Any Libertarian who supports "right to work" is a hypocrite

[RGacky3]

Yes, show me the peer reviewed study that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that higher minimum wages do not lead to fewer entry level jobs or price increases. I've seen a study out of Canada that showed minimum wages up to 45% of median wages don't have any affect on the market whatsoever, but that disastrous things happen in the next 5% over that. Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

A minimum wage is a market interference.

Yeah, and aparently you don't have a fundemental problem With market interference, since you're ok With the government interfering against private contracts between unions and Companies.

Heres a study about the effect of a minimum wage increase on the fast Food industry for example.

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

more empirical evidence,

https://sites.udel.edu/saul-hoffman/files/2014/09/MinWagePaper_HoffmanShum-1tk11h0.pdf

From the study
We find that in states where the minimum wage was increased over the 2011-2014 time period employment of young workers and less-educated adults was not adversely affected. All three kinds of difference comparisons—to comparable workers in states where the minimum wage was not increased, to unaffected workers in their own states, and a hybrid of both comparisons—yield this result. Our findings are yet another contribution to the recent literature that finds no negative impact of modestly higher minimum wages on employment. One interesting feature of our results is that many of the states that are in the treatment group in this analysis were in the control group in the analysis of the effect of the 2009 increase in the Federal minimum wage by Hoffman (2014b), which found no negative effects of the increase. If, for instance, those findings were biased because labor markets in the control states performed more poorly, then that might plausibly cause the treatment effects to be too negative in our analysis. In this sense, the consistency of the results across a very substantial change in the composition of the treatment and control groups is reassuring.

There are plenty more.

But a business can't hire someone in a closed shop that's not artificially expensive.

I think I see the real problem here. You don't believe in the concept of ownership. You aren't going to get libertarian philosophy with that mindset.

uit isn't artificial, becuase it's done in the free market, With free market contracts, when workers get together to make a deal it's no more artifical then when a Company buys out smaller Companies and then has more bargaining Power.

I get the concept of ownership, and ownership does not mean you always get to have more bargaining Power than non owners.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Collective bargaining agreements are banned, a specific type of agreement, i.e. closed shop agreement ... that is the government banning a certain contract.

Cite where collective bargaining agreements are banned.

No Unions are not labor cartels .... not unless there is only one labor union in the Whole country

You don't know what a cartel is, I see. There are multiple drug cartels in Mexico.

A cartel is nothing more than an organization of sellers of something (doesn't matter what it is) who instead of competing for sales, organize against the buyer to raise prices above what the buyer would otherwise be willing to pay. This requires prohibiting anyone else from undercutting the cartel's price-setting. There is zero debating whether unions are labor cartels. They had to be explicitly excused from having to obey anti-cartel laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act.

No RTW laws state that buisinesses and labor are NOT ALLOWED under threat of the guns of the state, to sign closed shop contracts ... that's what the laws say.

They are banned from making closed shop agreements .... because the nanny state says it's bad.

Ok, so the government should come in and ban monopoly.

How is a labor union a monopoly? Are all workers in America under 1 union?

A monopoly is the sole seller of something. It is when a buyer has only one option of where to buy something. A municipally owned utility is a monopoly. They exist (and are allowed to exist) because they ARE government, and government is a monopoly to the extent they "sell" services. People in that area have no choice but to do business with that sole seller.

Closed shop agreements create monopolies. "Thou shalt buy labor from no other organization but me." Unions had to be exempted from antitrust laws to be able to exist. Why would that be if not for their goal to form a monopoly over a type of labor an organization must buy?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Yeah, and aparently you don't have a fundemental problem With market interference, since you're ok With the government interfering against private contracts between unions and Companies.

Pro-union laws force buyers of labor to formulate those contracts or else face expensive legal repercussions. Private sector organizations want nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with labor unions. And in a free market, they wouldn't have to have anything to do with them. But they do have to associate with them, because pro-union laws mandate it. That is interference. Right To Work is not interfering with two organizations' right to come up with a contract. It simply says individuals have a right not to affiliate with a union in order to get a job.

uit isn't artificial, becuase it's done in the free market, With free market contracts, when workers get together to make a deal it's no more artifical then when a Company buys out smaller Companies and then has more bargaining Power.

If it were a free market, the employer could decide on a whim to never enter into negotiation with a union. It would have the freedom to not even recognize the union's existence.

The same way in a free market you would be free to not buy something if you think it is overpriced.

I get the concept of ownership, and ownership does not mean you always get to have more bargaining Power than non owners.

As a buyer, you always have more bargaining power than the seller. You can just say no. When you go into a store, you're the buyer, and thus you have all the bargaining power, because you can walk out without buying anything at all. That is the way it should be.

 

[RGacky3]

Cite where collective bargaining agreements are banned.

Right to work laws bann a collective bargained agreement to have a closed shop.

You don't know what a cartel is, I see. There are multiple drug cartels in Mexico.

A cartel is nothing more than an organization of sellers of something (doesn't matter what it is) who instead of competing for sales, organize against the buyer to raise prices above what the buyer would otherwise be willing to pay. This requires prohibiting anyone else from undercutting the cartel's price-setting. There is zero debating whether unions are labor cartels. They had to be explicitly excused from having to obey anti-cartel laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act.

In that case all Corporations and franchizes are cartels.

A monopoly is the sole seller of something. It is when a buyer has only one option of where to buy something. A municipally owned utility is a monopoly. They exist (and are allowed to exist) because they ARE government, and government is a monopoly to the extent they "sell" services. People in that area have no choice but to do business with that sole seller.

Yes ... Ok ....

Closed shop agreements create monopolies. "Thou shalt buy labor from no other organization but me." Unions had to be exempted from antitrust laws to be able to exist. Why would that be if not for their goal to form a monopoly over a type of labor an organization must buy?

They are not a monopoly, because they are not the only Source of labor for an area, if a Company makes a deal that they will only buy a certain Capital Product from one other Company and thus have a good deal on the Product (these deals happen all the time), that isn't a monopoly, you're redifining what a monopoly is.

Pro-union laws force buyers of labor to formulate those contracts or else face expensive legal repercussions. Private sector organizations want nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with labor unions. And in a free market, they wouldn't have to have anything to do with them. But they do have to associate with them, because pro-union laws mandate it. That is interference. Right To Work is not interfering with two organizations' right to come up with a contract. It simply says individuals have a right not to affiliate with a union in order to get a job.

We arn't talking about pro-union laws .... there is no Law saying individuals have no right to affiliate With a union before getting a job, you have that right no matter what, but what a right to work Law does is BAN a private contract between employer and union to make it a closed shop.

You can get a job anywhere you want, you don't have to get one at a closed shop, but the government bans that type of contract in right to work states, it's a private contract.

If it were a free market, the employer could decide on a whim to never enter into negotiation with a union. It would have the freedom to not even recognize the union's existence.

The same way in a free market you would be free to not buy something if you think it is overpriced.

Oh sure, and a Union would have the right to strike whenenver they want, but that's bad for employer and employee/union, that's why they make contracts, contracts are part of the free market, and you want the state to interfere in those free contracts.

As a buyer, you always have more bargaining power than the seller. You can just say no. When you go into a store, you're the buyer, and thus you have all the bargaining power, because you can walk out without buying anything at all. That is the way it should be.

Except when it comes to labor, not being able to sell Your labor means you don't eat ....

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

I'm not saying it's Natural moral and justifiable ... becuase I'M NOT A LIBERTARIAN.

If you're a libertarian wouldn't you say "the free market will take care of it?"

Ok, so you're not really a full economic libertarian ...

Yeah, and aparently you don't have a fundemental problem With market interference, since you're ok With the government interfering against private contracts between unions and Companies.

If you got this one small point, you would stop displaying your ignorance for all to see...

It's just four simple words. Ready?

LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT ANARCHISTS.

If a Libertarian happens to disagree with an idea that runs contrary to a notion about libertarianism that you are holding in error... that is not the Libertarian's error.

As for as the governmetn encouraging loose lending standards .... they didn't, there was no Law that forced anyone to loan anything to anyone .... what changed was the government ended the seperation of Commercial and invenstment banks, making the ability to transfer and hide risk possible, it was the destruction of regulation, not actual regulation that caused the crash, it's besides the point though.

When GSEs start doing heavy lifting with absolutely no risk of default (since they are government backed, and the government seemingly can't go bankrupt), that influences the entire industry to follow suit. One or two entities acting like this is a long, slow bubble with a small pop, but those one or two entities having no incentive to perform smarter necessitates the rest of the private entities to jump into the pool without their life vests just so they can survive the rapid expansion, leading to an enormous boom and bust.

Destruction of certain regulation helped this along. Again, no economically minded libertarian is going to disagree (because we're not anarchists). But the government was actively moving pieces itself. Everyone seems to forget Fannie and Freddie and the reason behind (and main cheerleader for) the secondary mortgage market - the good old government!

and Yes, a Corporations makes you pay them for the privilege to work, if you work as an apple picker, and you take home all the Apples you pick, you to to prison.

You're just reaching here. Being punished for taking what doesn't belong to you is somehow equal to paying for the privilege to work? That's how this goes down in your mind???

If Unions are so bad then why does the Corporation need a government to protect them from the unions?

Because unions are so bad!

I get the concept of ownership, and ownership does not mean you always get to have more bargaining Power than non owners.

Actually, it means exactly that. How do you feel about everyone in your neighborhood taking a vote and deciding they have just as much right to your car as you do? What's that? You need to get to work Monday morning at 8:00am? Well, you see, Mrs. Johnson doesn't have a car and Mrs. Smith only has a very small car, but they do have kids and need to go grocery shopping, so they took a vote and they need your car then. You can use it before 5am and after 1pm. Does that work for you? Sign the deal, or the car is just going to sit in the parking lot while the courts arbitrate the agreement and you'll be paying for something you can't even use at all.

One thing you can never get a socialist to see is their own dogmatic notions of how ownership works. They will pivot and rely on the goodwill of people to act in their own best interests collectively, while history has shown time and time again that a small cadre of the powerful elite will ensure their own best interests to the detriment of all. We see it in any tried-and-failed socialist government experiment, we see it in union leadership, and we see it plain as day in simple arguments when we apply logic to hypothetical scenarios. Just sad, that level of myopia.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Right to work laws bann a collective bargained agreement to have a closed shop.

It doesn't "ban" anything. It protects the right of workers to decide for themselves if they want to be a part of the union and pay dues... or not. A closed shop agreement is a monopoly.

In that case all Corporations and franchizes are cartels.

No they're not, because they're not the sole sellers of anything. They compete with other corporations and buyers are free to CHOOSE to buy from them or not.

They are not a monopoly, because they are not the only Source of labor for an area,

Yes they are. They are the sole source of a particular type of labor. The fact that, for example, municipally owned utilities are prohibited from employing anyone outside the union makes the union a sole source of that labor. The people in that area have no choice but to buy that utility from that one provider, and have no choice but for that provider to hire only union members.

if a Company makes a deal that they will only buy a certain Capital Product from one other Company and thus have a good deal on the Product (these deals happen all the time), that isn't a monopoly, you're redifining what a monopoly is.

If any organization could simply decide never to buy labor from a labor union, that would be a relevant comparison. Employers don't seek out and desire agreements with unions. They are forced to accept them because labor laws don't allow them to walk away from the table and refuse to do business with the union. This element of force does not exist in any other area of the economy, and that's because our antitrust laws make it illegal.

there is no Law saying individuals have no right to affiliate With a union before getting a job, you have that right no matter what, but what a right to work Law does is BAN a private contract between employer and union to make it a closed shop.

It's not a private contract. Most unions in this country operate in the public sector because the public sector has natural monopoly, and unions being labor cartels need the lifeblood of that monopolistic privilege.

Right To Work laws "ban" the same behavior antitrust laws ban. Organizations (other than labor unions which were specifically exempted) are not allowed to collude to raise prices and block the ability of other sellers to compete with them. That is what cartels do, and it is illegal (again, except for labor unions which were granted special privilege to operate as cartels).

You can get a job anywhere you want, you don't have to get one at a closed shop, but the government bans that type of contract in right to work states, it's a private contract.

No it's not.

Oh sure, and a Union would have the right to strike whenenver they want, but that's bad for employer and employee/union, that's why they make contracts, contracts are part of the free market, and you want the state to interfere in those free contracts.

They aren't free contracts. If they were free contracts in a free market, employers could say "I will never sit in the same room with a labor union nor hire anyone belonging to one, ever, because I feel like it." They could decide that for any reason or no reason. But that's not how it works. Employers are forced to recognize labor unions and any positions they have laid claim to are theirs to cover and force dues upon anyone who wants the job. In a free market, any individual seller of labor (prospective worker) could negotiate individually with the employer and say "look, I'll do this same work for you for 20% less. You in?" And the employer could say "sure." But the law forbids people the freedom to do this. The law grants unions monopolistic privilege over these positions and forces employers to associate with them and forces workers to join and pay up. That is not free in any way.

Employers don't sign closed shop agreements because they want to. They sign them because the law forces them to "negotiate" with the labor cartels and because the law also gives the union grievance and arbitration concessions that are so costly to employers that they will buckle and sign to avoid the legal expense.

If employers actually wanted and were free to negotiate with and sign agreements with the unions, then why do the unions need the protections of the NLRA and the host of other pro-union laws? If both parties actually wanted to do that, why does that law need to exist forcing employers to recognize unions and forcing employees to join if the union took control over that position?

 

[Neomalthusian]

WHen workers make Money for the Company, and that Company makes a profit on the workers labor .... do the workers get to say "that profit cannot be used to support the republicans or democrats?" No .... so you have a double standard .... you condemn unions for acting like buisinesses in the free market, while you praise buisiness ... double standard, AND you want the nanny state to come in and stop them.

You don't get it. Public funds are accumulated through monopolistic force (taxation), i.e. governmental organizations (which include things like municipally owned utilities) are natural monopolies because the only way to buy those services in a given area are to buy it from that one source.

As such, it is generally illegal to use public funds for political campaigns. People in government cannot tap public funds for their own political campaigns.

Public sector unions use the law to force public employers to sit at a negotiating table with them and negotiate about the use of public funds, and force new employees coming into positions that have been covered by the collective bargaining agreements to join the union, and pay the union. Employers don't have a choice to refuse to speak to the union. Dissenting voters don't have a choice in the matter. New employees don't have a choice to join the union (except in Right To Work states). So this money is taken in by the public sector through mandatory payments, and the union leeches off of this revenue stream to inflate public employees' compensation and skims its cut off the top, then the union turns around and pours insane amounts of that money (again which was made through monopolistic force -- people don't have a choice to stop doing business with their local and state governments) into Democratic Party political campaigns. Public unions essentially launder public funds into political campaigns that in no other circumstance would be legal.

The private sector is entirely different in that private companies have to compete with similar businesses (monopolies cannot exist in the private sector) and people therefore have a choice whether to give that company their money or not.

Money accumulated through government's natural monopoly power (laws, governmental fees, public utilities, taxation) should not be used for political purposes. Mandated revenue streams should not be able to be donated to politicians. Therefore public sector unions should not be able to donate a dime to political campaigns. Another newer example is the health insurance lobby. Now that their revenue stream is mandated by law (PPACA), the health insurance lobby should not be able to donate a red cent to politics. The same could probably be said of banks, given the US central bank and the Big 4 are essentially a monetary cartel.

It should not be legal in any circumstances to have a mandated revenue stream, accumulated through force of legislation, and then use that money accumulated by force for political campaigns.

I thought libertarians were against the state interfering in the market ... was I wrong?

Unions are the ones running interference in the market. They are cartels. Cartels are organizations of sellers who would otherwise have to compete with one another on price and/or quality who instead of competing decide to collude against the buyer(s) to raise prices above what they would otherwise be. We made the right decision over a century ago to ban cartels, which was mostly spurred by the big industries back then which had accumulated too much power over the markets such that they were able to undermine the competitiveness on which a free market depends.

 

[RGacky3]

If you got this one small point, you would stop displaying your ignorance for all to see...

It's just four simple words. Ready?

LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT ANARCHISTS.

If a Libertarian happens to disagree with an idea that runs contrary to a notion about libertarianism that you are holding in error... that is not the Libertarian's error.

Umm Yeah, monst libertarians think the only role of government is to defend person and property, not to intervene in the market Place on behalf of some social goal, or do you dissagree?

When GSEs start doing heavy lifting with absolutely no risk of default (since they are government backed, and the government seemingly can't go bankrupt), that influences the entire industry to follow suit. One or two entities acting like this is a long, slow bubble with a small pop, but those one or two entities having no incentive to perform smarter necessitates the rest of the private entities to jump into the pool without their life vests just so they can survive the rapid expansion, leading to an enormous boom and bust.

Destruction of certain regulation helped this along. Again, no economically minded libertarian is going to disagree (because we're not anarchists). But the government was actively moving pieces itself. Everyone seems to forget Fannie and Freddie and the reason behind (and main cheerleader for) the secondary mortgage market - the good old government!

Actually it started when the GSE's (Fanny and Freddy) were privitized under Clinton .... when they turned from being a publically mandated enterprise under democratic Control (not party, I mean under Control of the electorate, not directly but still accountable to them) into a private for profit buisiness. But that wasn't the big drive, banks have always had Access to credit from the government, what changed was there was no Law mandating banks could'nt mix Commercial and Investment banking, so they could hide risk and bet against it.

Yes, many many libertarians think that destruction of regulation had NOTHING to do With the crash .... maybe you're more of a reasonable and economically minded libertarian ... but there are many that are minarchists and market fundementalists.

Fanny and Freddy, were private buisinesses at that point, and believe me, socialist does not just mean government run stuff, I'm more against private Public partnerships than I am straight privitization.

You're just reaching here. Being punished for taking what doesn't belong to you is somehow equal to paying for the privilege to work? That's how this goes down in your mind???

Except you're assuming it belongs to the person who claims the land, it ONLY belongs to him becuase of a state issues and recognized grant.

Because unions are so bad!

Because the market can't do it?

Actually, it means exactly that. How do you feel about everyone in your neighborhood taking a vote and deciding they have just as much right to your car as you do? What's that? You need to get to work Monday morning at 8:00am? Well, you see, Mrs. Johnson doesn't have a car and Mrs. Smith only has a very small car, but they do have kids and need to go grocery shopping, so they took a vote and they need your car then. You can use it before 5am and after 1pm. Does that work for you? Sign the deal, or the car is just going to sit in the parking lot while the courts arbitrate the agreement and you'll be paying for something you can't even use at all.

One thing you can never get a socialist to see is their own dogmatic notions of how ownership works. They will pivot and rely on the goodwill of people to act in their own best interests collectively, while history has shown time and time again that a small cadre of the powerful elite will ensure their own best interests to the detriment of all. We see it in any tried-and-failed socialist government experiment, we see it in union leadership, and we see it plain as day in simple arguments when we apply logic to hypothetical scenarios. Just sad, that level of myopia.

Do you really think that everyone in the community would decide that it's reasonable that any person's individual care is up for community use? I think most People would have cars or one day think of getting one and would want to have that under private Control ... Now lets say there's a community where there is only a couple cars available and no view in sight that there will be any more, then maybe they can decide, well, perhaps we should share the cars that exist so that thing can run well.

No I don't think that everyone wil act in good will ... which is why I don't think property should be absolute, and an absolute individual rule, I think you should have social checks and balances on property .... since property (Beyond personal possession), IS social Power.

The difference is plutocracy vrs Democracy ....

 

[RGacky3]

It doesn't "ban" anything. It protects the right of workers to decide for themselves if they want to be a part of the union and pay dues... or not. A closed shop agreement is a monopoly.

No ... it does BAN something ... the Law doesn't say "such and such worker is allowed" it's "no buisiness can make such and such contract." Literally that's what the Law says.

No a closed shop is not a monopoly, unless it's the only Company doing what it does in the are.

It doesn't "protect" the rights of workers, workers don't have a right to not have employment stipulations.

No they're not, because they're not the sole sellers of anything. They compete with other corporations and buyers are free to CHOOSE to buy from them or not.

yes they are cartells, Unions are not the sole sellers of labor ....

Yes they are. They are the sole source of a particular type of labor. The fact that, for example, municipally owned utilities are prohibited from employing anyone outside the union makes the union a sole source of that labor. The people in that area have no choice but to buy that utility from that one provider, and have no choice but for that provider to hire only union members.

¨
Municipally owned Utilities ARE monopolices to begin With ....

ANd no they arn't the sole Source of a particular type of labor unless every individual that does that kind of job is part of one particular union.

If any organization could simply decide never to buy labor from a labor union, that would be a relevant comparison. Employers don't seek out and desire agreements with unions. They are forced to accept them because labor laws don't allow them to walk away from the table and refuse to do business with the union. This element of force does not exist in any other area of the economy, and that's because our antitrust laws make it illegal.

Yes the Law does allow them to refuse to do buisiness With the union .... of coarse it does, they don't have to sign any deal With the union they don't want to .... Show me which Law forces buisinesses to make deals With unions.

It's not a private contract. Most unions in this country operate in the public sector because the public sector has natural monopoly, and unions being labor cartels need the lifeblood of that monopolistic privilege.

Right To Work laws "ban" the same behavior antitrust laws ban. Organizations (other than labor unions which were specifically exempted) are not allowed to collude to raise prices and block the ability of other sellers to compete with them. That is what cartels do, and it is illegal (again, except for labor unions which were granted special privilege to operate as cartels).

We arn't talking about the Public sector ... I'm talking about private sector unions making deals With private buisinesses.

It's not a monopoly any more than a buisiness who has a deal With a supplier to only buy from that supplier ... that isn't a monopoly at all.

No it's not.

yes it is ...

 

[RGacky3]

They aren't free contracts. If they were free contracts in a free market, employers could say "I will never sit in the same room with a labor union nor hire anyone belonging to one, ever, because I feel like it." They could decide that for any reason or no reason. But that's not how it works. Employers are forced to recognize labor unions and any positions they have laid claim to are theirs to cover and force dues upon anyone who wants the job. In a free market, any individual seller of labor (prospective worker) could negotiate individually with the employer and say "look, I'll do this same work for you for 20% less. You in?" And the employer could say "sure." But the law forbids people the freedom to do this. The law grants unions monopolistic privilege over these positions and forces employers to associate with them and forces workers to join and pay up. That is not free in any way.

Employers don't sign closed shop agreements because they want to. They sign them because the law forces them to "negotiate" with the labor cartels and because the law also gives the union grievance and arbitration concessions that are so costly to employers that they will buckle and sign to avoid the legal expense.

If employers actually wanted and were free to negotiate with and sign agreements with the unions, then why do the unions need the protections of the NLRA and the host of other pro-union laws? If both parties actually wanted to do that, why does that law need to exist forcing employers to recognize unions and forcing employees to join if the union took control over that position?

Yes they can ... there is no Law that forces them .... the only think that forces them is the market Power of the union, which is PART OF THE MARKET.

There is NO LAW that says a Company has to recognize a union, they can refuse any deal they want, but they risk a strike.

No employers sign closed shop agreements, because they don't want a strike.

Why do Corporations need the protection of the masses of corporate Law? which is much more extensive and enforced than any labor Law ever was.

You don't get it. Public funds are accumulated through monopolistic force (taxation), i.e. governmental organizations (which include things like municipally owned utilities) are natural monopolies because the only way to buy those services in a given area are to buy it from that one source.

...........

We arn't talking about the Public sector ... this is a Complete strawman ....

Unions are the ones running interference in the market. They are cartels. Cartels are organizations of sellers who would otherwise have to compete with one another on price and/or quality who instead of competing decide to collude against the buyer(s) to raise prices above what they would otherwise be. We made the right decision over a century ago to ban cartels, which was mostly spurred by the big industries back then which had accumulated too much power over the markets such that they were able to undermine the competitiveness on which a free market depends.

In that case all franchises are cartels .... What's the difference?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Quotes edited for brevity.

Umm Yeah, monst libertarians think the only role of government is to defend person and property, ...dissagree?

To an extent, yes. I also go one step further and say a major role of government is to provide equal protection under the law. But since you brought it up... legislation allowing unions to exist in the first place is one of those marketplace interventions on behalf of some social goal that I don't agree with. Hence, my stance on Right To Work is not hypocritical from a libertarian perspective. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Actually it started when the GSE's (Fanny and Freddy) were privitized under Clinton .... when they turned from being a publically mandated enterprise under democratic Control (not party, I mean under Control of the electorate, not directly but still accountable to them) into a private for profit buisiness...

Fannie went public in 1968, while Freddie Mac was created as a public entity in 1970; neither was privatized under Clinton. The 102nd Congress (Democrat controlled House and Senate) passed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 which forced the GSEs to meet artificial goals for low income lending. The Clinton Administration directly pressured the GSEs to expand their low income portfolio by targeting inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977 (passed by a Democrat House and Senate and signed by a Democrat President), which forced primary mortgage lenders to pressure secondary lenders to ease credit restrictions, kicking off the sub-prime bubble. CLEAR examples of how government meddling, for the benefit of a few, caused hardship for many. In this case, the many was the entire developed world.

Yes, many many libertarians think that destruction of regulation had NOTHING to do With the crash .... maybe you're more of a reasonable and economically minded libertarian ... but there are many that are minarchists and market fundementalists.

Again, I'm not an anarchist. I recognize the need for regulation and law. For example, I am not a banker or financier of money, so when a clever dickhead comes up with a convoluted ponzi scheme designed to remove money (property) from people without giving value or creating anything in return, yeah, I think there should be laws against that kind of stuff. Good regulation is designed, in function, to convey honesty of intent to all parties in a contract.

Fanny and Freddy, were private ... privitization.

What is the difference? Public ownership and public partnerships both socialize losses (meaning there is no incentive to control costs or do things better), while neither scenario shares any gains with the public. In full public organizations, you have a small few carving out their comfy spot and passing the rest onto to the tax base who pays for it, while public partnerships share their ill-gotten gains with those lucky enough to have gotten in on the ground floor. I consider "public" a dirty word for anything beyond emergency services and roads, and you should too.

... it belongs ... state issues and recognized grant.

Fine. I want your xbox. I don't care if it's in your apartment, because that apartment is on land that you can't own, man! Nobody can own the land!

Our entire legal system (and, by extension, 90% of our system of ethics and morals) revolve around property rights. Some of the earliest known examples of writing are storehouse ledgers. The Greeks invented geometry so they could measure land. Some of the great early physics problems were solved so we could drain mines and irrigate private fields and see whether or not a crown was made of pure gold.

Human beings are not communal hive dwellers. We own stuff. That being said, I'm all for a 100% inheritance tax on liquid assets so long as real assets are excepted. But that's another conversation.

... everyone in the community...

The way you phrased that first paragraph, it's SO subjective. Do I think that reasonable people would actively steal from someone with a vote? No. But I don't know any reasonable people outside of a handful of gems I have come across in my travels. I mean, you just excepted a scenario from private ownership, based on scarcity, for a tool/commodity that you feel should be privately controlled. So, who gets to decide scarcity?

Not the mob. Not ever.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Just to clarify, when I said "public" earlier in reference to Fannie and Freddie, I meant publically traded, not government/publically owned.

 

[Neomalthusian]

No ... it does BAN something ... the Law doesn't say "such and such worker is allowed" it's "no buisiness can make such and such contract." Literally that's what the Law says.

Cite it.

I realize "closed shop agreements" are not permitted in RTW states, but you crying about it being "banned" and pretending businesses aren't being allowed to do something they want is like complaining that a consumer is not allowed to buy stuff from a monopoly, which isn't really what's going on, it's that monopolies aren't allowed to exist.

Sherman Antitrust Act banned cartels/monopolies. That's a good thing. Labor unions were given specific exemption from this law. That's a bad thing.

No a closed shop is not a monopoly, unless it's the only Company doing what it does in the are.

That's not what defines a monopoly. A monopoly is simply a sole seller. Because "closed shop" agreements mean there can be only one seller, any such unions have monopolistic privilege.

It doesn't "protect" the rights of workers, workers don't have a right to not have employment stipulations.

They should have a right to compete for work without being forced into a union and forced to pay dues.

yes they are cartells, Unions are not the sole sellers of labor ....

In closed shop agreements they are the sole seller of that type of labor. That's why all states should be Right To Work. There should not be sole sellers where competition from outside is forbidden.

Municipally owned Utilities ARE monopolices to begin With ....

Correct.

ANd no they arn't the sole Source of a particular type of labor unless every individual that does that kind of job is part of one particular union.

Unions don't compete with one another for these jobs. They stake their claim over certain jobs and then there is no undercutting allowed. This is pure cartel behavior.

Yes the Law does allow them to refuse to do buisiness With the union .... of coarse it does, they don't have to sign any deal With the union they don't want to .... Show me which Law forces buisinesses to make deals With unions.

In my state it's AS 23, which is a reflection of the NLRA and related federal laws.

We arn't talking about the Public sector ... I'm talking about private sector unions making deals With private buisinesses.

It's pointless to talk about unions in the US without talking about the public sector, because public sector unions are far more prevalent than private sector ones, which are dying off rapidly (because like I said cartels cannot survive in competitive environments -- no one voluntarily wants to buy their overpriced stuff... they have to be forced to buy it if unions are to survive).

It's not a monopoly any more than a buisiness who has a deal With a supplier to only buy from that supplier ... that isn't a monopoly at all.

Businesses can decide on a whim to cancel the deal and never do business with that supplier again if they so choose. If you think unionized workplace employers can do that, you don't understand how unions operate and the privileges our laws grant them.

 

[RGacky3]

1.To an extent, yes. I also go one step further and say a major role of government is to provide equal protection under the law. ..
2.Fannie went public in 1968, while Freddie Mac was created as a public entity in 1970; neither was privatized under Clinton. The 102nd Congress (Democrat controlled House and Senate) passed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ...

3. Again, I'm not an anarchist. ...

4. What is the difference? Public ownership and public partnerships both socialize losses (meaning there is no incentive to control costs or do things better), while neither scenario shares any gains with the public. In full public organizations, you have a small few carving out their comfy spot and passing the rest onto to the tax base who pays for it, while public partnerships share their ill-gotten gains with those lucky enough to have gotten in on the ground floor. I consider "public" a dirty word for anything beyond emergency services and roads, and you should too.

5. Fine. I want your xbox. I don't care if it's in your apartment, because that apartment is on land that you can't own, man! Nobody can own the land! ...

6. The way you phrased that first paragraph, it's SO subjective. ...

Not the mob. Not ever.

1. legislation doesn't allow unions to exist, unions existed organically, they were banned in many Places and legislation was needed to stop them from being banned.

2- Housing and Community Development act, didn't force ANYONE to loan anything to ANYONE, look at what the actual Law says, all it does is say redlining is banned, meaning you have to measure each loan Application on an individual basis and not exclude entire neighborhoods, but they NEVER said you must loan this much to such and such person no matter how much Money they make, no it didn't force then to ease restrictions, look at the Law, you've got it wrong there.

I had it confused, they wern't privitized under Clinton, they were basically private in the begining, but again, no one forced the banks to push these loans, hide the risk, sell them, and bet against them, they did that all by themselves, and made a ton of Money, the fact is it was the destruction of regulation (that we agree With), I don't think you needed any government bailout implicity Insurance, People were making too much Money.

3. I suppose it's not hypocritical for a libertarian like you who believes the in the need for Public interferance in the economy through regulation or Public services and so on, you're not the kind of libertarian I'm talking to, I'm talking to Minarchists, those libertarians who think the state should ONLY protect property and enforce contract and thats it.

4. Huge HUGE difference. One is the madate, Public Partnerships end up With a for profit mandate, for something which is supposed to have a social mandate, Public partnerships socialize the losses and privitize the gains, Public ownership has a full social mandate and socializes the gains, and yes, for example a federal postal system socializes the gains, by having extremely cheep mail service EVERYWHERE, do a Public private partnership what happens, you pay twice as muhc, the Public part does the hard work, the private does the easy and profitable work ... that's always how it goes. I live in Norway, nationalizing the oil is what allowed Norway to build up its economy and now have one of the worlds largest sovreign wealth fund.

As far as the Public organizations having a few carving out a comfy spot .... that happens in private organizations too, yes there are lazy People everywhere, except in private organizations the Call them CEO's and pay them millions and millions.

5. Umm, yes, but we live in a society where we've agreed that I can live privately in this Apartment and you can live privately in Yours ....

Actually for most of human history internal to communities most property was the commons more or less, trade was done between communities, but internal most everything was socially controlled. Property came With agriculture, but even them, it was mostly either state controlled, or communal, or private With social mandates. Absolute private property, the type required for a full capitalist system, is relatively New.

6. Yes, I think People would come up With reasonable laws and institutions to prevent individuals privicy to be violated ... the question is just what is the basis for the institutions of society ... the absolute sacredness of property? Or actual social needs?

You're afraid of "the mob" yet you have no problem With plutocracy. Who gets to decide scarcity? Well, we should have democratically accountalbe institutions With a social mandate ... right now scare Resources are controlled by unaccountable plutocrats With a mandate to get as much Money out of those resoruces as possible while giving as little as possible, a maximizing profit mandate.

 

[RGacky3]

Cite it.

I realize "closed shop agreements" are not permitted in RTW states, but you crying about it being "banned" and pretending businesses aren't being allowed to do something they want is like complaining that a consumer is not allowed to buy stuff from a monopoly, which isn't really what's going on, it's that monopolies aren't allowed to exist.

Sherman Antitrust Act banned cartels/monopolies. That's a good thing. Labor unions were given specific exemption from this law. That's a bad thing.

So the government should ban certain contracts that are unfaivorable for one of the parties? Really? Is that the governments job?

Unions are not monopolies .... by definition, they are not the only Source of labor .... nor are they cartels anymore than franchises are cartels.

That's not what defines a monopoly. A monopoly is simply a sole seller. Because "closed shop" agreements mean there can be only one seller, any such unions have monopolistic privilege.

Unions don't sell labor ... also a monopoly is the sole seller in a market, not the sole seller to a specific buisiness. You've got Your definitions confused.

They should have a right to compete for work without being forced into a union and forced to pay dues.

You have that right without right to work .... don't work for a closed shop.

In closed shop agreements they are the sole seller of that type of labor. That's why all states should be Right To Work. There should not be sole sellers where competition from outside is forbidden.

Unions don't sell labor .... and the agreement is made With the buisiness, it's a FREE MARKET agreement ... unless of coarse you think it's the states job to make sure Corporations are protected from the free market.

Unions don't compete with one another for these jobs. They stake their claim over certain jobs and then there is no undercutting allowed. This is pure cartel behavior.

Umm .... Yes they do ... Unions compete for workers all the time.

In my state it's AS 23, which is a reflection of the NLRA and related federal laws.

What state, and what does the Law actually say?

It's pointless to talk about unions in the US without talking about the public sector, because public sector unions are far more prevalent than private sector ones, which are dying off rapidly (because like I said cartels cannot survive in competitive environments -- no one voluntarily wants to buy their overpriced stuff... they have to be forced to buy it if unions are to survive).

Umm ok, but RTW laws are for unions in general ... if you want to talk about the Public sector, that's a different subject.

Businesses can decide on a whim to cancel the deal and never do business with that supplier again if they so choose. If you think unionized workplace employers can do that, you don't understand how unions operate and the privileges our laws grant them.

Sure and unions can strike on a whim too ... but then they can get suid for breach of contract.

STFU about priviledges for unions, unless you're going to criticize the laws prividedgin buisiness ... mabye we can start With encorporation.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

People need to read this. Right to Work laws are not perfectly libertarian-but they are a positive compromise in the face of federal labor law.

The Economics of "Right to Work", David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

1. legislation doesn't allow unions to exist, unions existed organically, they were banned in many Places and legislation was needed to stop them from being banned.

Law had to be specially created to give people the power to "negotiate" over someone else's property. I mean, I can say I'm the King of the Entire World (TM), but there is no law or force or recognized backing to that claim. Some kind of rule (and enforcement) would have to be created in order for the claim to ring other than hollow.

Unions are no different.

I suppose it's not hypocritical for a libertarian like you who believes the in the need for Public interferance in the economy through regulation or Public services and so on, you're not the kind of libertarian I'm talking to, I'm talking to Minarchists, those libertarians who think the state should ONLY protect property and enforce contract and thats it.

Are all Democrats progressive socialists?

As far as the Public organizations having a few carving out a comfy spot .... that happens in private organizations too, yes there are lazy People everywhere, except in private organizations the Call them CEO's and pay them millions and millions.

Show me a lazy CEO. Name one.

Umm, yes, but we live in a society where we've agreed that I can live privately in this Apartment and you can live privately in Yours ....

This society has also agreed that people own their farms. And their own stores. And their own factories.

You're afraid of "the mob" yet you have no problem With plutocracy.

Plutocracy is allowed to exist through enforceable mandate, i.e. government. The mob is force of the opposite flavor, merely dumber.

 

[RGacky3]

Law had to be specially created to give people the power to "negotiate" over someone else's property. I mean, I can say I'm the King of the Entire World (TM), but there is no law or force or recognized backing to that claim. Some kind of rule (and enforcement) would have to be created in order for the claim to ring other than hollow.

Unions are no different.

Umm, no, because unions are not claims to property or authority as saying "I'm the king of the entire world." You don't need to legalize unions, InFact historically they grew organically and were then banned, and they had to become legalized.

Are all Democrats progressive socialists?

If a Libertarian, believes that government should interfere in the market sometimes when it serves the greater good ... well then I suppose there is no philosophical difference between a libertarian and a social-democrat, the only difference is the Scope.

Show me a lazy CEO. Name one.

Probably not the CEO, that's a bad example, but plenty of majority stake shareholders and Board members ... btw, the CEO's Money generally doesn't come from what he produces, he pays himself whatever he can get away With paying himself, no matter what his performance is.

This society has also agreed that people own their farms. And their own stores. And their own factories.

Not really, not if you look at the history, property was enforced, from the king first, and then by the state, arbitrarily.

Plutocracy is allowed to exist through enforceable mandate, i.e. government. The mob is force of the opposite flavor, merely dumber.

But you're in favor of plutocracy? .... BTW, Democracy is not just "the mob!"

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Umm, no, because unions are not claims to property or authority as saying "I'm the king of the entire world." You don't need to legalize unions, InFact historically they grew organically and were then banned, and they had to become legalized.

.....

If a Libertarian, believes that government should interfere in the market sometimes when it serves the greater good ... well then I suppose there is no philosophical difference between a libertarian and a social-democrat, the only difference is the Scope.

Second part first, it seems I have to address - yet again - the scope of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarians generally share a skepticism of authority; however, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or even to wholly dissolve pervasive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.

Although some present-day libertarians[clarification needed] advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights,[3] such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources, others, notably libertarian socialists,[4] seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management.[5][6] While minarchists think that a minimal centralized government is necessary, anarchists propose to completely eliminate the state.[7][8]

The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced[9][10] political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice. While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[11] As individualist opponents of social liberalism embraced the label and distanced themselves from the word liberal, American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.​

Night-watchman state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A night-watchman state, or a minimal state, is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is a form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from assault, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes various civil service and emergency-rescue departments (such as the fire departments), prisons, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3]

Advocacy of a night-watchman state is known as minarchism. Minarchists argue that the state has no right to use its monopoly on the use of force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that transactions between private individuals are free. As such, minarchists generally believe in a laissez-faire approach to the economy. The rationale for this belief may be economic prosperity, moral limitations on the use of state force, or both.​

So, let's start with force. What sort of coercion does it take to force someone to act in the opposite of their own immediate interests? The sole purpose of unions is to do just that - FORCE businesses (owners and managers) to act against their own interests. Unions sell this power of coercion as the reason for their existence. They use tactics designed to apply pressure and force on management in order to coerce them into signing a contract that is favorable to the union (and, presumably, all of its members). Unions act to limit transactions between private individuals. The state helps them do this with laws.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Here's where you are terribly, terribly wrong in your summation of unions as "organic": laws to enforce otherwise unenforceable demands are not, themselves, organic; without these laws, union demands cease to have any power to coerce. Unions can only do what they do (force a business to give them a monopoly on labor, punishable by court-attainable fines on union members if they work during a strike) with special legislation that allows such unethical and immoral practices to exist. In short, unions are entirely artificially constructed by laws designed to give them teeth and allow them to coerce demands by force.

Think of it this way. You and three buddies take a cab home from the bar. You're stuck in the middle. Your buddies say they won't let you out of the cab unless you pay the entire fare. They don't have anywhere to be, but you have to be to work in six hours. They don't mind waiting, and they're going to be total dicks about this. The meter keeps running, creating a larger bill by the minute. I suppose you don't have to pay, but the consequences of doing so are hazardous to your financial well-being because you're going to get fired if you don't get to bed soon (or to work on time because you're still stuck in the cab).

Laws that prop up unions do so by making behavior like your friends' totally legal, while making any sort of play on your part (besides giving them what they want) illegal. Some of these laws make it illegal for one of your friends to offer to chip in! What they're doing is totally organic, to misuse the word in the same fashion that you are misusing it. The only moral justification that unions ever come up with is that you are much, much richer than your friends, so it's your responsibility to pay for the cab ride yourself.

Probably not the CEO, that's a bad example, but plenty of majority stake shareholders and Board members ... btw, the CEO's Money generally doesn't come from what he produces, he pays himself whatever he can get away With paying himself, no matter what his performance is.

"I mispoke, CEOs aren't lazy, but they totally don't perform any useful function." More double-speak. This is getting old. CEOs of mega-corps come with CVs that would make you cry like a five year old girl with a skinned knee. You simply can't bring an argument against this point. "But, they're rich! They're evil and lazy! Waaaaah!"

Not really, not if you look at the history, property was enforced, from the king first, and then by the state, arbitrarily.

Property is enforced by force. The state, as expressed in modern times, is the sole purveyor of (legal) force. What I said, that you failed to respond to, is that plutocracy can only exist through artificial barriers to entry of competition. Sometimes this is regulatory (not always), sometimes its cabalistic (when a few individuals collude in illegal ways), and sometimes its straight up by fiat (like when the government awards no-bid contracts). Plutocracy can only really exist in any sustainable way when a state actor carves out special protections and exemptions for it.

Did you know there is only one natural (organic) monopoly to ever arise without government protection? Alcoa was one of the first entrants into the aluminum market due to a patent on the process to smelt aluminum from aluminum oxide. They invested all of their earnings in expanding production, securing raw materials, and obtaining good sites for efficient hydroelectric power. They were acting almost alone in the market at the beginning and they played it very smart. Alcoa was an "accidental monopoly" in that none of their practices could be deemed "coercive", even under Justice Hand's most liberal redefinition of the word. They were simply making more of a product that had limitless demand. Two world wars and the dawn of the aviation age catapulted them into superpower status. The point of this story is that the government (or some other group of actors) are almost always responsible for protectionist policies that lead to monopoly. The freer the market, the harder it is to create a monopoly, because everyone is allowed to compete as hard as they can and they DO! A new technology, a new industry, and a couple of well-timed wars are the only reason Alcoa was positioned like it was.

But you're in favor of plutocracy? .... BTW, Democracy is not just "the mob!"

No, I'm not in favor of plutocracy. That is the fallacy of false dilemma. I don't trust the mob to make decisions that won't trample the rights of minority members of the mob, but I also don't believe an oligarchy made up of the rich and powerful is a better alternative. I'm saying I believe in a free market system that makes it harder for a plutocracy to arise, and impossible for it to sustain itself in the absence of governmental protectionism.

 

[RGacky3]

Second part first, it seems I have to address - yet again - the scope of Libertarianism.

Night-watchman state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A night-watchman state, or a minimal state, is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is a form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from assault, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes various civil service and emergency-rescue departments (such as the fire departments), prisons, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3]

Advocacy of a night-watchman state is known as minarchism. Minarchists argue that the state has no right to use its monopoly on the use of force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that transactions between private individuals are free. As such, minarchists generally believe in a laissez-faire approach to the economy. The rationale for this belief may be economic prosperity, moral limitations on the use of state force, or both.​

So, let's start with force. What sort of coercion does it take to force someone to act in the opposite of their own immediate interests? The sole purpose of unions is to do just that - FORCE businesses (owners and managers) to act against their own interests. Unions sell this power of coercion as the reason for their existence. They use tactics designed to apply pressure and force on management in order to coerce them into signing a contract that is favorable to the union (and, presumably, all of its members). Unions act to limit transactions between private individuals. The state helps them do this with laws.

Except it is NOT in outside of their own interest to sign a clsoed shop deal With the other option is a strike ....

I'm sorry, if you consider threatening a strke to be force, because it causes a buisiness to act in a way they normally wouldn't, then almost ALL market transactions are force ...

The State is using the threat of force to PREVENT a free transaction between People (union and buisiness), to make a private buisiness deal on hiring ....

A union cannot arrest anyone, the state can.

ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN DEFINITION, you're contradicting the night watchman state theory in supporting a right to work Law ....

 

[RGacky3]

Here's where you are terribly, terribly wrong in your summation of unions as "organic": laws to enforce otherwise unenforceable demands are not, themselves, organic; without these laws, union demands cease to have any power to coerce. Unions can only do what they do (force a business to give them a monopoly on labor, punishable by court-attainable fines on union members if they work during a strike) with special legislation that allows such unethical and immoral practices to exist. In short, unions are entirely artificially constructed by laws designed to give them teeth and allow them to coerce demands by force.

Force a buisiness through market mechanism ..... and yes, if you sign a contract the Court can enforce it ... that is the case With all market contracts.

I love how libertarians redifine normal market mechanisms as "force" when its done against the interest of a buisiness.

ALso without WHAT laws? **** without the myriads of governemnt property and liability laws Corporations and captialism as we know it couldn't exist.

Think of it this way. You and three buddies take a cab home from the bar. You're stuck in the middle. Your buddies say they won't let you out of the cab unless you pay the entire fare. They don't have anywhere to be, but you have to be to work in six hours. They don't mind waiting, and they're going to be total dicks about this. The meter keeps running, creating a larger bill by the minute. I suppose you don't have to pay, but the consequences of doing so are hazardous to your financial well-being because you're going to get fired if you don't get to bed soon (or to work on time because you're still stuck in the cab).

Not going to work is not the same as physically holding person in a confined area .... the analogy doesn't work.

Unless of coarse you believe in slavery.

Laws that prop up unions do so by making behavior like your friends' totally legal, while making any sort of play on your part (besides giving them what they want) illegal. Some of these laws make it illegal for one of your friends to offer to chip in! What they're doing is totally organic, to misuse the word in the same fashion that you are misusing it. The only moral justification that unions ever come up with is that you are much, much richer than your friends, so it's your responsibility to pay for the cab ride yourself.

What laws are you talking about?

We're talking about right to work laws, not getting rid of other labor laws (which btw are nothing in comparison to the laws protecting Corporations)

"I mispoke, CEOs aren't lazy, but they totally don't perform any useful function." More double-speak. This is getting old. CEOs of mega-corps come with CVs that would make you cry like a five year old girl with a skinned knee. You simply can't bring an argument against this point. "But, they're rich! They're evil and lazy! Waaaaah!"

Yes, they have long CVs of experience of how to pull the most profit out of the productive sector of society as possible, that isn't an easy job.

 

[RGacky3]

Property is enforced by force. The state, as expressed in modern times, is the sole purveyor of (legal) force. What I said, that you failed to respond to, is that plutocracy can only exist through artificial barriers to entry of competition. Sometimes this is regulatory (not always), sometimes its cabalistic (when a few individuals collude in illegal ways), and sometimes its straight up by fiat (like when the government awards no-bid contracts). Plutocracy can only really exist in any sustainable way when a state actor carves out special protections and exemptions for it.

Did you know there is only one natural (organic) monopoly to ever arise without government protection? Alcoa was one of the first entrants into the aluminum market due to a patent on the process to smelt aluminum from aluminum oxide. They invested all of their earnings in expanding production, securing raw materials, and obtaining good sites for efficient hydroelectric power. They were acting almost alone in the market at the beginning and they played it very smart. Alcoa was an "accidental monopoly" in that none of their practices could be deemed "coercive", even under Justice Hand's most liberal redefinition of the word. They were simply making more of a product that had limitless demand. Two world wars and the dawn of the aviation age catapulted them into superpower status. The point of this story is that the government (or some other group of actors) are almost always responsible for protectionist policies that lead to monopoly. The freer the market, the harder it is to create a monopoly, because everyone is allowed to compete as hard as they can and they DO! A new technology, a new industry, and a couple of well-timed wars are the only reason Alcoa was positioned like it was.

No plutocracy does NOT exist through "artificial Barriers to entry" most Barriers to entry of competition are entirely internal to the market, one example is lack of Access to Capital, another is lack of a saftey net, another is competing against economies of sclae ... the fact is the libertarian world is where all Resources, and goods and services, and market based, how dose the market work? The more Money you have, the more Power you have, the more resrouces you can Control, the more bargaining Power you have, and so on and so forth, i.e. PLUTOCRACY, you dont' need to government for that, all you need the government to do is to enforce strict property laws, then those With the most property and Capital can Control Things With their property and Capital since everything is market based.

Depends how you define a monopoly, I'd say large landowners are monopolies in an area, the Pullman Company controlled a town, the debears Company, you had the Railroad Companies in the 1800s ...

BTW, you don't NEED a monopoly to have plutocracy .... you can have competing plutocrats, it doesn't make a difference, the system is still the same, if you have the Money you Control what happens in the economy and who gets what Resources.

No, I'm not in favor of plutocracy. That is the fallacy of false dilemma. I don't trust the mob to make decisions that won't trample the rights of minority members of the mob, but I also don't believe an oligarchy made up of the rich and powerful is a better alternative. I'm saying I believe in a free market system that makes it harder for a plutocracy to arise, and impossible for it to sustain itself in the absence of governmental protectionism.

Oh yes you are, you want almost all goods and Resources to be determined by the market, and in a market system, more Capital = more say ... it's one dollar one vote, and if you Control the Capital or Resources or land, you Control all the votes on what is done With that Capital or Resources or land ... that's plutocracy, more Money more Power. one dollar one vote.

If you have enough Money you can trample on any ones rights you want.

 

[Neomalthusian]

1. legislation doesn't allow unions to exist, unions existed organically, they were banned in many Places and legislation was needed to stop them from being banned.

A lot of things exist organically but government clamps down on it to make society better off.

So the government should ban certain contracts that are unfaivorable for one of the parties?

They're unfavorable to all of society. Why did the US pass Sherman over 100 years ago? That effectively "banned a certain type of contract." Are you saying the US should repeal Sherman?

Unions are not monopolies .... by definition, they are not the only Source of labor ....

By definition of "closed shop," yes they are. No other seller of the type of labor covered in a "closed shop" arrangement can sell it to that buyer. That means the buyer of that labor has one choice for purchasing that labor. That creates a monopoly situation.

Unions don't sell labor ...

Yes they do. Unions are organizations of workers. Workers sell labor. That is what they do.

also a monopoly is the sole seller in a market,

Yep. And that's what they do. They make themselves a sole supplier of whatever types of labor come under their control. This is especially the case in the public sector, which itself is a natural monopoly. These markets cannot get their municipal services from anyone outside the union.

You have that right without right to work .... don't work for a closed shop.

You didn't comprehend what was said. Any qualified seller of a particular type of labor should be able to sell it. They should not be forced to join a union as a condition of being able to sell their labor.

Unions don't sell labor .... and the agreement is made With the buisiness, it's a FREE MARKET agreement ...

Yes they do sell labor, this was established above. And no, it is not a free market agreement because our laws force employers to negotiate with unions. A free market would not compel people to do business with one another when they don't want to. If it were a free market when it comes to unions, employers would simply decide never to speak to unions or hire anyone belonging to one. For unions to exist, law needs to be written forcing employers to submit to their demands. And that's what we have today.

What state, and what does the Law actually say?

Alaska Statutes 23.40.070 states "(2) requiring public employers to negotiate with and enter into written agreements with employee organizations on matters of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment;" LINK

So much for your "free market agreement." It isn't really a free agreement when one party is FORCED by statute to negotiate with the other and FORCED to enter into written agreements. Unions require this element of force. They have to have it. They die without it. The law has to coerce employers (which in this case is the public at large) to say they agree.

And this is precisely where your thread falls apart. Libertarians do not believe in government writing laws that exert force over individual liberties in this manner. Unions and their tactics are 100% counter to what libertarians believe.

Umm ok, but RTW laws are for unions in general ... if you want to talk about the Public sector, that's a different subject.

No it's not. Unions are far more prevalent in the public sector. Discussions of unions should center around the public sector and the private sector should be a footnote to it.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Except it is NOT in outside of their own interest to sign a clsoed shop deal With the other option is a strike ....

I'm sorry, if you consider threatening a strke to be force, because it causes a buisiness to act in a way they normally wouldn't, then almost ALL market transactions are force ...

The State is using the threat of force to PREVENT a free transaction between People (union and buisiness), to make a private buisiness deal on hiring ....

A union cannot arrest anyone, the state can.

If the alternative is a strike, how is that not FORCE? "Cave to our demands, or lose your business. Our way, or the highway." The state supports this by allowing and supporting stipulations like labor agreement fines for union laborers who break a strike (forcing strikes as unanimous participation events) by votes that do not, by law, have to be unanimous. These fines are enforceable and collectible in court, and they are severe. Just one more way in which a union contract seeks to prevent free transactions between people.

ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN DEFINITION, you're contradicting the night watchman state theory in supporting a right to work Law ....

When the state uses its monopoly on force to enforce the restriction of free transactions between private individuals, then that state is acting outside the scope of a Night Watchman state.

Again, you can't contract with illegal stipulations. For example, a union contract cannot specify that only white people will be hired by the union. It doesn't matter if the business signs it or not, that contract is not enforceable because that is an illegal stipulation. If the state were to come in and enforce such a contract with such a stipulation, that state would be acting outside of its scope, according to a minarchist. When you remove the threat of state enacted force, sure, go nuts, sign whatever document you want, but if you have unenforceable (or unethical or immoral) stipulations, that contract shouldn't exist and won't without some kind of outside help.

And that, in a nutshell, is the moral basis for Libertarianism.

Not going to work is not the same as physically holding person in a confined area .... the analogy doesn't work.

Unless of coarse you believe in slavery.

The state uses force when labor boards slap fines on businesses or when courts order union incurred fines to be paid by employees. And picket lines can be quite physical. There is a long history of physical intimidation and physical violence (on behalf of both unions and business who try to bust them... but that's a chicken-and-egg argument as to how each one started).

Yes, they have long CVs of experience of how to pull the most profit out of the productive sector of society as possible, that isn't an easy job.

So your claim is that no CEO has EVER contributed to overall market growth, streamlined logistics, increased efficiency, cut red tape, increased market share, or any of a hundred other metrics that provide value to the company that hires them? That is your claim? CEOs literally exist to "pull profit" out of a company?