Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?  (Read 16040 times)

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2011, 07:38:04 am »

Which makes your entire arguement self-contradictory: on the one hand, you applaud the GOPs efforts to 'reighn in the NH public unions," yet you must admit that NONE of the adverse affects you associate with public unions: poor eceonomies, higher joblessness, etc., exist in New Hampshire.  Sounds like you;re trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist - and being mean-spirited "just because."

Yeah, I'll tell all the folks I know who are out of work, that it's really okay, they aren't actually out of work, and the economy is doing great, eh?

Just because NH is doing better than the national average, doesn't mean that we can't do better.  I wonder if there's any reason NH might be doing better than average?  Hmmm... how does our rate of unionization compare?  Oh, we have one of the lowest, you say?

Allowing parties to freely negotiate the terms of their employee contract is a libertarian position.

Public-sector workers don't engage in free negotiations.  If I don't pay them, someone shows up and murders me.

The private sector can be just as oppressive and liberty-denying as the government sector.  Powerful private interests have always forced less powerful people into slavery via tenancy, chattel, and/or indenture.  A Man trapped in location, job, or debt is just as enslaved, whether by Government or by Private interests. It is not a question of private vs Public: it is a question of power differentials, regardless of the source.

No one is "trapped" in a job, unless the government trapped him there.

Further, if I don't like how Alphabet Soup Corporation treats its employees, I can show solidarity with their plight and refuse to buy from them.  Can't do that, with the government, unless I want to be murdered by those cops you love so much...

Tell that to the State Liquor Store.  They also increase wealth by reducing societal costs that would other wise be borne by the citizens, thus INCREASING citizens disposable income.  It is LESS costly to have a Registry of Deeds than  it is to litigate property disputes.  It is LESS costly to have State Troopers than it is to personally responsible for the enfocement of property rights.

Um, no, monopolies are always less efficient and more expensive.  It would be less expensive, if we could choose between several free-market agencies in any of those fields.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

creaganlios

  • Guest
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2011, 08:30:19 am »

Not exactly Joe. You would need to compare unionized employees to unionized employees... which the studies don't.
But in any case, that would simply be the failure of the negotiator that represents you.

Hardly.  It would just mean that private-sector unions are also discriminatory.  Thing is, as a libertarian, I don't oppose discrimination within the private sector.  At least, not beyond personal distaste and such.  But the government should be banned from engaging in discriminatory behavior.

No. It means that unions create equivalent market power, resulting in a more equitable market price for labor.  If your complaint is that union workers make too much..I would suggest that your REAL complaint is that NON-union workers - much like unorganized farmers - make far too little, because they lack the ability to match the market power of employers.

Wealth and Income continues to be concentrated in the hands of the few, and unions are one of the few tools that laborers have reverse that process.
Logged

creaganlios

  • Guest
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2011, 08:32:04 am »

Public-sector workers don't engage in free negotiations.  If I don't pay them, someone shows up and murders me.

Your credibility just took a nosedive.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2011, 09:02:44 am »

Quote
The private sector can be just as oppressive and liberty-denying as the government sector.  Powerful private interests have always forced less powerful people into slavery via tenancy, chattel, and/or indenture.  A Man trapped in location, job, or debt is just as enslaved, whether by Government or by Private interests. It is not a question of private vs Public: it is a question of power differentials, regardless of the source.

This is THE RIGHT-LIBERTARIAN blindspot...very nicely put!
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2011, 09:09:43 am »

Not exactly Joe. You would need to compare unionized employees to unionized employees... which the studies don't.
But in any case, that would simply be the failure of the negotiator that represents you.

Hardly.  It would just mean that private-sector unions are also discriminatory.  Thing is, as a libertarian, I don't oppose discrimination within the private sector.  At least, not beyond personal distaste and such.  But the government should be banned from engaging in discriminatory behavior.

No. It means that unions create equivalent market power, resulting in a more equitable market price for labor.  If your complaint is that union workers make too much..I would suggest that your REAL complaint is that NON-union workers - much like unorganized farmers - make far too little, because they lack the ability to match the market power of employers.

Wealth and Income continues to be concentrated in the hands of the few, and unions are one of the few tools that laborers have reverse that process.

Yes, and us left-libertarians would like to also to address statist privilege FIRST that "allows" such concentrations of "wealth" by legalizing rent-seeking behavior BEFORE attacking any attempts by labor to equalize market power OR social welfare programs that are needed BECAUSE of statist privilege.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2011, 12:04:16 pm »

Nope. Not a public hearing.
And its been determined by several legislators to be not germane to the budget... just a last minute rider.
The same thing that got Democrats ousted. Even the Republican responses have been 'well the Democrats did it'... as if a different fate should occur.

Discriminatory in what manner?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2011, 12:09:40 pm »

Quote
The private sector can be just as oppressive and liberty-denying as the government sector.  Powerful private interests have always forced less powerful people into slavery via tenancy, chattel, and/or indenture.  A Man trapped in location, job, or debt is just as enslaved, whether by Government or by Private interests. It is not a question of private vs Public: it is a question of power differentials, regardless of the source.

This is THE RIGHT-LIBERTARIAN blindspot...very nicely put!
I consider it a CHEAP SHOT. Unionization or not, it will not change the outlook of the workforce... private or public.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2011, 12:11:47 pm »

Public-sector workers don't engage in free negotiations.  If I don't pay them, someone shows up and murders me.

Your credibility just took a nosedive.
Yeah, that was a bad one. Public sector employees hardly have that kind of leverage.
And I've seen more than a few times where a disgruntled private sector employee does show up and murders someone.

Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2011, 12:13:41 pm »

Not exactly Joe. You would need to compare unionized employees to unionized employees... which the studies don't.
But in any case, that would simply be the failure of the negotiator that represents you.

Hardly.  It would just mean that private-sector unions are also discriminatory.  Thing is, as a libertarian, I don't oppose discrimination within the private sector.  At least, not beyond personal distaste and such.  But the government should be banned from engaging in discriminatory behavior.

No. It means that unions create equivalent market power, resulting in a more equitable market price for labor.  If your complaint is that union workers make too much..I would suggest that your REAL complaint is that NON-union workers - much like unorganized farmers - make far too little, because they lack the ability to match the market power of employers.

Wealth and Income continues to be concentrated in the hands of the few, and unions are one of the few tools that laborers have reverse that process.
Farmers generally employ themselves... pretty much like the rest of us. And you can do pretty well as a farmer, if you have the management skills.
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2011, 12:28:10 pm »

Not exactly Joe. You would need to compare unionized employees to unionized employees... which the studies don't.
But in any case, that would simply be the failure of the negotiator that represents you.

Hardly.  It would just mean that private-sector unions are also discriminatory.  Thing is, as a libertarian, I don't oppose discrimination within the private sector.  At least, not beyond personal distaste and such.  But the government should be banned from engaging in discriminatory behavior.

No. It means that unions create equivalent market power, resulting in a more equitable market price for labor.  If your complaint is that union workers make too much..I would suggest that your REAL complaint is that NON-union workers - much like unorganized farmers - make far too little, because they lack the ability to match the market power of employers.

Wealth and Income continues to be concentrated in the hands of the few, and unions are one of the few tools that laborers have reverse that process.

Yes, and us left-libertarians would like to also to address statist privilege FIRST that "allows" such concentrations of "wealth" by legalizing rent-seeking behavior BEFORE attacking any attempts by labor to equalize market power OR social welfare programs that are needed BECAUSE of statist privilege.

If your going to hate on capitalism why are you even in the FSP? Capitalism is freedom and anything else is slavery. I hope these workers get cut. They do absolutely nothing beneficial to society and they take our taxes. They need to be put in jail as thieves.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2011, 12:44:14 pm »

Quote
Capitalism is freedom and anything else is slavery.

OK, Mr. "vulgar libertarian*" - did you even read Tully's response about an imbalance of "market/bargaining power"... labor vs. owners of capital (employers)?

"Allowing parties to freely negotiate the terms of their employee contract ~ with equal bargaining power ~ is a libertarian position."

Did you read his post that "the private sector can be just as oppressive and liberty-denying as the government sector.  Powerful private interests have always forced less powerful people into slavery via tenancy, chattel, and/or indenture."


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carson

Kevin Carson coined the pejorative term "vulgar libertarianism," a phrase that describes the use of a free market rhetoric in defense of corporate capitalism and economic inequality. According to Carson, the term is derived from the phrase "vulgar political economy," which Karl Marx described as an economic order that "deliberately becomes increasingly apologetic and makes strenuous attempts to talk out of existence the ideas which contain the contradictions [existing in economic life]."

Carson writes that vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article in The Freeman arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."

Much of Carson's writing is dedicated to critiquing other writers who he perceives as being vulgar libertarians. A sporadically recurring feature on his blog is called "Vulgar Libertarian Watch." Economists and organizations that he has accused of vulgar libertarianism include Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Madsen Pirie, Radley Balko and the Adam Smith Institute.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 12:50:52 pm by WendellBerry »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2011, 01:38:10 pm »

No. It means that unions create equivalent market power, resulting in a more equitable market price for labor.  If your complaint is that union workers make too much..I would suggest that your REAL complaint is that NON-union workers - much like unorganized farmers - make far too little, because they lack the ability to match the market power of employers.

Wealth and Income continues to be concentrated in the hands of the few, and unions are one of the few tools that laborers have reverse that process.

No, public employees make insane pay, for the same work.  Not, "they're making reasonable pay, and you're making too little."  How many public employees are making, salary and benefits, six figures?

There is not a single job performed by any public employee that is worth six figures on the open market.

Public-sector workers don't engage in free negotiations.  If I don't pay them, someone shows up and murders me.
Your credibility just took a nosedive.

Only with thugs who like murdering people for not paying their salary for work those people don't want to hire them for.

Yeah, that was a bad one. Public sector employees hardly have that kind of leverage.
And I've seen more than a few times where a disgruntled private sector employee does show up and murders someone.

Stop paying your taxes, then.  See what happens.  If you don't choose to comply, under threat of death, that threat will become very much actualized.  Threatening death is the only tool the State has.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

swamp_yankee

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2011, 01:44:03 pm »

Quote from: swamp_yankee on March 30, 2011, 10:12:17 pm
States sympathetic to public unions with large government workforces suffer higher taxes, higher deficits, higher unemployment (often due to the higher taxes to pay for those public unions), poorer economies, and the services rendered are no better, and often worse, than their more fiscally responsible counterparts with their more streamlined, responsive and efficient government entities.

Which makes your entire arguement self-contradictory: on the one hand, you applaud the GOPs efforts to 'reighn in the NH public unions," yet you must admit that NONE of the adverse affects you associate with public unions: poor eceonomies, higher joblessness, etc., exist in New Hampshire.  Sounds like you;re trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist - and being mean-spirited "just because."

Not at all. NH is just one state. Using one state as anecdotal evidence, when the body of evidence demonstrates that states with strong public unions are in the most trouble and their citizens ar no better off for subsiding government excess.  

NH has traditionally held a small government attitudes. But in over a century, we have seen steady government growth everywhere including NH. Government always grows and it takes a lot of will and forethought to keep it in check.   With these new majorities, it is a chance to make sure the public sector will not consume the private sector. Government in NH has been growing, especially under the recent Democratic majorities. But if the path continues unabated, it will end up like Massachusetts and Rhode Island and New York.

One of the things that keeps NH above its peers, is its more conservative fiscal policies. As we witnessed, Fidelity move its operations to NH. This week Breyers is shutting down its plant in MA for TN. Productive people keep moving across the border from MA to NH, while union hacks, bleeding the private sector, make over a 100,000 to sit in toll booth at Massport.

Even if I accepted NH as anecdotal evidence, it’s an anomaly. Look at the collective evidence. CA has 10% sales and 10% income taxes. Huge gas taxes and more. And the still have poor services, force unpaid furloughs on the state workers, when they are not paying them in IOUs and begging the Feds to bail them out. Michigan is recognized disaster. Detroit is a wastelnand.  In Illinois, gas stations won’t let government workers use their stations because their credit is no good. Minnesota governor has propsed to raise the state income tax to 14% because he cant and wont cut the public sector expeditures because of the unions. CA, IL, NY, NJ, RI, MI…   and other states that are sympathy to public unions are consistently in the most trouble. Not theory, just reality. Pubic unions serve themselves, not the general public. By comarison, states with less pressure from public sector unions  like NH, ID, WY, UT, TX, AZ, SC, TN, ND look rosey.
 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 02:00:26 pm by swamp_yankee »
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2011, 02:08:47 pm »

Fidelity moved the employees to its remaining operations. It didn't have anything to do with unions, public or private.
Using that example is as bad as suggesting that Thompson moved to Massachussets because NH firearm laws were too stringent.
Or that Ethan Allen moved the furniture manufacturing operation to Vermont because NH was anti-timber.

NH has conservative fiscal policies? When did we get those?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
unions and land and such was: Protest Rally in Concord?
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2011, 02:15:57 pm »

No. It means that unions create equivalent market power, resulting in a more equitable market price for labor.  If your complaint is that union workers make too much..I would suggest that your REAL complaint is that NON-union workers - much like unorganized farmers - make far too little, because they lack the ability to match the market power of employers.

Wealth and Income continues to be concentrated in the hands of the few, and unions are one of the few tools that laborers have reverse that process.

No, public employees make insane pay, for the same work.  Not, "they're making reasonable pay, and you're making too little."  How many public employees are making, salary and benefits, six figures?

There is not a single job performed by any public employee that is worth six figures on the open market.

Public-sector workers don't engage in free negotiations.  If I don't pay them, someone shows up and murders me.
Your credibility just took a nosedive.

Only with thugs who like murdering people for not paying their salary for work those people don't want to hire them for.

Yeah, that was a bad one. Public sector employees hardly have that kind of leverage.
And I've seen more than a few times where a disgruntled private sector employee does show up and murders someone.

Stop paying your taxes, then.  See what happens.  If you don't choose to comply, under threat of death, that threat will become very much actualized.  Threatening death is the only tool the State has.

Joe
But its not public employees... its the representatives of the People. They have the power to tax and spend. And those making the big pay won't be touched.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 8   Go Up