Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Yes or No Question for Libertarians

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:16:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you encourage non-government labor movements? Which may include tactics like a general strike.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:26:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:29:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:26:53 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
No.

Ok, so there's more than a yes or no question. Why?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:30:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:29:14 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/21/2013 3:26:53 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
No.

Ok, so there's more than a yes or no question. Why?

'cuz I'm lazy. If they feel the need to do something, they can go ahead. If they don't feel the need to do something, they can not go ahead.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:31:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 4:31:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you believe that austerity measures are the proper reaction to an economic downturn?

(assume that we have governments, since we do, which must do something when the economy shifts up or down in some extreme fashion like it does during a recession)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 11:09:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, as long as they don't use violence to force everyone to strike, to prevent people from returning to work, or to prevent unemployed workers from working for the firm about which the strikers are striking. I largely agree with Hazlitt on this question (page 123 http://www.fee.org...).
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 11:35:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, because a person's wage is a reflection of their practical value. To claim one should get paid more for the work is invalid, and lacks basic understanding of economics. I wouldn't make striking illegal, but I would allow employers to lay off without notice anyone who does so.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 11:38:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Essentially, if someone actually is being underpaid, someone could make profit off them. The free market kills this kind of thing.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 12:18:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 11:38:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially, if someone actually is being underpaid, someone could make profit off them. The free market kills this kind of thing.

Assuming labor actually exists in a free market. In that case I would answer differently, but as of now I can't see myself opposing union measures.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 12:38:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:16:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you encourage non-government labor movements? Which may include tactics like a general strike.

I don't encourage then nor do I discourage them
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 12:45:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 11:09:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Yes, as long as they don't use violence to force everyone to strike, to prevent people from returning to work, or to prevent unemployed workers from working for the firm about which the strikers are striking. I largely agree with Hazlitt on this question (page 123 http://www.fee.org...).

Such actions should be illegal. In which case, it would be separate from whether or not I encourage or discourage non government unions from forming, as they would already be punished for their violation of others rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:03:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 11:35:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No, because a person's wage is a reflection of their practical value.
No it's reflective of the relevant value of their knowledge skills and abilities.
My practical value may be $25/hour, but only $8/hour of the value may be relevant to my job. Say someone has a doctorates in nutritional medicine but gets a job as a fry cook; do you think he would be paid what his knowledge of nutritional medicine is worth? Hell no.
To claim one should get paid more for the work is invalid, and lacks basic understanding of economics.
But those who suffer are those who volentarily join the union. The collective bargaining benefits the low value union members at the expense of the high valued members. If its a non government union, there really is no threat to the industry, as membership is volentarily, and the employer can hire scabs.
I wouldn't make striking illegal, but I would allow employers to lay off without notice anyone who does so.
Sure, it's their right as employers.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:17:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Absolutely not, because when you take away the power of Labor Unions to stop replacements from crossing the picket line, then the only effective recourse a Union has is to lobby the government for regulations in their favor.

We really don't need more crony regulations.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 1:29:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now if the government was radically changed from what it is today where crony regulations was unlikely for special interest groups like labor unions, I would totally support Unionized strikes as a way to challenge companies with wages lower than the market demand for that labor. The unions would simply strike and not worry about threatening replacements because they know the wages are too low to attract replacements. If they are wrong (as they often are), then the Union members can hit the road. Union leaders can then be held accountable for losing member jobs to scabs instead of closing entire companies down through regulations and enforcement tactics.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 2:01:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 12:18:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/21/2013 11:38:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially, if someone actually is being underpaid, someone could make profit off them. The free market kills this kind of thing.

Assuming labor actually exists in a free market. In that case I would answer differently, but as of now I can't see myself opposing union measures.

Where does labor disappear off to in a free market? Is it replaced by wish granting gumdrop fairies, or is the free market just so darn efficient that the need for labor to...well...labor...simply disappears and is replaced by "efficiency"?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 2:06:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:29:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Now if the government was radically changed from what it is today where crony regulations was unlikely for special interest groups like labor unions, I would totally support Unionized strikes as a way to challenge companies with wages lower than the market demand for that labor. The unions would simply strike and not worry about threatening replacements because they know the wages are too low to attract replacements. If they are wrong (as they often are), then the Union members can hit the road. Union leaders can then be held accountable for losing member jobs to scabs instead of closing entire companies down through regulations and enforcement tactics.

The Better Business Bureau is, by far...EVERY YEAR...the largest lobbying entity in all of US Government, and the only "Special Interest Group" of any consequence.

So, the fact that the Teamsters get Congress to throw them a bone now and again, and your local news enjoys broadcasting this story because of the lead-in into the latest wacky "Where is Hoffa Buried" theory, doesn't change the fact that the problem is on the other end, not with labor.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:14:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:16:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you encourage non-government labor movements? Which may include tactics like a general strike.

I don't see why not.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:28:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 11:35:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No, because a person's wage is a reflection of their practical value. To claim one should get paid more for the work is invalid, and lacks basic understanding of economics. I wouldn't make striking illegal, but I would allow employers to lay off without notice anyone who does so.

And how exactly do you suppose that workers have any say in negotiating their proper wage?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:29:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 1:17:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Absolutely not, because when you take away the power of Labor Unions to stop replacements from crossing the picket line, then the only effective recourse a Union has is to lobby the government for regulations in their favor.

We really don't need more crony regulations.

Yeah....well, you know, I did say non-government labor movements.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:41:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A more interesting question, do labor unions have the right to unlimited contract neogitions? In others words, can the labor unions demand anything, one of them being that the company can only hire labor unions?

Employers are not given unlimited contract abilities. Should employers be allowed to negotiation anything, including disallowing collective action rights?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:42:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ultimate in any contract, the question becomes how much should the state intervene if the contract is broken and to what extent the punishment should be? I think both these issues are incredibly important.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:44:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:41:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A more interesting question, do labor unions have the right to unlimited contract neogitions? In others words, can the labor unions demand anything, one of them being that the company can only hire labor unions?

Employers are not given unlimited contract abilities. Should employers be allowed to negotiation anything, including disallowing collective action rights?

More to the point, does the right to refuse service extend to a right to refuse to employ someone?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:55:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:44:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/21/2013 3:41:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A more interesting question, do labor unions have the right to unlimited contract neogitions? In others words, can the labor unions demand anything, one of them being that the company can only hire labor unions?

Employers are not given unlimited contract abilities. Should employers be allowed to negotiation anything, including disallowing collective action rights?

More to the point, does the right to refuse service extend to a right to refuse to employ someone?

It does in 'Right to Work' states. The only reason someone can sue in one of these states for unfair termination is if they can prove their termination goes against public policy (racial discrimination, etc).

This question has largely been answered, legally, in America.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:57:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:42:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Ultimate in any contract, the question becomes how much should the state intervene if the contract is broken and to what extent the punishment should be? I think both these issues are incredibly important.

If the contract violates public policy.

The punishment is monetary, exactly as it should be in any contract dispute.

The issues are important...and completely resolved.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:59:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:16:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you encourage non-government labor movements? Which may include tactics like a general strike.

I am generally opposed to such labor movements. I basically believe that people should be free to choose whether or not they wish to join a union, which is the case in right to work states.

Unions drive up costs, and while are usually beneficial to the workers, they drag down the industry. They reduce capital investment, are not competitive, reduce profits (which means less production and reinvestment), and also reduce the cash payments for R&D. Also, they are less productive.

The growth of industry would lead to a stronger economy, but unions by taking money out of the economy and making local industries noncompetitive destroy jobs and the livelihoods of many others.

People in my state would probably hate me for saying that.

Here's an article that isn't too bad on the subject:

(http://sayanythingblog.com...)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 4:09:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 3:59:37 PM, Contra wrote:
At 2/21/2013 3:16:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you encourage non-government labor movements? Which may include tactics like a general strike.

I am generally opposed to such labor movements. I basically believe that people should be free to choose whether or not they wish to join a union, which is the case in right to work states.

Unions drive up costs, and while are usually beneficial to the workers, they drag down the industry. They reduce capital investment, are not competitive, reduce profits (which means less production and reinvestment), and also reduce the cash payments for R&D. Also, they are less productive.

The growth of industry would lead to a stronger economy, but unions by taking money out of the economy and making local industries noncompetitive destroy jobs and the livelihoods of many others.

People in my state would probably hate me for saying that.

Here's an article that isn't too bad on the subject:

(http://sayanythingblog.com...)

What about electrician, carpenter, masonry, et al unions?

These unions set standards for the expertise of the union members and advise those posting job/contracts of the level of craftsman which will be required for a given job.

While this set up can certainly be abused, it typically ensures that the consumer receives the appropriate level of expertise for a given job, and saves them money in the long run.

Also, in the case of the Port of Longview (WA), foreign workers are being employed after the city made grants of free land and numerous tax breaks in exchange for local labor to be used once the facility opened.

So, longshoremen being longshoremen, kicked a little (a lot) of @ss in asserting their contractual right to jobs, given the concessions by the city that were made in exchange for those jobs.

Seems like unions can be pretty OK now and again? Power, like the power of corporate wealth, needs checks and balances just like any other power does. Unions provide those things.

Why is this a bad thing?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 4:13:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 4:31:54 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Do you believe that austerity measures are the proper reaction to an economic downturn?

(assume that we have governments, since we do, which must do something when the economy shifts up or down in some extreme fashion like it does during a recession)

Austerity isn't going to promote an economic recovery by itself.

When capital is returned back to the private sector though (saved by the banks instead of spent on shovel ready projects), the economy will benefit, as cash is more efficiently used by the private sector and towards productive ends.

The Federal Government is in a serious debt situation, that's why I think we need to resort to austerity. If we just froze spending at current levels, the budget would naturally balance in 5 years (not making that up).

There are basically 5 elements that I believe would grow the economy.

First, phase out entitlement programs (personal retirement accounts). Balance the budget by cutting spending and through economic growth, promote significant tax cuts and tax relief, cut the red tape strangling the private sector, and expand free trade.

That above is a prescription for the renewal of American prosperity, not just austerity alone.

Of course though, with the current political environment, it's not politically easy.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan