Castro has passed on

[Ziggurat]

Strikers "cannot violate the property rights of an employer", and in return - the employer cannot violate the property rights of employees?

Yes.

No, you haven't presented this symmetrical picture.

It's not symmetric, because the property rights of the employer and the employee are not equally at issue. But so what? What's that got to do with caveman being completely wrong about American libertarianism?

There are no rights except private financial rights. Therefore workers have no rights - for in this ideology labour input confers no rights - except what individual employees are able to negotiate personally ... against the power of a corporation.

Nonsense. The individual employee is not a slave. They are free to quit. The can never be forced to work.

It seems to me that a "libertarian" sought after utopia would be a "Company Town" located in a "Banana Republic".

Also false. A company town prohibits competition for providing goods and services to employees. That's antithetical to a free market, and very un-libertarian.

And I don't think you understand what a banana republic is either, because its use here is nonsensical.

Company towns are not shining examples of human rights by the way. But that is what your country will return to under the arrangements you have described.

Yeah, no.

I have more respect for the American people than to imagine they will long submit to that treatment, even if racism and bigotry (the perennial trusted weapons of would-be oppressors) are employed as means of dividing and bamboozling them into accepting the yoke designed for their necks.

You also have no understanding of the history of racism and economics in the US. Time and time again, racists turn to government to enforce their racism through economic interference.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

It's quite easy to see what private enterprise will do, absent restraint. If the myriad horrors of colonial and industrial miseries aren't enough, we have the sly yet crooked theft with a smile, with a side order of rights suppression, such as with forced arbitration. Or the bogus high-risk derivatives of the recent financial crisis, with Goldman hedging against its recommendations to customers.

The natural state of humans is deadly competition among tribes for resources. This is the net outcome of libertarianism, not some enlightened state of continuous fair play among free and noble gentlemen entrepreneurs, absent all rule or enforcement. When last I checked, primitive tribal life had a 60% mortality rate from violence, counting all male deaths from any cause.

***
Take NFL football. No one in his/her right mind would argue for no rules and guns at the ready, or there'd be no game. A fair field of play is what allows for freedom, safety, and both individual and team achievement.

Right now, money owns and is redefining "the game" entirely. I am sure my colleagues on the left would say that is inevitable and cannot be compensated for, necessitating some other form of dictatorship/anarchy/mob rule. To the right, all I can say is, what in heaven's name do you have against the Superbowl? Gentlemen of honor believe in fair play and fair methods, the rest is highway robbery without a mask.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's quite easy to see what private enterprise will do, absent restraint. If the myriad horrors of colonial and industrial miseries aren't enough

Back up.

The horrors of colonial abuse do not illustrate the evils of unrestricted private enterprise. They illustrate the evils of collusion between government and private enterprise against individual rights.

The natural state of humans is deadly competition among tribes for resources. This is the net outcome of libertarianism, not some enlightened state of continuous fair play among free and noble gentlemen entrepreneurs, absent all rule or enforcement. When last I checked, primitive tribal life had a 60% mortality rate from violence, counting all male deaths from any cause.

Yeah, no. Libertarianism has never, not even once in the entire history of mankind, led to a state of primitive tribalism, or for that matter even kept a society in a state of primitive tribalism. Libertarianism as a political philosophy does indeed fail, but its failure mechanism is entirely different.

Right now, money owns and is redefining "the game" entirely.

It's called regulatory capture, and it's one of the things a libertarian approach actually minimizes.

 

[caveman1917]

Wow, is this wrong. Picket lines are not done on employer property.

Where?

They're done just outside employer property, on public property (commonly sidewalks). Even under current law, unions aren't allowed to invade an employer's private property in order to stage a strike. Why would they be?

It's not just that it's not allowed, "unions" can not "invade" an employer's "private property" in order to "stage" a strike. Unions are not corporeal entities and hence can not have a physical location to "invade" in the first place. A strike constitutes a collective decision by the employees to stop performing their work, so unless employees going into work in the morning - or some other time of day - constitutes an "invasion" you'll have to come up with a better argument.

I don't know where something like that is "current law" but that's just sad.

And a strikebreaker is someone who works for the employer despite the strike.

I was clearly talking about strikebreaking in the context of the boss using gangs against picket lines and such.

Nope. An libertarian employer's recourse in the case of a strike is to either negotiate a settlement with the union, find new employees, or shut down (temporarily or permanently).

Are you stating that libertarians who advocate the bosses buying and selling "protective and judicial services" on "the market" are not "real libertarians"?

And are you implying that there exists no retribution for a breach of contract under libertarianism? I thought that if someone "voluntarily" entered a contract to perform labour, and then decided not to perform said labour, this constituted a breach of contract and, apparently only in some cases, (which cases?) "aggression"?

The difference between the current situation and a libertarian approach is that the current situation often interferes with the employer's ability to find new employees.

I'd say that it mostly interferes with the employees' ability to find a new employer. It is, after all, the employees who get beaten from the premises and not the employer.

 

[Ziggurat]

Where?

The US. Duh.

It's not just that it's not allowed, "unions" can not "invade" an employer's "private property" in order to "stage" a strike. Unions are not corporeal entities and hence can not have a physical location to "invade" in the first place. A strike constitutes a collective decision by the employees to stop performing their work, so unless employees going into work in the morning - or some other time of day - constitutes an "invasion" you'll have to come up with a better argument.

What the hell are you talking about? During a strike, employees don't go in to work.

But thanks for demonstrating (once again) that you don't know anything about the subject.

I was clearly talking about strikebreaking in the context of the boss using gangs against picket lines and such.

That's illegal. And it would be under normal libertarianism too.

Are you stating that libertarians who advocate the bosses buying and selling "protective and judicial services" on "the market" are not "real libertarians"?

I'm saying that's a fringe position.

And are you implying that there exists no retribution for a breach of contract under libertarianism?

Contract violations require a remedy. That remedy isn't always retribution. Sometimes its simply cancellation of the contract.

I thought that if someone "voluntarily" entered a contract to perform labour, and then decided not to perform said labour, this constituted a breach of contract and, apparently only in some cases, (which cases?) "aggression"?

If you agree to do labor for a wage, and then don't do the labor, the standard remedy is that you don't get the wage. If you were paid in advance, you probably have to pay it back. The remedy isn't that you get the **** kicked out of you.

If you agree to take someone's car, clean it, and then return it, and you instead sell it to a 3rd party, that's a rather more serious breach of contract, for which the remedy is going to be more significant (but still isn't going to be getting the **** kicked out of you).

I'd say that it mostly interferes with the employees' ability to find a new employer. It is, after all, the employees who get beaten from the premises and not the employer.

Why would there be beatings?

 

[caveman1917]

The US. Duh.

Of course, why was I even expecting anything else.

What the hell are you talking about? During a strike, employees don't go in to work. But thanks for demonstrating (once again) that you don't know anything about the subject.

Who gives a **** how exactly you want to define a strike, the question is whether libertarianism considers such an act of trespassing as "aggression", a question which you keep to dodge.

That's illegal. And it would be under normal libertarianism too.

Great. Would it be illegal if I didn't pay my taxes?

Why would there be beatings?

Why would there be beatings when breaking up picket lines and worker assemblies? I wonder, can you think of the answer yourself?

 

[Ziggurat]

Who gives a **** how exactly you want to define a strike, the question is whether libertarianism considers such an act of trespassing as "aggression", a question which you keep to dodge.

A strike is not considered aggression because it's not trespass. That's why the definition matters. That's why the normal practice matters.

Why would you go onto the employer's property to strike? Do you intend to hold hostages like the French do?

Great. Would it be illegal if I didn't pay my taxes?

Yes.

Why would there be beatings when breaking up picket lines and worker assemblies? I wonder, can you think of the answer yourself?

You've basically answered that there would be beatings because there would be beatings. That explains nothing.

Libertarians do not advocate allowing employers to physically beat up picketing employees. This is entirely a figment of your fevered imagination.

 

[caveman1917]

Would this then be an example of a libertarian business owner?

Frick locked workers out of the plate mill and one of the open hearth furnaces on the evening of June 28. When no collective bargaining agreement was reached on June 29, Frick locked the union out of the rest of the plant. A high fence topped with barbed wire, begun in January, was completed and the plant sealed to the workers. Sniper towers with searchlights were constructed near each mill building, and high-pressure water cannons (some capable of spraying boiling-hot liquid) were placed at each entrance. Various aspects of the plant were protected, reinforced, or shielded.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Back up.

The horrors of colonial abuse do not illustrate the evils of unrestricted private enterprise. They illustrate the evils of collusion between government and private enterprise against individual rights.

Can't back up; I'm not driving. This gives me the leisure to flesh out the unintended implications of the above.

Yeah, no. Libertarianism has never, not even once in the entire history of mankind, led to a state of primitive tribalism, or for that matter even kept a society in a state of primitive tribalism. Libertarianism as a political philosophy does indeed fail, but its failure mechanism is entirely different.

It hasn't led anywhere because it hasn't led. It's a nearly autistic view of individual autonomy that has never pertained and is model-centric.

It's called regulatory capture, and it's one of the things a libertarian approach actually minimizes.

Deregulatory flatulence, more like it. The field of play as structured by free citizens in agreement making law through their elected representatives is not illegitimate red tape, such as in the case of product safety laws, to be obvious. If government is by consent of the majority, you get the factual result of many societies experiencing freedom and decent common welfare, as per the last half century (with caveats, of course). I don't see any other historical precedents or alternatives offering similar, albeit yet imperfect, results.

 

[Ziggurat]

It hasn't led anywhere because it hasn't led.

Exactly. That's it's failure mechanism. It can't acquire power by non-democratic means (because then it wouldn't be libertarianism), and it's not what people want so it can't acquire power by democratic means either.

Which is why blaming it for something it has nothing to do with (like the horrors of per-civilization life) makes no sense.

Deregulatory flatulence, more like it. The field of play as structured by free citizens in agreement making law through their elected representatives is not illegitimate red tape, such as in the case of product safety laws, to be obvious.

And did free citizens gather together and collectively agree that you needed to have an expensive occupational license in order to pluck someone's eyebrows? No, they didn't. Elected representatives made those laws for special interests, with input only from those special interests, not the electorate as a whole. Regulatory capture and rent seeking are real things.

 

[caveman1917]

A strike is not considered aggression because it's not trespass. That's why the definition matters.

You act as if the two exclude eachother, a strike can certainly include trespassing.

That's why the normal practice matters.

I couldn't care less about what you consider "normal" practice.

Why would you go onto the employer's property to strike?

You haven't even countered the point about going in to work and then deciding to go on strike. Let's not get ahead of ourselves by thinking of ways the workers might decide to enter their workplace after deciding to go on strike.

Do you intend to hold hostages like the French do?

You seem to. Aren't you the one promoting a system of withholding people's means of survival as ransom for extracting tax from them (such as rent and surplus value)? It was my understanding that libertarians were opposed to a state enforcing taxation. Taxation is theft, no?

You've basically answered that there would be beatings because there would be beatings. That explains nothing.

Libertarians do not advocate allowing employers to physically beat up picketing employees. This is entirely a figment of your fevered imagination.

So what do they advocate then? The person I referenced, Rothbard, is a founder of the Cato Institute - which you now pass off as a "fringe position" - even though it featured prominently in the wikipedia article you yourself provided.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... Which is why blaming it for something it has nothing to do with (like the horrors of per-civilization life) makes no sense.

Absent a playing field, open season.

 

[Ziggurat]

Would this then be an example of a libertarian business owner?

Obviously there's something about those events that you don't like. What was it? Who do you believe acted wrongly, and what is it that they did wrong?

 

[Ziggurat]

Absent a playing field, open season.

The anarchists are a fringe of the libertarians. There's still a playing field, there are still rules.

 

[caveman1917]

Obviously there's something about those events that you don't like.

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[caveman1917]

The anarchists are a fringe of the libertarians.

What anarchists?

 

[Mycroft]

Would this then be an example of a libertarian business owner?

You seem to be confusing the theoretical ideal of how American Libertarianism should work, and real world events that have nothing to do with theoretical libertarianism.

In theory, the factory owner should have no reason to lock out the striking employees because if everyone were a libertarian, then nobody would violate the factory owners property rights by attempting to enter the property without permission.

If we don't assume that everyone respects everyone's property rights, then the property owner would have the right to hire people to enforce his rights for him.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... If we don't assume that everyone respects everyone's property rights, then the property owner would have the right to hire people to enforce his rights for him.

Feudalism. Been there, done that.

 

[Mycroft]

Feudalism? The factory owner as a land owning nobleman can recruit men at arms to defend his land, yes he could. I think he could also just kill the trouble-makers among the workers and resolve the issue that way.

 

[Craig B]

Feudalism? The factory owner as a land owning nobleman can recruit men at arms to defend his land, yes he could. I think he could also just kill the trouble-makers among the workers and resolve the issue that way.

The modern operation that most resembles the feudal system is, as your post proves yet again, the Mafia.

I'm not sure that the word "Libertarian" is applicable to such agencies; as a political principle Liberty grew out of the resistance to feudal constraints, and the word denoted their absence.