept of voluntary association through force. So your question was meaningless, and you should already know that. People either want it, or they don't. The only way to encourage them to want to be free and able to act of their own volition as opposed to being subjected to force is through education. And even then, some will still reject it, either because they fear and don't trust themselves or because they fear and don't trust others. To use Moonie-speak, if they loved themselves and their neighbors, they'd set themselves and their neighbors free. But being just as human as my fellow humans, I could not force them to do that without hypocrisy. Which, incidentally, is why Moonie's collectivist idealism always fails when attempted. It is based on the assumption that the collective is somehow more than human, and that therefore it is capable and entitled to do things that individuals are not.

Oh no, you mean that you can't own the answer or exchange it with another for a price that your voluntary association can be had only by those who have let go of things. And you tell me too, that those who have dropped all claims to the urgency for solutions would set their neighbors free? Hehe, isn't language funny. To be free is to be free of the need to set any body free, no?

And so we stumble here into the conflict of the mind and the heart, between instinctive reactions and wisdom, into the murky area where formula and law do not apply, where to be alive is to act. You say a group is composed of free individuals and I say free individuals form a group. We know of course that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. To want others to be free is one thing. It becomes a dynamic, however, when others also what that for you.

Actually, that's not the argument, Moonie. You see individualism as selfish in its inequality. I see collectivism as cruel in its murderous disregard. Which is worse?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic

Your arguments are contradictory. If the use of violent force and coercion were removed from the government equation, then government would become a system of voluntary organization like any other.

If it is entirely voluntary then it's not government.

Would you eliminate the mechanism that allows people to work together in industry (by forming companies and corporations) too? Would you eliminate the use of mediums of exchange like currency? No? So then why, out of all the various systems of human organization, have you singled out government in particular for elimination?

No, and no. I single out government as an 'organization' because it entails people to do the irrational and that is to acquiesce to a political body because of beliefs in fictional political mythologies. This is to say that 'government' is really a state of mind. It is when someone changes their course of action solely because a politician or bureaucrat created an official decree to do so. All other factors of weighing a decision to perform an action go out the window. This is simply an irrational state of mind. In fact, it is the decision making process completely shutting down. And ultimately this is what you are advocating and what Locke advocated with his concept of 'tacit consent.'

Force would certainly exist in absence of the state. But in order to exercise force you would either:

A. Have to exercise it yourself directly against another

or

B. Have to directly get others to exercise force for you on your behalf, which of course would require you to spend resources to do so.

Now, if you just want to discuss hypothetical abstracts that have no hope of implementation in reality, I'm really not interested. Communists like to talk about their "perfect" world, too, all the while ignoring the fact that perfection is an OPINION. If your anarchy is the same thing, I'm just not interested in arguing it. What's the point?

They aren't hypothetical abstracts. These theories have real world implications. Whenever a government body closes down (for instance when the Civil Aeronautics Board did) that is the transition of a portion of civilization from the state to anarcho-capitalism. Everyone wants a portion of the state to shut down, all I'm saying is simply to shut it all down. If my theory is nothing but a hypothetical abstract then so is yours and so is everyone else's who wants the state to stop doing something.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
And about the LP platform... a political party for libertarians is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think?

Pray tell, how else are you going to achieve your minarchism?

How are you going to achieve your anarchism?

That's not an avoidance. Obviously, one cannot achieve a concept of voluntary association through force. So your question was meaningless, and you should already know that. People either want it, or they don't. The only way to encourage them to want to be free and able to act of their own volition as opposed to being subjected to force is through education. And even then, some will still reject it, either because they fear and don't trust themselves or because they fear and don't trust others. To use Moonie-speak, if they loved themselves and their neighbors, they'd set themselves and their neighbors free. But being just as human as my fellow humans, I could not force them to do that without hypocrisy. Which, incidentally, is why Moonie's collectivist idealism always fails when attempted. It is based on the assumption that the collective is somehow more than human, and that therefore it is capable and entitled to do things that individuals are not.

Oh no, you mean that you can't own the answer or exchange it with another for a price that your voluntary association can be had only by those who have let go of things. And you tell me too, that those who have dropped all claims to the urgency for solutions would set their neighbors free? Hehe, isn't language funny. To be free is to be free of the need to set any body free, no?

And so we stumble here into the conflict of the mind and the heart, between instinctive reactions and wisdom, into the murky area where formula and law do not apply, where to be alive is to act. You say a group is composed of free individuals and I say free individuals form a group. We know of course that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. To want others to be free is one thing. It becomes a dynamic, however, when others also what that for you.

Actually, that's not the argument, Moonie. You see individualism as selfish in its inequality. I see collectivism as cruel in its murderous disregard. Which is worse?

I'm not so sure of that. I see the notion that one person has a right to own as much as he can acquire under a set of laws he can also pay to have written in such a way as to benefit that acquisition, leads to inequality. I see that other individuals may want to ban together and write the laws differently so as to disadvantage the first and benefit them. Basically I don't see too much else than selfishness in individuals and in groups of them.

I note that a few individuals have most of everything and that trend is increasing. I think I could go for a 'murderous disregard' that leads to a healthy middle class.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't know how I got to be so bitter and violent. Who were the violent ones when all the land the Indians didn't own was stolen? Who sends in the police to deal with theft? You guys colluded together to create laws that entitle you to things you could never have without the force of your laws, no?

And for crap sakes, humans lived for millions of years without a concept of property rights so don't say such a system never works. It was good for millions of years and only just recently is humanity in danger of going extinct. All your bases are belong to us, you know, cause when you learn to own you open the door to getting owned.

Try to see reality as it really is. There is the sun the moon and the stars, the wind the feel of heat, the smell of roses, the silence of deep meditation when all that is becomes all that you are and your whole heart goes flooding out filling everything with joy and love. You own nothing compared to he who has become the universe and the universe has become he. "Oh, my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou!"

and how in the hell do you know that?