The Real Vulgar Libertarians: The "Libertarian" Left

nibbler491:

Nitroadict:

nibbler491:

Nitroadict:

nibbler491:

sicsempertyrannis:

nibbler491:

I don't see how a market anarchist could NOT support unions. They're a voluntary organization of workers.

I doubt many employers would allow them on their property in a free society. I know I wouldnt.

What in the world does that have to do with unions?

 

The fundamental right of a property owner to refuse entry, as well as employment, to the free-market analogs of unions. 

 

Again, that has nothing to do with unions. I have no problem with business owners refusing to hire union members. The purpose of unions, however, is to give the workers leverage over the business owner, so he can't just do whatever he wants(without risking losing his entire work force). To oppose unions you must also oppose free association and voluntary interaction between people. So Rothbard most assuredly vehemently supported unions, for to oppose them would make him a statist. I'm sure he vehemently opposed unions that used state power, but that was due to his objection to the state, not due to his objection of unions.

 

Wrong.  There would be nothing or nobody (except maybe a coercive agent or institute, upon which various agreements & polycentric law would have punishments against) to force people to accept unions in the first place; refusing to associate with unions is also apart of free-association & voluntary interaction. 

Unless of course, doing so is a breach of contract or a prior agreement, which unions could have a role in immediate oversight on the employee level, with the higher courts & arbitrators being there to provide services when disputes aren''t immediately settled...

Are you going to further suggest that there should be *forced* free-association & *forced* voluntary interaction?  This would be absurd & would violate the very concepts themselves.

Dude, what the hell are you rambling about? I'm honestly at a loss for words because of how asinine that paragraph sounded. The union, as a concept, is defined as a voluntary cooperation of workers, at no point have I even alluded to anything to the contrary. I, in fact, made it blatantly clear that the union I support is one of free association, voluntary interaction, and does not use state power.

You decided to throw up quite a few RIDICULOUS straw men that are downright retarded, and do not even remotely resemble the positions I hold, or anything I have stated in this thread. I do not support unions that are forced upon people by some "coercive agent or institutions."(which, as I pointed out, would no longer be a union, as unions are by their very nature voluntary associations) I never said that workers could not decline to join a union if they so choose.

I just pointed out that if workers wanted to form a union, you cannot stop them, because to do so you would cease to be an anarchist. This of course means that, as an anarchist you MUST support unions, just as you support any other voluntary interaction between free people.

 

 

1.) Wall of text makes my eyes bleed.

2.) Vulgar adjectives do little to the wall of text.

I just pointed out that if workers wanted to form a union, you cannot stop them

How did I object to that?  You cannot stop people forming unions, just as you cannot stop people from refusing to employ union members, as long as the unions are voluntary & non-coercive, and the refusal to employ is voluntary & non-coercive.  How does this not make sense?

I do not support unions that are forced upon people by some "coercive agent or institutions."

I never said you did, I see no reason for a defensive strawmen.  Chill out, lol.

This of course means that, as an anarchist you MUST support unions, just as you support any other voluntary interaction between free people.

I thought as an anarchist, you must also respect the ability to not voluntary interact with unions, as well. 

I do not support unions that are forced upon people by some "coercive agent or institutions."(which, as I pointed out, would no longer be a union, as unions are by their very nature voluntary associations) I never said that workers could not decline to join a union if they so choose.

Unions in a stateless society, yes; unions in a State society, not necessarily.  Okay, remind me again why you are disagreeing with me, since you basically just agreed with me?

I, in fact, made it blatantly clear that the union I support is one of free association, voluntary interaction, and does not use state power.

Unions do not have a monopolization over free association & voluntary interaction (i.e. not everyone needs to be in a union if they choose it).  I realize you did not argue that they did, I just bring it up since it reinforces the point that it's equally free-associative & voluntary to not associate with unions.

So yea, really didn't mean to offend you in anyway.  Just felt like contributing :\

Brainpolice:

There would be nothing or nobody (except maybe a coercive agent or institute, upon which various agreements & polycentric law would have punishments against) to force people to accept unions in the first place; refusing to associate with unions is also apart of free-association & voluntary interaction. 

The same thing is true of limited liability contracts and corporations.

Didn't say otherwise :\

It seems that we agree then and did as libertarians often do(demonstrated quite well in this thread): argue past each other. LL do not support state unions, for they would not be LL if they did. If they do, they fall in to the same trap that AnCaps do when they support state capitalism, and the corporations that have arisen in that system.

One poster insinuated that Murray Rothbard would not support unions, thus making it impossible for him to be a LL, which I found ridiculous. This is why I showed that unions are perfectly compatable with libertarianism, while opposing unions is the exact opposite.

Also, sorry for getting so defense ;p

Nitroadict:

Brainpolice:

There would be nothing or nobody (except maybe a coercive agent or institute, upon which various agreements & polycentric law would have punishments against) to force people to accept unions in the first place; refusing to associate with unions is also apart of free-association & voluntary interaction. 

The same thing is true of limited liability contracts and corporations.

Didn't say otherwise :\

I know, but a few of the notorious right-libertarians here do say otherwise. The point is, there is a double standard. Too often, ancaps simply bash the very concept of unions and cooperative management as if it's inherently coercive by definition, which is a mischaracterization when one is dealing with a libertarian-contextual favor for such things. Left-libertarians do not favor state-created union cartels, it's just that to one degree or another they might favor the general concept of a union (I.E. an organization for the purpose of increasing the bargaining power of workers) in a libertarian context.

nibbler491:

I don't see how a market anarchist could NOT support unions. They're a voluntary organization of workers.

I don't see how a market anarchist could NOT support cartels. They're a voluntary organization of buisness.

 

Brainpolice:

The point is, there is a double standard. Too often, ancaps simply bash the very concept of unions and cooperative management as if it's inherently coercive by definition, which is a mischaracterization when one is dealing with a libertarian-contextual favor for such things.

Not coercive, just inefficient. The coercive part follows from that.

Brainpolice:

it's just that to one degree or another they might favor the general concept of a union (I.E. an organization for the purpose of increasing the bargaining power of workers) 

What you mean is, a cartel on labour?

nibbler491:

You seem to have a convoluted idea of what a left-libertarianism is. I think when you hear LL you think Noam Chomsky when you should think Rothbard and SEK III

You're deluding yourself, Rothbard was a never a LL, he was a cultural conservative.

Brainpolice:

The fact that you characterize Molyneux as a left-libertarian is amusing, given that he does not identify that way and is not associated with the alliance of the liberarian left.

I'm sure Hitler wouldn't have referred to himself as a mass murderer either, what's your point?

Brainpolice:

The same thing is true of limited liability contracts and corporations.

Only, there are other advantages to limited liability contracts and corporations. Unions are just cartels, I'm sure you've read enough economics to know what AE has to say about cartels, no?

GilesStratton:

nibbler491:

I don't see how a market anarchist could NOT support unions. They're a voluntary organization of workers.

I don't see how a market anarchist could NOT support cartels. They're a voluntary organization of buisness.

 

You're right, they couldn't. I certainly support cartels that are not created by state intervention.

GilesStratton:

Not coercive, just inefficient. The coercive part follows from that.

If it's inefficient, then it will be driven out of the market place, just like everything else.

 

GilesStratton:

You're deluding yourself, Rothbard was a never a LL, he was a cultural conservative.

Rothbard coined the term "left-libertarian" and it is used to describe Rothbardians and market anarchists, which certainly accurately characterizes Rothbard. Rothbard's cultural preferences has nothing to do with this.

 

Not coercive, just inefficient. The coercive part follows from that.

No it doesn't. There is a qualatitive difference between something being just inefficient and something being coercive. Something being coercive does not logically follow from it not being efficient. Efficiency /= the criteria for voluntaryism vs. coercivism.

What you mean is, a cartel on labour?

No, I'm refering to the mere voluntary organization of workers. That's all that a union is in theory, and in the context of a libertarian society, there's nothing inherently wrong with such an organization granted that it doesn't initiate force. Your argument would be no more legitimate than calling any buisiness, by definition, a "cartel on capital".

GilesStratton:

nibbler491:

You seem to have a convoluted idea of what a left-libertarianism is. I think when you hear LL you think Noam Chomsky when you should think Rothbard and SEK III

You're deluding yourself, Rothbard was a never a LL, he was a cultural conservative.

How many times do people have to point you to his writtings from the 60's and early 70's where he clearly expresses LL views, or presents ideas that form the basis for many contemporary LL views? You can't just dismiss it out of hand, and the fact that he was a cultural conservative isn't the only criteria. Regaurdless, cultural preferance is not the sole thing that makes the LL vs. RL distinction. Stop being disingenuous. Rothbard inspired the LL, wether you like it or not.

GilesStratton:

Brainpolice:

The fact that you characterize Molyneux as a left-libertarian is amusing, given that he does not identify that way and is not associated with the alliance of the liberarian left.

I'm sure Hitler wouldn't have referred to himself as a mass murderer either, what's your point?

The point is that half of what you're typing are misrepresentations and lies.

GilesStratton:

Brainpolice:

The same thing is true of limited liability contracts and corporations.

Only, there are other advantages to limited liability contracts and corporations. Unions are just cartels, I'm sure you've read enough economics to know what AE has to say about cartels, no?

You are superimposing the state-definition of unions onto the concept of a union as a whole, which is misleading. Furthermore, your exact same arguments apply no better or worse to corporations, one could just as easily call them cartels as well.

Brainpolice:

Regaurdless, cultural preferance is not the sole thing that makes the LL vs. RL distinction. Stop being disingenuous. Rothbard inspired the LL, wether you like it or not.

I would go so far as to say it may be completely unrelated. I myself hold more than a few culturally conservative (or traditional or popular or however youw ant to see it) cultural values but still call myself a left libertarian. I was not aware that one had to have certain cultural preferences in order to call oneself a libertarian of any stripe. 

Brainpolice:

You are superimposing the state-definition of unions onto the concept of a union as a whole, which is misleading.

You see, the concept of a union in a libertarian society is fairly self-defeating.  Ok so the workers form a union after hours to keep it hidden from the management.  Then, as an earlier poster suggested, the union strikes suddenly, making the usual union demands.  But in most cases, it would be over before it got under way - management fires every worker who participated in the strike, so the whole ordeal was pointless.   Short of strikes, how would this new 'libertarian' union be able to accomplish anything without resorting to criminal acts? 

And that brings up another question - when havent unions simply been a cartel to achieve above-market level wages?

You should read Carson. Labor has what's called human capital where production-specific information is not known to management and is not easily replaced. A sudden and uniform strike would be disastrous to any firm, especially if the management did the worst thing and fired everybody at once.

Management does not understand or cannot perform most of the jobs that it handles, and so a catastrophe would result. The idea that you can just easily replace all the workers at once, comes from a collectivist and deliberate underestimation of labor's value. Now this happens in degrees, where for example, shelf-stockers are more easily replaced than more skilled labor, but the assumption that all labor is basically brain-dead and interchangable, is ridiculous (and it violates methodological individualism).

spires:

You should read Carson. Labor has what's called human capital where production-specific information is not known to management and is not easily replaced. A sudden and uniform strike would be disastrous to any firm, especially if the management did the worst thing and fired everybody at once.

While the premise is possible, it is not likely.  Have you ever worked a union job?  I know that a 'statist' union isnt the same thing, but when I worked a particular union job I was dragged into strikes I did not want to start.  You'd have a hard time preventing every last employee from working.

spires:

but the assumption that all labor is basically brain-dead and interchangable, is ridiculous (and it violates methodological individualism). 

I agree.  But the current union group think also violates methodological individualism, and it would be unworkable.

The closest thing you're going to get in a libertarian world to a union is a trade guild.

spires:

Management does not understand or cannot perform most of the jobs that it handles, and so a catastrophe would result.

Not if they have a good contingency plan.

I believe in a decentralized economy, there won't be such a demand for unions anyway.  Unions are just now, because I don't believe the corporation is a just private owner.  But in a free market, the conditions would be different, the basic bargaining ability of labor would be already much stronger, denecessitating much union activity. It would still be a perfectly viable and voluntary option, though.

 

sicsempertyrannis:

I know that a 'statist' union isnt the same thing

I was going to point this out.

ryanpatgray:

Not if they have a good contingency plan.

This obviously relies on state collusion to be workable.

 

I think both objections rely on statist conditions existing, and therefore are invalid criticisms.