Comments on: Sarkozy’s brilliant game with the unions http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/sarkozys-brilliant-game-with-the-unions/ Monkey #121643810 reporting for duty... Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:43:49 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Jonathan http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/sarkozys-brilliant-game-with-the-unions/comment-page-1/#comment-1515 Jonathan Mon, 07 Apr 2008 05:55:57 +0000 http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/sarkozys-brilliant-game-with-the-unions/#comment-1515 Dave: I can't speak for most libertarians, but I don't think the government should outlaw unions in theory, or prevent them from striking. Free markets aren't anarchic markets, though. Unions, in practice, tend to be abusive of their power and distortive of free markets. I would have no problem if unions were voluntary and essentially a collection of individuals exercising their right to cooperation. But when unions "take over" an industry, and prevent non-union workers from operating, they are just as bad as any corporation, and just as abusive of their power. That should be prevented by government just as much as price-fixing or fraud should be, not as intrusions of government into free markets, but as protections of them as free. I'm perfectly willing to admit government is a useful force. I love it when it intervenes in the operations of criminals, for example. I'm not sure of the official definition of when government becomes "big" government, but I'm for whatever amount of government is necessary to fulfill the duties for which a government is best suited, such as the protection of rights. Aside from the questio of what is fair for the government to do, I think unionization is almost always a bad idea in practice. They were once necessary, but eventually they do more harm than good. They have pretty much destroyed American manufacturing, and are a large part of the reason our public schools are so bad. Once a shop goes union, the ability to operate within the bounds of common sense becomes contractually prohibited. Dave:

I can’t speak for most libertarians, but I don’t think the government should outlaw unions in theory, or prevent them from striking. Free markets aren’t anarchic markets, though. Unions, in practice, tend to be abusive of their power and distortive of free markets. I would have no problem if unions were voluntary and essentially a collection of individuals exercising their right to cooperation. But when unions “take over” an industry, and prevent non-union workers from operating, they are just as bad as any corporation, and just as abusive of their power. That should be prevented by government just as much as price-fixing or fraud should be, not as intrusions of government into free markets, but as protections of them as free.

I’m perfectly willing to admit government is a useful force. I love it when it intervenes in the operations of criminals, for example. I’m not sure of the official definition of when government becomes “big” government, but I’m for whatever amount of government is necessary to fulfill the duties for which a government is best suited, such as the protection of rights.

Aside from the questio of what is fair for the government to do, I think unionization is almost always a bad idea in practice. They were once necessary, but eventually they do more harm than good. They have pretty much destroyed American manufacturing, and are a large part of the reason our public schools are so bad. Once a shop goes union, the ability to operate within the bounds of common sense becomes contractually prohibited.

]]> By: Dave Simard http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/sarkozys-brilliant-game-with-the-unions/comment-page-1/#comment-1495 Dave Simard Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:30:45 +0000 http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/sarkozys-brilliant-game-with-the-unions/#comment-1495 Here's something I always had a tough time with: Why do libertarian sensibilities usually come packaged with an iron-fisted union-busting attitude? If we're going to let everybody be free to do what they want, doesn't that include organizing into unions for collective barganing? Isn't that just a manifestation of a free-market that will live or die by it's ability to compete? I think the answer is the vague sense that unions smell like communism, and that most people who consider themeslves libertarian really aren't. There's also plain old pragmatism, of course. Strikes suck for everybody else. That's especially true for general strikes, which we don't have anymore becuase they're very illegal (I'm not sure you're aware of just how far we went in the 20th century to emasculate unions through legislation). But if you're ready to allow that much government intervention to make daily life work, aren't you already admitting that big-government is a useful force? Here’s something I always had a tough time with: Why do libertarian sensibilities usually come packaged with an iron-fisted union-busting attitude? If we’re going to let everybody be free to do what they want, doesn’t that include organizing into unions for collective barganing? Isn’t that just a manifestation of a free-market that will live or die by it’s ability to compete?

I think the answer is the vague sense that unions smell like communism, and that most people who consider themeslves libertarian really aren’t.

There’s also plain old pragmatism, of course. Strikes suck for everybody else. That’s especially true for general strikes, which we don’t have anymore becuase they’re very illegal (I’m not sure you’re aware of just how far we went in the 20th century to emasculate unions through legislation). But if you’re ready to allow that much government intervention to make daily life work, aren’t you already admitting that big-government is a useful force?

]]>