Libertarians are people who haven't thought through the consequences of their beliefs, and expect the world to conform to their own ignorance. Jimbob's point is salient: the libertarian position appears to be one of pre-determined beliefs (government, unions: bad. private sector: good) and the forcing of any real-world square peg into their ideological round hole.
The links to the bleedinghearts essays demonstrate this. They're even trying, the poor bastards, but even into adulthood apparently these people have never even considered the question "Why exactly is it okay for private actors to wield such immense power over individuals when you're so opposed to the government doing it?".
labor law prohibits employers from dealing with unions as they would prefer to - in many cases preventing them from hiring scabs, firing striking workers, etc.
On a side note, I find it really hard to understand the absolute hate here directed against a position that says you're free to live your life as you please, without other people forcing you to do things. Damn you, Libertarians, for...wanting freedom from oppression for me and everyone else...
Taken out of context as it is, this observation would appear to apply equally to labor as to "business men." How are public sector unions anything but a conspiracy against the public who employ them?
It assumes all sorts of false equalities between the two, similar to saying, "Whites should be able to discriminate against blacks just as much as blacks should be able to discriminate against whites!"
If the employers could get them for cheaper, they would.
What baffles me is that at some point the collective action turns from being a free choice of members to becoming some sort of coercive evil thing. When does that happen? At what point?
The argument that whatever relationships of subordination and subjection you entered into are ipso facto legitimate ones--that you consented and contracted for them, didn't you, and you did so because they were a good, nay the best, deal open to you, weren't they (for if they weren't, you would have chosen something else)?--has always been subject to two critiques...
« Older Now to 'scape the serpent's tongue, | How does the U.S. electoral... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments