Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you read any of the responses to that post? It's interesting how people can be looking at the same exact evidence (meaning history, life experience, logic and reason, etc.) and have completely opposite conclusions.
I did read the responses, including yours which stated that libertarians don't believe that people are all good, which is why you don't trust government.
However, my premise and agreement with that poster is based upon the fact that I personally do not see any difference between government and capitalists. Both are run by people. As stated - all people are sinners and will take an advantage to do whatever they want to do if left unchecked. They also are not going to agree to your NAP. If they do, they will re-interpret it to benefit them and not you, like people/humans are apt to do. This is basic human behavior and is the reason why we dominate the globe over the other animals. We are better at exploit and we will find an advantage that benefits us over anyone else.
Due to that, I feel that people who would like a libertarian style government/society, want to trade the cronyism and fraud that they see in government to benefit themselves and their capitalistic goals.
People will always be selfish and will not give you your freedoms you so hold dear exactly the way that you want them. People will never totally leave you alone because people are just not like that.
That is what I agreed with in regards to that post and that I believe many libertarians are naive about. You all have these great ideas/goals just like the communist did as was mentioned in this thread; however, people are not all "good." People are not going to just let you have your freedom so it is better IMO to have one system oppose the other.
And FWIW I don't think any government can be entirely 100% accountable. Just like I don't think that any capitalist can be held 100% accountable for their misdeeds either. So IMO it is better to have a robust economy based on capitalism along with a strong government. They keep each other in check. For me it is very odd that so many libertarians have this great view of the "free markets" as if free markets aren't run by people who are out for profits at all costs and who will do whatever they feel they must do to get their profits, including doing all they can to hide the "bad" stuff they do that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of the populace. Government officials can and will do the same thing. Neither is better but both serve a purpose.
Sure labor can organize, unions just cant use violence to force its will on ownership. If there is a voluntary agreement between a labor union and ownership, both sides should honor it.
Who said the farm workers used violence? Who said that the land owner would even want to enter a contract, especially since he could pump up the local labor pool by enticing people travel to his farms to pick his crops for an offer of $2.00 per bushel, then, when more people show up than can be employed, the land owner can then start lowering his offered wage?
This really happened during the 1930's, when landless and hungry agricultural workers were chasing rumors of employment in order to keep themselves from starving.
I keep asking for the libertarian answer to an actual situation that occurred, and I keep getting theoretical answers that don't address the historical events I've described.
So the contract ends and the workers are offered $1.25 because that is what the lazy SOB's on Wall Street demand to gautantee continued record profits.
It still prevents the initial scenario presented. You're now extending it into other areas.
Then the farm workers take it or look for alternative employment. If it's too low for all farm workers the lazy SOB's on Wall Street make zero profit.
Who said the farm workers used violence? Who said that the land owner would even want to enter a contract, especially since he could pump up the local labor pool by enticing people travel to his farms to pick his crops for an offer of $2.00 per bushel, then, when more people show up than can be employed, the land owner can then start lowering his offered wage?
This really happened during the 1930's, when landless and hungry agricultural workers were chasing rumors of employment in order to keep themselves from starving.
I keep asking for the libertarian answer to an actual situation that occurred, and I keep getting theoretical answers that don't address the historical events I've described.
A Libertarian businessman understands that long term there has to be people that can afford his product to remain in business.
What we are doing is NOT the Libertarian approach. It can not sustain itself the way we are doing it.
You can't pay people less while wanting more out of your product and remain viable for very long. "Investors" do not care. They are like the mob boss. They "loan" you money, bleed you dry and leave the bones.
No, not a straw man. A description of life in the 1930's for a migrant farm worker.
Quote:
That said neither are contrary to libertarian principles. How they are used may be.
Collective bargaining is not a violation as long as it is not leveraged to coerce, violate the NAP, or limit association (for example demand that all employees operate under a collective bargaining agreement) . Unions are not required for collective bargaining, freedom of association does not prohibit membership of any group.
In my example, the starving farm workers outside the gate wouldn't be part of a presumed libertarian-approved pickers' union. The land owner would be free to kick the unionized workers off of his land and open the gates for the starving pickers. And in the first place, why would the land owner even want to bargain with unionized pickers, if he could simply hire non-unionized starving pickers with no contract and with an agreement that lasted only as long as the sun was in the sky?
Who said the farm workers used violence? Who said that the land owner would even want to enter a contract, especially since he could pump up the local labor pool by enticing people travel to his farms to pick his crops for an offer of $2.00 per bushel, then, when more people show up than can be employed, the land owner can then start lowering his offered wage?
This really happened during the 1930's, when landless and hungry agricultural workers were chasing rumors of employment in order to keep themselves from starving.
I keep asking for the libertarian answer to an actual situation that occurred, and I keep getting theoretical answers that don't address the historical events I've described.
So what you're saying is that in fact the farmer was only rumored to be offering $2 per bushel, not actually offering $2 per bushel.
Contract isn't theoretical, do you have an employment contract today? How theoretical is it? Wanna test how theoretical it is by taking a dump on your bosses chair?
Who said the farm workers used violence? Who said that the land owner would even want to enter a contract, especially since he could pump up the local labor pool by enticing people travel to his farms to pick his crops for an offer of $2.00 per bushel, then, when more people show up than can be employed, the land owner can then start lowering his offered wage?
This really happened during the 1930's, when landless and hungry agricultural workers were chasing rumors of employment in order to keep themselves from starving.
I keep asking for the libertarian answer to an actual situation that occurred, and I keep getting theoretical answers that don't address the historical events I've described.
The libertarian answer is to let them starve. Anything else is a violation of the sacred Free Market. 10 people competing for 1 job means rock bottom wages.
It's why we have globalization and open borders: make Americans compete with cheap foreign labor, and thus drive down wages. Call anyone who disagrees with said policies "racist," and you can actually get the Left on board with this far-Right economic agenda.
No, not a straw man. A description of life in the 1930's for a migrant farm worker.
In my example, the starving farm workers outside the gate wouldn't be part of a presumed libertarian-approved pickers' union. The land owner would be free to kick the unionized workers off of his land and open the gates for the starving pickers. And in the first place, why would the land owner even want to bargain with unionized pickers, if he could simply hire non-unionized starving pickers with no contract and with an agreement that lasted only as long as the sun was in the sky?
The farm owner could only kick off those workers if the contract permitted it. Otherwise he'd have to abide by the terms of that contract.
YOU are the one that raised unionization. I talked contract they're not the same thing. That's the straw man you constructed that I mentioned, NOT, the scenario you presented.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
