Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »

Mornacale: Dec 19, 2007; n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

Folks, I found some purestrain.

Top 10 Worst 'Accomplishments' of the American Labor Movement posted:

Labor Day is a socialist holiday. Every year, on the first Monday in September, we are reminded of all of the great �achievements� of the Labor Movement, and how our lives would be much harder if not for all the �rights� they have secured for us. However, every one of those accomplishments comes at a heavy price, a price that we pay every single day. In celebration of Labor Day this year, let us consider what we have lost due to the gains of the Labor Movement, and just how many freedoms these entitlements have cost us.

10. Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States.

The textile industry in the United States got its first big start during the War of 1812. Up until that time, homespun cloth was what most ordinary Americans used. Created at home by wives and daughters, cloth was something each household made for itself. Most people wore clothes that were sewn at home. Mechanized looms were introduced first in England, and manufactured goods were traded for raw materials from the United States. However, after the disruption of trade between the United States and Britain caused by Jefferson�s Embargo Act and later by James Madison�s declaration of war against Britain, a cottage industry began to blossom into actual manufacturing, and even after the war, companies in the United States continued to make cloth and industrially manufactured clothing.

As cloth-making became increasingly automated, many women and girls who used to spin, weave and sew at home began to work outside the home, doing the same things, only in a much more industrialized setting. However, the Labor Movement, citing difficult working conditions, passed a series of laws that made it increasingly difficult to employ women and girls in the textile industry. As a result, manufacturing of cloth and clothing came to a virtual halt in the United States and all those jobs were shipped overseas, where clothing is still made in �sweatshops.� If you are wondering why all the clothes you wear are made in places like Madagascar and Bangladesh, and why American workers have no opportunity to participate in the textile industry, you can thank the Labor Movement.

9. Child labor laws

Children used to work side by side with parents in the fields and in the home. Since children contributed to the well-being of parents from an early age, parents had a strong incentive to bring many children into the world and to feed and clothe and nurture them. While having children was understood as an investment in the future, and many parents also expected to be supported by their grown children in their old age, children received on the job training from an early age, and long before they were adults, they acquired the skills that they would need to support themselves and their families. When the Labor Movement passed laws forbidding children to work, they made bringing children into the world a luxury rather than a necessity.

As the value of children to their families plummeted, many people chose not to have any children at all or had greatly reduced families. Today, in the United States, children do not even begin to have the opportunity to work until age sixteen or seventeen, depending on the jurisdiction. They spend most of their time being idle, and when they do arrive at the age of majority, many of them are unfit to work, because they have never experienced the real world and have no marketable skills. Because children have become a liability and not an asset to their families, the birth rate has been greatly reduced. When young people do begin to work, they are expected to support all their elders through tax contributions, and they hardly get to keep any of the money they make. So if you wonder why we have such a lopsided, elder-heavy demographic, you can thank the Labor Movement.

8. Public Education for Children

Since children are not allowed to work, anymore, something has to be done with their time. Mandatory public education for children forces all parents to send their children to a public school, if they cannot afford a private one, where our youngest citizens are indoctrinated in statism. While parents have always educated their children, and literacy in the United States was high before education was nationalized, today the public schools in the United States see to it that most children know less about arithmetic and reading and history and mathematics and science than they used to know before going to school was mandatory. So if you want to know why a high school diploma is not considered sufficient for an entry-level position, you can thank the Labor Movement.

7. Maternity Leave

In the past, once a woman was ready to have her first baby, she usually had the opportunity to stay home with the child full time for at least the first three years of that child�s life, so that she could be the primary caretaker of her own infant. This was very important for the developing child, because babies form attachments to mothers, and this allows them to develop normally. Children brought up in institutions such as orphanages are often developmentally delayed, due to the lack of an intimate relationship with a single primary caretaker. The funding for the maternity leave of any woman came out of her husband�s income, or if she did not have a husband, from her family of origin.

But thanks to the Labor Movement, today women expect to take a short maternity leave, during which their job is held in abeyance. Maternity leaves, instead of being paid for by the woman�s family, are paid by her co-workers, in the form of reduced income. Employers compensate themselves for the money they are out paying for maternity leave by adjusting salaries. As a result, many women go back to work as soon as their maternity leave is up, and their infants are then relegated to day care, which is not much better than an orphanage. So if you wonder why so few mothers stay home with their children, you can thank the Labor Movement.

6. The Eight Hour Work Day

By enacting the eight hour work day, the Labor Movement created a sharp distinction between full time jobs, overtime, and part time work. Because this distinction exists, many employers make sure not to work their employees as many hours as it might take to get the job done, and because of this, people who might otherwise have earned more are required to make do with less at their primary place of employment. As a result, instead of working overtime at their regular jobs, employees have to seek a second job or part-time work to make the amount of money they desire or need for themselves and their families. If you wonder why so many people are working at more than one job to make ends meet, you can thank the Labor Movement.

5. The Two-Day Weekend

The Labor Movement would like you to think that they invented the day off, and that prior to their intervention, people worked their employees seven days a week. However, we all know that the Sabbath is an ancient invention, designed to save slaves and servants from being overworked. This was extended to two days by the Labor Movement, but it does not mean that any of us have been spared working on the weekend. Free people can and do work whenever they need to. If you own a business, you probably work 24/7. If you are a part-time employee at minimum wage jobs, chances are that you work on the weekend, too. So who doesn�t work on the weekend? Public Servants. If you wonder why the post office is closed or there is no service at your local Department of Motor Vehicles, you can thank the Labor Movement.

4. Employer Health Insurance

Prior to government mandated employer-paid health insurance, the local country doctor was forced to make do with whatever his patients could pay him. A basket full of eggs or home-baked pie were sometimes all he got in return for helping to deliver a baby or to set a broken bone. But when employer paid insurance became the norm thanks to the Labor Movement, suddenly doctors grew very rich. They stopped making house calls. Very sick patients were forced to get out of bed to go see the doctor at his clinic, where they spread disease to everyone in the waiting room. Health care costs skyrocketed. Those people who only had part-time work or were self-employed suddenly could not afford to pay for health care, because they did not have insurance.

As a result, many people went without healthcare at all. This led to the passage of Obamacare, which now taxes people as a punishment for not having health insurance. People who have a low income are now either forced to go on Medicaid and give the government a lien on their homes, or they have to dig into savings to pay for minimal health insurance with a high deductible and still pay out of pocket for every doctor�s visit, at a rate that far exceeds what it would have been if nobody had health insurance. So if you wonder why healthcare costs so much, you can thank the Labor Movement.

3. Workers Compensation

Before the passage of Worker�s Compensation, employees could sue their employer for workplace injuries that were the fault of the employer. This was fair, and it forced negligent employers to make sure that there were safe work spaces. It was also fair, because if an accident was the fault of the employee, he would not receive compensation for the injury. But after the passage of Worker�s Compensation legislation, employers are forced to pay into an insurance fund to cover all employees injured on the job, regardless of whose fault it is. This means that negligent employers do not suffer correspondingly for their negligence and have no incentive to improve safety at their establishment. It also means that negligent employees do not have to take responsibility for their behavior. As a result, the no fault insurance creates an expense that all must pay equally and rewards those who are at fault, while punishing those who are not. If you have ever wondered why there is so much corruption in the workplace, you can thank the Labor Movement.

2. Social Security

Social Security is something the Labor Movement takes credit for. It is the most regressive aspect of the Federal tax on income. If you make as little as four hundred dollars a year, you must pay social security taxes. If you are wealthy, a majority of your income escapes social security taxes. People will tell you that social security benefits are yours and that they are something you have earned, but in fact what you get as a benefit has only a very remote connection with what you paid in, and the funds are not saved for you in a secure bank account. It is the next generation that is expected to pay your benefits.

If you die before you are entitled to Social Security, and you do not leave minor children or a spouse behind, your benefits will not accrue to your heirs. Social Security is an entitlement benefit, not a property right. Because the birth rate has been stagnating, there is a very good chance that by the time today�s workers arrive at retirement age, there will not be enough young people working to raise the amount of money needed to support all the elders on retirement. If you wonder why people are not allowed to keep their hard earned money and save or invest it as they choose, then you can thank the Labor Movement.

1. The Minimum Wage

The minimum wage is the single biggest achievement of the Labor Movement. Thanks to the minimum wage, unskilled laborers throughout the United States are not able to find work. By pricing labor too high, the minimum wage keeps the least skilled workers in the US from finding a job, while simultaneously creating a black market for illegal aliens who work at less than minimum wage. Every time the minimum wage rises, more Americans lose their jobs. If you are wondering what happened to all the opportunities for entry-level workers, you can thank the Labor Movement!

It's delicious. It is so delicious to me.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 13:42

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

Mornacale posted:

Folks, I found some purestrain.

It's delicious. It is so delicious to me.

That's basically an entire list of "Life is lovely for a lot of workers. It is clearly dastardly regulations that are stopping things like fair wages!"

There are so many points where he's sooooooo cloooooose and yet...

# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:23

Mornacale: Dec 19, 2007; n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

If only we could return to the old days, where there were no unsafe working conditions and everyone had quality healthcare and a good education (while simultaneously being employed 60 hours a week at 12 years old)!

# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:27

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

quote:

6. The Eight Hour Work Day

By enacting the eight hour work day, the Labor Movement created a sharp distinction between full time jobs, overtime, and part time work. Because this distinction exists, many employers make sure not to work their employees as many hours as it might take to get the job done, and because of this, people who might otherwise have earned more are required to make do with less at their primary place of employment. As a result, instead of working overtime at their regular jobs, employees have to seek a second job or part-time work to make the amount of money they desire or need for themselves and their families. If you wonder why so many people are working at more than one job to make ends meet, you can thank the Labor Movement.

5. The Two-Day Weekend

The Labor Movement would like you to think that they invented the day off, and that prior to their intervention, people worked their employees seven days a week. However, we all know that the Sabbath is an ancient invention, designed to save slaves and servants from being overworked. This was extended to two days by the Labor Movement, but it does not mean that any of us have been spared working on the weekend. Free people can and do work whenever they need to. If you own a business, you probably work 24/7. If you are a part-time employee at minimum wage jobs, chances are that you work on the weekend, too. So who doesn�t work on the weekend? Public Servants. If you wonder why the post office is closed or there is no service at your local Department of Motor Vehicles, you can thank the Labor Movement.

Hoo boy do these two get my blood boiling.

Why aren't you working all the time like the glorious Ubermensch do?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:29

CovfefeCatCafe: Apr 11, 2006; A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

quote:

3. Workers Compensation

Before the passage of Worker�s Compensation, employees could sue their employer for workplace injuries that were the fault of the employer. This was fair, and it forced negligent employers to make sure that there were safe work spaces. It was also fair, because if an accident was the fault of the employee, he would not receive compensation for the injury. But after the passage of Worker�s Compensation legislation, employers are forced to pay into an insurance fund to cover all employees injured on the job, regardless of whose fault it is. This means that negligent employers do not suffer correspondingly for their negligence and have no incentive to improve safety at their establishment. It also means that negligent employees do not have to take responsibility for their behavior. As a result, the no fault insurance creates an expense that all must pay equally and rewards those who are at fault, while punishing those who are not. If you have ever wondered why there is so much corruption in the workplace, you can thank the Labor Movement.

This is a thing written by someone who has never worked a poo poo job in his life. If employers are just forced to cough up money anytime someone is injured, then why is my sister-in-law being forced to have to attend a hearing with the local Workman's Comp board because her employer, the largest retail chain in the world, thinks they shouldn't have to pay out. And pray tell, how would she be able to afford to sue such a corporation?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 15:52

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

We should be working far more than 40 hours a week, for efficiency! Marginal productivity is a socialist myth.

Also, you know what would help the unemployment problem and increase wages? Getting children and old people back into the workforce!

# ? Sep 15, 2016 16:00

WrenP-Complete: Jul 27, 2012

quote:

However, we all know that the Sabbath is an ancient invention, designed to save slaves and servants from being overworked.

What? The Sabbath wasn't designed for anything but God's pleasure, it's done "in remembrance of slavery in Egypt" but that's saying you know an awful lot about God's intent, bucko.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 16:16

EndOfTheWorld: Jul 22, 2004; I'm an excellent critic! I automatically know when someone's done a bad job. Before you ask, yes it's a mixed blessing.; Cybernetic Crumb

WampaLord posted:

Hoo boy do these two get my blood boiling.

Why aren't you working all the time like the glorious Ubermensch do?

Steve Jobs spent every day of his life thinking about iPods. Why can't you be like him and do your job (Rendering plant technician) all the time too?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 16:18

SatansOnion: Dec 12, 2011

Mornacale posted:

Folks, I found some purestrain.

It's delicious. It is so delicious to me.

This guy comes off to me like someone who genuinely believes that Nelson Muntz is trying to stop Milhouse Van Houten from punching himself

or at least like someone who tells himself that while cheering on a bully who makes sport of the powerless

# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:10

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Mornacale posted:

Folks, I found some purestrain.

Top 10 Worst 'Accomplishments' of the American Labor Movement posted:
Labor Day is a socialist holiday. Every year, on the first Monday in September, we are reminded of all of the great �achievements� of the Labor Movement, and how our lives would be much harder if not for all the �rights� they have secured for us. However, every one of those accomplishments comes at a heavy price, a price that we pay every single day. In celebration of Labor Day this year, let us consider what we have lost due to the gains of the Labor Movement, and just how many freedoms these entitlements have cost us.

10. Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States.

Fuckin' lmao didn't even read past this.

You have to be astoundingly out of touch to think that this should be your lead example of why organized labor is bad.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:22

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

Organized labor should be a good thing to libertarian insofar as it relates to collective bargaining. I can see a libertarian opposing it when it comes to using labor unions to pass legislation, but totally voluntary agreements between unions and employers should be looked on as a great example of non governmental solutions to workplace safety and other issues.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:38

Mornacale: Dec 19, 2007; n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

Nitrousoxide posted:

Organized labor should be a good thing to libertarian insofar as it relates to collective bargaining. I can see a libertarian opposing it when it comes to using labor unions to pass legislation, but totally voluntary agreements between unions and employers should be looked on as a great example of non governmental solutions to workplace safety and other issues.

Why, it's almost like the libertarian belief in the utility of the free market is no more than a fig leaf/post-hoc justification for their true desires of segregation and unmitigated oligarchy!

Also, the author of that piece is actually a woman, which makes the "paid maternal leave is bad because women should be forced into domestic labor for three years per child" bit especially ironic and sad.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:50

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

You ever want to rip someone's leg off and beat them to death with it for how loving stupid and entitled they are?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:55

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

OwlFancier posted:

You ever want to rip someone's leg off and beat them to death with it for how loving stupid and entitled they are?

We all read this thread, don't we?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:56

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Yeah but I figure the comparative lack of one-legged corpses missing their skulls would suggest that perhaps other people have a different response?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 17:59

JustJeff88: Jan 15, 2008; I AM
CONSISTENTLY
ANNOYING
...
JUST TERRIBLE

THIS BADGE OF SHAME IS WORTH 0.45 DOUBLE DRAGON ADVANCES

of SA-Mart forever

OwlFancier posted:

Yeah but I figure the comparative lack of one-legged corpses missing their skulls would suggest that perhaps other people have a different response?

The grand irony is that the state (MEN WITH GUNS!!1!) is quite possibly the only thing that protects such horrible people from being literally eviscerated due to being, well, horrible people. That said, I don't believe for a moment that libertards possess the self-awareness or even modicum of intelligence to realise that the "free speech", such as it is, that allows them to say such things only exists because of the fear of government retaliation that will punish people who, say, tie people like that woman to their vehicles by their hair and take them for a scenic drag across Death Valley.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 18:04

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

gently caress of course it's a woman writing it :suicide:

# ? Sep 15, 2016 18:07

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

OwlFancier posted:

Yeah but I figure the comparative lack of one-legged corpses missing their skulls would suggest that perhaps other people have a different response?

We all want to do it, but none of us has yet reached that level of frustrated rage.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 18:10

Stinky_Pete: Aug 16, 2015; Stinkier than your average bear; Lipstick Apathy

This rear end in a top hat makes me sick, suggesting that having more children is a good thing

How are your loud snot-covered carbon footprints, lady?

Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Sep 15, 2016

# ? Sep 15, 2016 18:30

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Nitrousoxide posted:

Organized labor should be a good thing to libertarian insofar as it relates to collective bargaining. I can see a libertarian opposing it when it comes to using labor unions to pass legislation, but totally voluntary agreements between unions and employers should be looked on as a great example of non governmental solutions to workplace safety and other issues.

Ah yes, the employers famously loved loved making voluntary agreements with unions. If only that dastardly government hadn't stepped in to interfere with all that peaceful negotiation.

Stinky_Pete posted:

This rear end in a top hat makes me sick, suggesting that having more children is a good thing

How are your loud snot-covered carbon footprints, lady?

Hahahahahhgggghhh :unsmigghh:

I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train

The High Cost of Centrally Planning the Global Climate

Global Warming Activists Want to Make Food More Expensive

Global Warming: Environmentalism's Threat of Hell on Earth

Is Global Warming Causing the California Drought? (Mises answer: no)

# ? Sep 15, 2016 21:42

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Stinky_Pete posted:

This rear end in a top hat makes me sick, suggesting that having more children is a good thing

How are your loud snot-covered carbon footprints, lady?

What the gently caress

# ? Sep 15, 2016 21:53

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

Goon Danton posted:

Ah yes, the employers famously loved loved making voluntary agreements with unions. If only that dastardly government hadn't stepped in to interfere with all that peaceful negotiation.

I didn't say employers. I said libertarians. If it's a freely agreed contact, rights based libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it.

Employers, just like unions, would like to use state power to improve their bargaining position.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:03

paragon1: Nov 22, 2010; FULL COMMUNISM NOW

Nitrousoxide posted:

I didn't say employers. I said libertarians. If it's a freely agreed contact, rights based libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it.

Employers, just like unions, would like to use state power to improve their bargaining position.

Can you elaborate on what you consider to be a union abuse of state power and provide examples?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:21

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

Nitrousoxide posted:

I didn't say employers. I said libertarians. If it's a freely agreed contact, rights based libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it.

Employers, just like unions, would like to use state power to improve their bargaining position.

And yet, the most famous and successful self-proclaimed libertarians in the country, the Koch Brothers, do just that. That may not make them "true libertarians," but does that matter, seeing how few "true libertarians" exist?

Also, please give an example of a union contract that's not "freely agreed". I looked for libertarian arguments against unions, and they were all saying "the unions shouldn't be able to force the employees to pay dues, etc." Why not? The employee is choosing to work for a union house, why shouldn't the union be able to force them to do things, just as the employer forces them to work for their wage? Why is it "force" when a union wants dues, but "consent" when an employer wants labor? If they're consenting to work for the employer, then they're also consenting to work with whatever union may be in place there. Right? Or no?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:22

Red Dad Redemption: Sep 29, 2007

Mornacale posted:

Folks, I found some purestrain.

It's delicious. It is so delicious to me.

At first I thought this was a joke, or maybe a well crafted troll someone threw up on a Libertarian message board. But no, looks like the author is a full-on, true believing Ayn Rand wanna be.

eta: She has a published novel titled "The Few Who Count" heh

Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Sep 15, 2016

# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:26

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Nitrousoxide posted:

Organized labor should be a good thing to libertarian insofar as it relates to collective bargaining. I can see a libertarian opposing it when it comes to using labor unions to pass legislation, but totally voluntary agreements between unions and employers should be looked on as a great example of non governmental solutions to workplace safety and other issues.

Yes, to be logically consistent organized labor should be a good thing to libertarians. But strangely most of the published libertarian thinkers are outright hostile towards unionization. Liberty for me but not for thee, in other words

# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:28

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

paragon1 posted:

Can you elaborate on what you consider to be a union abuse of state power and provide examples?

Passage of laws enshrining various goals of the unions is an example of unions using state power to improve their bargaining position. Laws requiring people to join unions as well.

Union busting, and laws preventing unions from forming, and laws preventing agreements for goals of the unions would be uses of state power to improve owners position.

I mean it's rational to use state power to further your aim if it's available to you.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:36

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

Nitrousoxide posted:

Passage of laws enshrining various goals of the unions is an example of unions using state power to improve their bargaining position.

Like? What "goals of unions" would they use the law to get?

Nitrousoxide posted:

I mean it's rational to use state power to further your aim if it's available to you.

So a "true libertarian", i.e. that most rational of beings, is not being a true libertarian if they don't rationally use the state to their advantage?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:40

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Nitrousoxide posted:

I didn't say employers. I said libertarians. If it's a freely agreed contact, rights based libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it.

Employers, just like unions, would like to use state power to improve their bargaining position.

And I'm saying that's a fantasy. The government had to interfere, because the employers figured that paying some Pinkertons to murder your employees once is cheaper than paying your workers a decent wage forever.

And by the way, employers didn't just use "state power" to "improve their bargaining position." They had police officers beat and kill workers trying to unionize, and when that wasn't enough, hired mercenaries to do the same thing. They're still doing that, just not in the USA, because the state stepped in to stop them here. When I worked QA in a factory I got the pleasure of listening to the factory manager openly (and non-jokingly) fantasize about hiring someone to run the workers over with a truck if they tried to strike. But you think that stuff is "just like unions would like to do." Of course you think that. But unions didn't hire mercenaries to go kill Henry Frick, Frick hired mercenaries to go kill striking workers. There's no equivalence, no matter how much you wish there were.

Nitrousoxide posted:

Passage of laws enshrining various goals of the unions is an example of unions using state power to improve their bargaining position. Laws requiring people to join unions as well.

Be specific here, what "laws enshrining various goals of the unions" are bad to you? Workplace safety regulations, or overtime laws, or the minimum wage, or anti-scrip laws, or what?

# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:51

Chwoka: Jan 27, 2008; I'm Abed, and I never watch TV.

Golbez posted:

So a "true libertarian", i.e. that most rational of beings, is not being a true libertarian if they don't rationally use the state to their advantage?

ayn rand on social security

# ? Sep 15, 2016 22:52

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

A rights based libertarian would obviously oppose business owners who attempt to kill, maim, bully, or prevent unions from organizing, at least if they are consistent.

I don't know what your point here is.

Likewise, a rights based libertarian would likely oppose laws on workplace safety, hours, maternity leave, etc. They would want those matters to be handled by the collective bargaining or individual bargaining of the workers with the employer.

I mean I think this is pretty straightforward.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:01

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

Thus, entirely-rights-based libertarians are absolute imbeciles who have no place in a proper discussion.

I happened to find just today my old libertarian bible, "Liberty: A Primer" by Alan Burris. It's amazing how much I've changed since I first read this; it originally made me a hardcore anarcho-capitalist, and now I just see all of the desperate logical holes and leaps. But he's very much a rights-based libertarian - the good of the many will never, ever outweigh the good of the one, to him. Any taxation or law is slavery because it infringes on our natural rights.

... Not surprisingly, at least in my basic glance today, he doesn't even bother to explain property. Just that it's an extension of the self, and therefore you can use force to protect it. That it can be re-homesteaded when "clearly abandoned." (I guess a private DRO decides when it's abandoned?)

# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:11

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Nitrousoxide posted:

A rights based libertarian would obviously oppose business owners who attempt to kill, maim, bully, or prevent unions from organizing, at least if they are consistent.

I don't know what your point here is.

Likewise, a rights based libertarian would likely oppose laws on workplace safety, hours, maternity leave, etc. They would want those matters to be handled by the collective bargaining or individual bargaining of the workers with the employer.

I mean I think this is pretty straightforward.

And if employees, realistically, are less powerful than their employer even unionized, obviously it's the right of the employer to deny their employees reasonable terms of employment? Natural law, no way around it, I guess?

The state is useful for reducing power imbalances, allowing for equal bargaining by two parties in more situations than is possible without a state. Anybody will admit that there are also times it exacerbates power imbalances but this doesn't mean we should give up on the concept of the state, or aim for a minimal state. Regulations on contracts between unequal parties that prevent the more powerful party from outright abusing the lesser party are not an impediment to the market but an improvement.

Jazerus fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Sep 15, 2016

# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:17

Ormi: Feb 7, 2005; B-E-H-A-V-E
Arrest us!

Kevin Carson: Labor Struggle in a Free Market posted:

Present-day labor law limits the bargaining power of labor at least as much as it reinforces it. That�s especially true of reactionary legislation like Taft-Hartley and state right-to-work laws. Both are clearly abhorrent to free market principles.

Taft-Hartley, for example, prohibited many of the most successful labor strategies during the CIO organizing strikes of the early �30s. The CIO planned strikes like a general staff plans a campaign, with strikes in a plant supported by sympathy and boycott strikes up and down the production chain, from suppliers to outlets, and supported by transport workers refusing to haul scab cargo. At their best, the CIO�s strikes turned into regional general strikes...

# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:20

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Yeah I don't disagree with that at all. The general strike ban is a huge part of why labor law has nearly frozen for decades and decades and unionization has declined in the US. I'm not sure I even as much as implied that I'm a fan of the current laws around labor-capital relations - but there is a place for the state there. Without regulations as a relatively permanent way of securing victories, labor would be stuck refighting the most basic of fights like child labor. Just look at how state neglect has led to the erosion of basic pillars like the minimum wage and 40-hour work week. Unless you had unions effectively acting as a state (in which case, welcome syndicalist comrade) they aren't going to be any better at defending universal labor rights by themselves, without state support, either.

# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:28

Weatherman: Jul 30, 2003; WARBLEKLONK

In his posts, Nitrousoxide uses a lot of hypotheticals (would/wouldn't/should/etc.) to describe how the free market supposedly would act if all these laws were removed and people could be freed from the repressive shackles of :siren:

MEN WITH GUNS :siren:

.

On the other hand, everyone else is using concrete words that describe past experiences (have ~ed, did, were, etc.) that actually happened.

The language used by both sides shows quite clearly which one has more grounding in the real world.

Nitrousoxide, putting aside the fact that you're a bad poster who is refusing to engage on any meaningful level with the innumerable criticisms being levelled at your chosen economic religion, can you see why people can't take lolbertarianism seriously? It's espousing basically "when ~~I'm king of the world~~ there are no more kings, everyone will have a pony!" when the opposing side is responding every single time with "on the other hand, actual recorded history".

# ? Sep 15, 2016 23:28

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Golbez posted:

And yet, the most famous and successful self-proclaimed libertarians in the country, the Koch Brothers, do just that. That may not make them "true libertarians," but does that matter, seeing how few "true libertarians" exist?

Also, please give an example of a union contract that's not "freely agreed". I looked for libertarian arguments against unions, and they were all saying "the unions shouldn't be able to force the employees to pay dues, etc." Why not? The employee is choosing to work for a union house, why shouldn't the union be able to force them to do things, just as the employer forces them to work for their wage? Why is it "force" when a union wants dues, but "consent" when an employer wants labor? If they're consenting to work for the employer, then they're also consenting to work with whatever union may be in place there. Right? Or no?

Unions only benefit people who work for a living so of course rich white people hate them. The "but but but forced to pay dues!!!!" argument is pure strain bullshit simply because the benefit you get from paying those dues far, far, far outweighs the cost.

What they're really mad about is that unions can force employers to actually pay fair wages.

# ? Sep 16, 2016 00:34

JustJeff88: Jan 15, 2008; I AM
CONSISTENTLY
ANNOYING
...
JUST TERRIBLE

THIS BADGE OF SHAME IS WORTH 0.45 DOUBLE DRAGON ADVANCES

of SA-Mart forever

Oligarchs have done a fine job of destroying unions these last few decades as well. To most people, they are obstacles that keep desperate people from working, the people of course being desperate from years and years of oligarchs destroying their quality of life. The thing is, a company making life miserable for its workers aids consumers because it means lower prices, but empowered workers might mean (GASP!) inconvenience or slightly higher prices.

Just for the sake of argument, take perhaps the worst example of the misery of capitalism: Walmart. They are infamous for their efforts to suppress organised labour and will fire employees who even mention it, but just for the sake of argument imagine that in some region there was a massive Walmart strike and virtually all of the employees below full-time management went on strike. I have absolutely no doubt that they would be vilified, with the usual arguments about how the workers should be "glad to have a job ~~that pays so poorly that taxpayers have to subsidize it~~ in this economy!" It would lead to people being inconvenienced in their shopping and hating people who are fighting with the only weapon they have, collective withholding of labour, just to get a better quality of life. I'll freely admit that British trade unions in the 70s had gone too far, but Thatcher making them the enemy for people who were tired of transport strikes and the lot was how she won and held power. The Iron Bitch vilified the unions like how Reagan, may they both rot in Hell, vilified the poor. The rest is miserable history.

Golbez posted:

Also, please give an example of a union contract that's not "freely agreed". I looked for libertarian arguments against unions, and they were all saying "the unions shouldn't be able to force the employees to pay dues, etc." Why not? The employee is choosing to work for a union house, why shouldn't the union be able to force them to do things, just as the employer forces them to work for their wage? Why is it "force" when a union wants dues, but "consent" when an employer wants labor? If they're consenting to work for the employer, then they're also consenting to work with whatever union may be in place there. Right? Or no?

This is one of my favourite posts ever and I thank you for it.

# ? Sep 16, 2016 01:46

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Nitrousoxide posted:

A rights based libertarian would obviously oppose business owners who attempt to kill, maim, bully, or prevent unions from organizing,

But also oppose any attempt to stop them from doing it. Well gosh, I have no problem with the workers striking, but they were trespassing while they were doing it, they deserved to get shot!

quote:

at least if they are consistent.

I have some terrible news!

quote:

I don't know what your point here is.

In a world without worker's protections by the state, the absolute best case scenario of "voluntary agreements" between a union and the employer is that the workers unionize, and then the employer fires them all and brings in scabs to do the work. That's why strikes happened. And the "property rights" crowd will rush to the defense of the employer's right to hire anyone he wants, and his right to "defend" his factory by killing the workers if they block shipments with their picket lines.

Physically preventing the factory from operating without the union workers is the whole point of a union strike, and it's an affront everything "rights based libertarians" hold dear.

quote:

Likewise, a rights based libertarian would likely oppose laws on workplace safety, hours, maternity leave, etc. They would want those matters to be handled by the collective bargaining or individual bargaining of the workers with the employer.

I mean I think this is pretty straightforward.

So we re-fight the entire hundred-plus-year-old battle for workers' rights literally every time we start a new job? That is insane. And it will end up like it was before the workers' rights movement started, because that's just the way things worked before the workers' rights movement started. And it led directly to the lovely conditions you claim to oppose.

By the way, I've noticed you've shifted from putting forward your own thoughts to presenting a hypothetical "rights based libertarian" for your arguments. Do you believe the opinions you're posting now, or are you Just Asking Questions?

# ? Sep 16, 2016 02:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 13:42

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

Golbez posted:

And yet, the most famous and successful self-proclaimed libertarians in the country, the Koch Brothers, do just that. That may not make them "true libertarians," but does that matter, seeing how few "true libertarians" exist?

Also, please give an example of a union contract that's not "freely agreed". I looked for libertarian arguments against unions, and they were all saying "the unions shouldn't be able to force the employees to pay dues, etc." Why not? The employee is choosing to work for a union house, why shouldn't the union be able to force them to do things, just as the employer forces them to work for their wage? Why is it "force" when a union wants dues, but "consent" when an employer wants labor? If they're consenting to work for the employer, then they're also consenting to work with whatever union may be in place there. Right? Or no?

You're contacting with the employer for employment. Provided the union has convinced the employer to demand employees join the union as a condition to their contact there is no problem for a libertarian over any other dickered for term in a contract.

It's no different from a arbitration clause in any EULA you've agreed to.

However, if the requirement to join the union comes from a legal requirement then a libertarian will likely have an issue with it.

I imagine that government jobs come a lot closer to the latter, since the requirement to join a union can be written into law, but private compulsory unions should be no problem since the worker is free to refuse to sign the employment contract and go elsewhere.

# ? Sep 16, 2016 02:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »