Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Calling all anarchists

You are being self-contradictory. If I'm free, and so are you, then we are free to inform our employer of our intention to stop working absent some condition, such as higher wages or safer work conditions. If we are not free to do that, then the market isn't free. The problem arises only when the force of the state enters into the relationship preventing the employer from firing us and hiring permanent replacements. This interferes with the market finding the correct price for labor, i.e., that wage which results in the maximum efficiency in the production and distribution of resources.

I'm never self-contradictory. Collective bargaining is always force. I will agree that government helps collective bargaining work best but is not necessary. The Mafia has shown that.

I think where we get into trouble with these discussions is you tend toward the romantic and I do not.

An agreement on the part of employees to stop working absent a desired condition be met constitutes force??? How is choosing not to work (individually or as a group) an exercise of force? Preventing them from doing so would be force, more familiarly known as slavery.

So when it's convenient for you, the gubberment is good. Thanks for clearing that up.


.

Barak,I'm pretty sure you've mentioned it before.Not in a bragging way...... it just fit in a post you made.Don't ask when.

Same with NYC,I guess.Although in THAT instance,somebody else may have "outed" you.

Point is,I knew - or thought I knew - those two things about you,

What creates force is stopping the employer from replacing the workers who refuse to work for whatever the reason. The problem with collective bargaining is it always results in the use of force one way or another whether there is government force to back it up or not.

Reminds me of the old joke:

Q: How can you tell that there's a pilot at your party?
A: He'll tell you.

Government is merely a management system managing the relationship between the people and the state. If people chose to organize into a collective unit of some sort, i,e, nation, state, county, city, or whatever than one legitimate function of that management system the people chose is to get things going again in a natural disaster. People hire managers and workers to run the management system unfortunately the only humans that tend toward the management system are the seekers of power, criminals, and the lazy. Hence, when the people need the management system to get things going again the only thing the management system is good at is creating even more problems than the natural disaster created.

Personally, I've never seen a management system between the state and the people ever work because self-interest is the motive of all human behavior. The best thing that the management system can do in a natural disaster is get the heck out of the way and let the people fix things.

Sorry for the confusion. All I was saying is that if there is a legitimate function for the management system it would seem like disaster recovery would be one of them. Much like if there is a legitimate function for the management system to have and use military assets defending an ambassador and company would be one of them.

Careful, you're talking badly of potential clients for Barak and Penny.

Barak and Penny have a Christian ministry that attempts to save souls and train people to be productive citizens.

http://kpmifoundation.org/index.php

In an anarchist society, employees should be just as free to form a cartel as businesses� After all, if businesses were to form a cartel to fix pricing in an anarchist society; who could stop them? Same thing for employees. If they are able to form a cartel and deny work, then that would be their right. However, they wouldn�t have the right to use force to prevent those who would break the �strike� to go to work in their place. But they would be free to use other means such as market pressure.

I guess that's a good point. Given that union workers are bargaining for more pay or fewer hours or whatever, it seems that one of two scenarios must be the case.

On the one hand, perhaps these workers really are worth more money than they're being paid: if they left, they could get a jobs making more money for a competitor, and their current employer would have to spend a considerable sum of money getting replacements up to speed, and then have to pay them more to retain them.

But in that case, why would they join a union? Why wouldn't they just individually threaten to quit, and then simply do so if their demands weren't met? There's no coercion here, but I think this scenario is probably fairly rare in union conflicts, because no union is required. Unions are expensive; why would you bother with one when simply threatening to quit is much easier and cheaper?

On the other hand, perhaps these workers really aren't worth more money than they're being paid, so that if they left they'd have trouble finding equivalently-waged jobs elsewhere or perhaps any jobs at all, and they could be easily and cheaply replaced with folks who would be glad for the same amount of money or possibly even less.

There's no coercion so far in this scenario either, but if it remains coercion-free, then the obvious course of action is simply for management to fire the whiners and hire less-troublesome replacements. So if management does something else, it seems fair to assume that management is being coerced somehow--either by the government or by the union.

But I really have very little experience with unions and may be way off here somewhere.

Hey, man, let's be a little more careful in making these comparisons. Anyway, of course I am the most correct.

I'm familar with what they attempt to do and where they attempt to do it.

Yes, that's force. Before adopting my position, however, it's conventional to admit to having been wrong previously. Instead, you pretend your position has always been mine, as if the record isn't clear. Poor form.That's what the police are for, i.e., to arrest anyone who initiates force. And the courts are for the punishing of same. That only works, however, when the laws aren't designed to interfere with the free market to start with.

Not all unions have the luxury of a work stop. Not if you are a LEO here in NJ anyway.

Maybe Derby caught a case of Romnesia....

Government workers who threaten a work stoppage should instantly be fired en masse and replaced, but you have a complete right to threaten one, and to take part in one. No one is forcing anyone to continue in their current place of employment. It's a free country.

So you're OK with the gov having that power over me or anyone else ? I'm surprised. Guess you don't really believe in workplace rights then either.

What power? That of not bowing to your demands as employees? Yes. Absolutely? You don't own your job. Your employer does. If you think you're worth more than what you're getting, or are required to work too many hours, or whatever, go find another employer offering terms more to your liking.