Labor Day is supposed to honor all American workers. And every year, union Labor Day rhetoric does just that. Unfortunately, it then makes the false leap to the claim that unions advance the interests of all American working men and women, not just their members. In fact, despite unions’ pro-worker rhetoric, the effect of most union activities and union-backed policies is to harm most American workers.Unions succeed by preventing competition from other workers who are willing to do the same work for less. Those workers either become unemployed or must go elsewhere to find jobs, increasing the supply of labor services in non-union employment, pushing down wages for all workers in such jobs as a result. The resulting union wage premium does not come out of the pockets of employers as much as from the pockets of other workers, as a result. Since less than 10 percent of the American private-sector workers are unionized, this means that more than 90 percent of private-sector workers are injured by this most basic exercise of union power.
Anti-worker effects are also vividly illustrated by the history of union violence and threats against “non-cooperative†employees. There have been thousands of attacks against such workers in recent decades, and well more than 100 deaths.
Aware that their government protection against workers who are willing to do the same job for less stops at the border, unions have also been the primary movers behind government protectionism of all stripes. But protectionism undermines the interests of all those workers who would have gained from expanded exports, as well as those who, as consumers, would have gained from access to lower cost and superior quality imports.
There are many other ways unions have sold workers’ interests short. Their opposition killed the 1996 Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, which would have raised workers’ value to employers by putting their productivity-enhancing insights to better use, because such cooperation would not be controlled by unions. They have conducted campaigns to harass and regulate non-union apprenticeship programs out of existence, keeping non-union workers from acquiring the skills to earn a better living in order to stave off future competition for union workers. They have long undermined enforcement of the Supreme Court’s 1988 Beck decision that workers can withhold support for unions’ political activities, as well as spending over $100 million to defeat “paycheck protection†initiatives. Their support for the Davis-Bacon Act has inflated government construction costs for decades, raising the tax burden on all American workers. Similarly, they have been the primary opponents of privatization and other reforms that would improve government operations from education to poverty programs, but threaten their existing chokehold on those jobs. And all this has occurred even though more than a third of union members routinely vote against the positions their union leaders fund.
Unions are also major supporters of schemes that require higher taxes (and regulatory burdens, which act as taxes), at a time when the average American already spends more to fund government than on food, clothing and shelter combined. And because taxes reduce saving and investment, they also reduce the accumulation of capital, which is the source of increased productivity, they reducing workers’ future earning power.
American workers have accomplished incredible things in our history. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in those accomplishments this Labor Day. But there is something wrong with unions hijacking that pride by taking credit for what they did not do, especially when they claim that they represent all working men and women, when most of what they do and support injures the vast majority of workers, in order to protect their own vested interests.
{ 36 comments }
Well put. I wouldn’t be surprised if most union members and/or supporters draw their salaries from the government. I only hope that we can turn that tide before every kids greatest hope is to grow up and secure a government post–where they can produce nothing, at great paylevels–as the eurokids do now.
Hey, thanks Gary. That was succinct and I agree with almost every word. I have questions though: Could you please disaggregate what you mean when you write “at a time when the average American already spends more to fund government than on food, clothing and shelter combined”? (Do you include the cost of the Fed, regulation and other hidden forms of conscription? Does cost really pass 50% of a $30,000 income?)
In add, re: unions. Do you allow for the WH Hutt exception(s)? Didn’t he believe that in some cases of oppression, like when facing the exisence of other unions, forming a union to help gain some footing is actually warranted? (Is it fighting fire w/ fire?)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2kR45qOzGbU
Try convince idiots like this that unions tend to be damaging.
This is one of the better Labor Day posts I have seen, and I include the one that I posted. You make a lot of sense, Gary. Thanks.
For another perspective on unions read Kevin Carson’s The Ethics of Labor Struggle: A Free Market Perspective.
I should have added that the article I just linked is well worth reading because it is both well written and consistent with libertarian principles and economics- more so than the current article. Sorry Gary…
Kevin Carson’s theories will become interesting to me when he first constructs a proper argument. He paints unrealistic strawmen and then attacks them, such as this example,
“Vulgar libertarian critiques of organized labor commonly assert that unions depend entirely on force (or the implicit threat of force), backed by the state, against non-union laborers; they assume, in so arguing, that the strike as it is known today has always been the primary method of labor struggle.”
Simply not true. This is not reflective of any Austrians that I know off. Just because someone writes something in one context does not mean that it is their view overwhelmingly. Carson is simply a pure genius, strikes incur replacement costs and retraining costs! WOW! I can recall countless conversations with professors regarding costs. Austrians are hardly so silly and unrealistic to assume new workers magically appear.
Also, Kevin Carson’s definition of “vulgar libertarian” more or less encompasses anyone who defends a corporation. For fictional example, If I were to write an article about a horrible labor union taking a middle manager, beating him to death, raping his wife repeatedly, and molesting his children, Kevin Carson would label me as a vulgar libertarian just because I wrote something against a labor union.
I am VERY proud of the Austrian School’s tradition of approaching economics as a positive science. And I find it so wonderful when someone at one turn can criticize the force used by labor unions and then in another article attack corporations disrespecting the basic rights of labor. We don’t go around calling people who defend a labor union reasonably “vulgar”, “evil” and the such. A person should identify who has used force and coercion and judge according to justice not on the basis of one being capital and one being labor.
What he utterly misses in his analysis, is sometimes labor is messed up and sometimes capital is messed. If Tom DiLorenzo is “vulgar” when identifying certain coercive methods of unions, then under his own definition Carson is a “vulgar” defender of unions.
He says that these “vulgar libertarians” defend corporations constantly. Then mention for a second that some corporations are bad and then go back to defending corporations. How does this differ so much from constantly defending labor unions, mentioning for a second that they occasionally kill people (whoops), and then go back to defending labor unions all day long.
Mr. Carson could have a lot of good things to contribute once he starts thinking about analysis through a positive outlook and not drawing lines in the sand. Also calling other people “vulgar” is certainly no way to make friends……or quoting Rothbard out of context.
Verdan,
It’s alway amusing when a commentator accuses somebody of attacking strawmen and them proceedes to do just that.
For instance, you assert, without any sort of evidence and totally ignoring Carson’s actual conceptual framework and definition of vulgar libertarianism:
“Also, Kevin Carson’s definition of “vulgar libertarian” more or less encompasses anyone who defends a corporation. For fictional example, If I were to write an article about a horrible labor union taking a middle manager, beating him to death, raping his wife repeatedly, and molesting his children, Kevin Carson would label me as a vulgar libertarian just because I wrote something against a labor union.”
If that is not a strawman, I don’t know what is! I regularly read Carson’s blog, and I have never seen him demonstrate any such inclination towards such irrationality. Evidence please!!
Moreover, and more importantly, you conveniently ignored the definition/conceptual frame work by which Kevin analyzes and lables something as “vulgar libertarianism.” In Carson’s own words:
“Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term “free market” in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article in The Freeman arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because “that’s not how the free market works”–implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich.”
In other words, vulgar libertarians defend bosses/corporations/”the rich” using free market principles -implicitly assuming a context of a free market, when if fact, they are privilaged by the state. There is nothing in this defintion (or concpetual framework) that could lead one to honestly state that, “Kevin Carson’s definition of “vulgar libertarian” more or less encompasses anyone who defends a corporation.” This would be true only if they were defending a corporation using free market principles when in fact it was recieving state privilages external to the free market.
Hence, Verdan, it is you who have set up a strawman by attributing, and then attacking, a definition of vulgar libertarianism that has nothing to do with Carson’s actual definition ad concept.
I just took one example…another example would be your statement: “What he [Kevin Carson] utterly misses in his analysis, is sometimes labor is messed up and sometimes capital is messed.” First of all, that labor is alway “right in any context”, a belief you have to attribute to Carson for your assertion to even begin to be arguable, is hardly the point of Carson’s article…
…But it’s late, and I am tired of typing.
Later, I will perhaps post more. Until then, good night, all.
Thanks for posting the link, Dave.
Vedran Vuk, my “unrealistic strawman” summary of the right-Austrian position on organized labor was illustrated by a quote from Thomas Dilorenzo that said the same thing in almost the same words. It’s a recurring theme on Mises Blog that unions are cartels to exclude non-union workers, and couldn’t be enforced without the threat of violence–ultimately that of the state. From the first mention of unions on a right-libertarian blog, on any given day, the duration can be counted in nano-seconds before that same assertion is reflexively made by at least one commenter. Hell, it’s made by Gary Galles himself in the article you’re commenting on:
“Unions succeed by preventing competition from other workers who are willing to do the same work for less…. Anti-worker effects are also vividly illustrated by the history of union violence and threats against ‘non-cooperative’ employees.”
So how can you be serious?
Regarding replacement and training costs, I have no doubt Austrians are more than willing to recognize them in some contexts. But “just because someone writes something in one context” doesn’t mean they recognize its implications in another context. Regardless of what they say about replacement and training costs in other contexts, they act as if they are unaware of them in the specific context of labor relations. Saying that unions can only win strikes by forcibly excluding scabs is inconsistent with any awareness of the implications of replacement and training costs.
The cases of vulgar libertarianism I’ve recounted did not involve sometime defense and sometime criticism of corporations, all incidental to the primary purpose of defending free markets as such. They involved a clear affective bias toward corporations, so that big business was defended as if it were the product of a free market. The standard template of a vulgar libertarian polemical piece is: “Some say big business does so-and-so. But that can’t be true, because in a free market, so-and-so happens”–assuming that big business is operating in a free market. In every “vulgar libertarianism” post I’ve made, I’ve pointed out the invalid assumptions implicit in the piece I was criticizing. Vulgar libertarianism involves not just defending corporations at times, but systematic ambiguity as to whether the present system is a free market, and the defense of the winners under state capitalism as if they were the winners in a free market.
Finally, please supply the “context” I allegedly omitted for Rothbard (I assume you’re referring to the Libertarian Forum article on confiscation and homesteading). I believe I was quite thorough in providing contextual details for Rothbard’s argument, and in providing all the steps in his train of thought.
I think you’re the one making unwarranted generalizations and setting up strawmen. None of your accusations stands up when evaluated in the light of an independent reading of my article.
Mr Carson, I will just say that I usually enjoy your works. You do us a great favour by analyzing typically statist measures that pass for free markets, and serve to muddle the analysis of certain Austrians. I do not agree entirely with your work, but I frequently find myself citing your articles on things such as imperialism, privatization etc.
Verdan, Mr Carson almost never treats Austrians as vulgar libertarians. A reading of any of his articles will show that he is most sympathetic to our position, and indeed to Rothbard’s. Vulgar libertarians is an adequate label for individuals such as David Friedman (not so much for Rand, since she denounced libertarianism, but more so for her non-Austrian followers.)
Sorry, should be Vedran.
Folks, an entire issue of the JLS has been devoted to the Carson critique of Austro-libertarianism. Go
The history of the United States labor movement is pretty good evidence that unions largely succeed through application of coercive state power. The unionization movement rose and fell, in the private sector, with the concurrent rise and fall of coercive labor legislation; and, today, the movement is strongest in that sector of the economy where such state power is most prevalent- the public sector.
This not to say that unions always succeed through such power. Indeed, as a unit, a company’s labor force can use the potential retraining and other costs as a perfectly legitimate bargaining chip, and I don’t know of any real libertarians that argue otherwise.
What position should a libertarian adopt? He/she should be opposed to all coercion on all individuals. Likewise, he/she should be opposed to all subsidization of all individuals. Most libertarians are very consistent on the first, just a bit less so on the second.
What’s this?
“The cases of vulgar libertarianism I’ve recounted did not involve sometime defense and sometime criticism of corporations, all incidental to the primary purpose of defending free markets as such. They involved a clear affective bias toward corporations, so that big business was defended as if it were the product of a free market. The standard template of a vulgar libertarian polemical piece is: “Some say big business does so-and-so. But that can’t be true, because in a free market, so-and-so happens”–assuming that big business is operating in a free market. In every “vulgar libertarianism” post I’ve made, I’ve pointed out the invalid assumptions implicit in the piece I was criticizing. Vulgar libertarianism involves not just defending corporations at times, but systematic ambiguity as to whether the present system is a free market, and the defense of the winners under state capitalism as if they were the winners in a free market.”
That seems to me pretty clear that if I defend big business for something, then I’m a vulgar libertarian libertarian. You’re not even evaluating the argument. If it is defended at all in the sense of saying what would happen in a free market, then it’s immediately bad.
What’s so wrong about saying, CEO salaries would be lower in a free market where hostile take overs were more frequent with less red tape? How does giving someone an example of how things would work with less regulation vulgar in any way. I don’t see that as making an excuse or defending a corporation. It’s saying look. Here’s a problem this is how it could be solved
Also, sure some people have a “clear affective bias toward corporations”. Yes they do. Just like you have a “clear affective bias toward unions”
First of all, Vedran, I would like to apologize for calling you “Verdan,” I meant no disrespect. It was late, and I looking at my previous post, I see I made many typos.
However, you are once again dropping the context. The “vulgar libertarian” label only applies if one is defending a corporation as if it is operating in a free market and ignoring the privileges and subsidations it recieves from the state. The real issue, thus, is not with the vulgar libertarian label as such, but rather, what a free market means both concepually and in practise, and, moroever, what state privilege for corporations and/or bussiness in general, entails.
Jeffrey, how mature of you! I sometimes find your articles quite boring, also. Grow up, dude.
Anthony, I must echo your sentiments regarding Carson’s work. I, too, often cite his work, even though I don’t quite agree with his ideas.
Carson, interesting post. Well written and concise as always.
Oops, meant to say…”even though a don’t quite agree with “all of” his [Kevin Carson's] ideas.”
Sigh! Where I typed “a” there should be an “I”.
Dave, the typo king.
Thanks, Anthony and Dave.
Vedrun, I think I made it clear in my comment exactly how “vulgar libertarianism” entails something more than the mere defense of corporations as such. It is the defense of corporations as such as if they were operating in a free market, or denying the existence of some problem of corporate power on the grounds that it can’t occur in a free market.
Again, it is you who are attacking a strawman.
To take another of my alleged strawmen: Yancey Ward stated in his first paragraph essentially the same position on labor unions that I summarized in my article, and that you characterized as a strawman. His acknowledgment in a subsequent paragraph that replacement costs create some union bargaining power in a free market makes it a bit more nuanced than my summary statement; but it still asserts that the fortunes of unions have been tied mainly to state power. And it is also much more nuanced than Dilorenzo’s articles, since he left out any acknowledgement at all that unions might have legitimate bargaining power as a result of replacement rents.
As a writer myself, you can’t always mention in every sentence this fact. That’s why I think it is a great idea to look at parts of an economy and not condemn something entirely simply because it is subsidized. For example, I can write an article about how Wal-Mart gives poor people good prices by building economies of scale. It doesn’t mean that for no particular reason I should just start talking about their support of minimum wage or occasional use of eminent domain.
It would be like writing an article about white rabbits and then suddenly going into a rant about brown rabbits. This would be appropriate if you’re talking about rabbits as a whole.
But what you’re doing is attacking articles about white rabbits and saying, “Imposters! How come they don’t talk about BROWN rabbits!” It’s because it’s an article about white rabbits. And if you really want to see someone’s view, you must read up on their views of both brown and white rabbits and put this together.
Further, is it really necessary to constantly make exactly clear what market you are talking about. Most of your “vulgar” libertarian basis is based on semantics when someone says “in the market” for example. It’s ambiguous but most people can figure out the context.
I really don’t want to waste my time further, but you have even called people “vulgar libertarians” who make simply a positive analysis of a situation.
Here:
“More recently, the argument was reincarnated by Radley Balko, who referred to Third World sweatshops as “the best of a series of bad employment options available” to laborers there. Within a couple of days, this piece was recirculated over the “free market” [sic] blogosphere, along with numerous comments that “sweatshops are far superior to third-world workers’ next best options…,” or to similar effect (the last phrase comes from another article by Carden posted on the Mises blog last May, by the way). For more examples of the same argument, just Google “sweatshops”+”next-best alternative”.”
Here is one of your “vulgar libertarians”. He makes the analysis of the condition of the third world AS IT IS NOW. No magical anarcho-capitalism completely free market that he’s talking about. He’s talking about how the companies are improving conditions NOW. Did you catch that, NOW? Laborers go for their best alternative which is the foreign factories…. NOW. They are being NOW paid better wages than their other alternatives. The whole thing is about these people’s bad condition and the little bargaining power they have other than offering lower wages improving their lot by a fractional amount.
And yet this somehow fits your definition of a “vulgar libertarian.” You’re criticizing them for defending sweatshops. The writer completely understands their lack of bargaining power. He is talking about how the corporations have the bargaining power and about the system as it is TODAY.
Nobody is pretending anything in this article. So, if you do stand for your definition as mentioned on this blog then for consistency I suggest you make changes on your blog.
On white rabbits again:
You said, “And it is also much more nuanced than Dilorenzo’s articles, since he left out any acknowledgement at all that unions might have legitimate bargaining power as a result of replacement rents.”
Complete fallacy. I’ve never written an article about homosexual’s right to marry. Therefore, I must not think homosexuals have a right to marry considering that when I was talking about freedom and families; I failed to include a footnote on homosexuals.
It’s quite a fallacy. Which is my point. You are attacking certain “white rabbit” articles. You are not actually attacking the views of your opponents. In a way, you are correct. You are not making a strawman of a particular article or quote. You are making a strawman of the article’s writer and the ideas that encompass his world view outside that one small article.
What I suggest to you is to e-mail Tom DiLorenzo or I can do it for you and ask him, “Do you think that unions have any bargaining power because of the replacement/retraining costs of hiring a completely new work force?”
I really dare you to. Same for Dave. Just ask him. See what he says and then you’ll see how much Carson’s arguments actually ring true when he is no longer arguing with white rabbits.
Vedran,
Interesting comments. I will respond later, when I have more time to construct worthy arguments.
Regards,
Dave
Virgin America recently started flying after a long battle with the government. Guess who was at the front of the line asking the government to prevent Virgin America from flying? The pilot and flight attendant unions. Here was a company creating new pilot and flight attendant jobs and the unions pushed for the government to prevent those new jobs from being created.
Vedran,
Your “white rabbit/brown rabbit” analogy doesn’t apply.
Union bargaining power resulting from replacement costs has a direct bearing on the validity of his general assertion that unions depend on the use of force to exclude scabs.
So the assertion he makes in his articles, as well as the issue of replacement costs, are both “white rabbit” issues.
I don’t see the point in emailing him with your question, because I have no doubt that he will stipulate to the fact that union bargaining power results from replacement costs. Believe me, I wouldn’t be surprised if he acknowledged it. The problem is that he omitted it when it had a direct bearing on his argument about the function of unions. He omitted a centrally pertinent white rabbit fact that constituted a significant exception to his general assertion about white rabbits.
And you often omit and leave out the fact that unions sometimes kill people. And that’s ok. I understand the point of view that you’re coming from and if you wanna have a discussion defending unions, I don’t feel that you are obliged every other sentence to mention that unions sometimes kill people or use government force. People have topics that they like. I don’t hold it against you that you like exploring the voluntary relationships with unions and management.
Similarly, you should not hold it against other people that they like to focus on the the more violent and coercive methods of unions. It is just pointless to call people “vulgar” because they like this research more so than others. Because they like writing about minimum wage rather than homosexuals’ rights, does not make them a gay basher.
Also, side note. Every time that force is used replacement cost is considered as well. It’s never a matter of well they killed a manager…..that’s why we’re scared and we’ll give in. It’s a matter of they killed a manager plus the replacement cost is huge which is increased even more so by now needing protection for the scabs.
One more thing. If you keep attacking DiLorenzo on the basis that he doesn’t include it in his articles, but he is an Austrian who feels this way.
Then you will accomplish nothing.
You will successfully attack some ARTICLES. But never the person and more importantly the actual theory that the people behind the article support.
It may be a great victory to people who visit your blog, but to the world of intellectuals you have not even put a scratch on Tom DiLorenzo. Because first you have not actually attacked his views on the whole matter and second you have not attacked the theory that he stands by.
You have simply managed to assault an article held by you in a vacuum ignoring all other factors without the author’s views and his theories. Not a hard thing to do at all.
A little late in the day, but I just got internet.
I think a distinction should be made here. I doubt any sincere Austrian will defend a union that employs force as its method for securing employment, whether against the employer, or potential competition (non-union workers). However, is it possible that a non-coercive union could form, as an association of workers colluding?
I think that it is not only possible, but exists today.
My example is in the professional music and acting circuits. You can hire union or non-union workers, and sometimes both for the same production. There are different pay-scales and also expectations from both sides of the table. In a recent production of La Boheme I was in, the chorus was non-union, and I believe the leads as well (or at least, it works much differently for opera lead roles – you are individuals with agents, but whether there is a union involved or not, I don’t know), but the orchestra was union, and operated strictly by the clock. It was also amazing to watch them rehearse, with the first orchestra rehearsal 6 days before the first performance. There are advantages and disadvantages to both being and hiring union members.
This is simply to show that non-coercive unions can and do exist.
However, in our world, coercive unions also exist. I do not defend them, but simply the idea that a union, as the concept of a collusion of labor, is not inherently wrong.
The problem at hand for anyone who works is in selling their labor for the market price: how to determine that market price? It is easy (relatively speaking) to determine that price at the time of the hire – simply apply at multiple locations with similar traits and accept the highest offer. Or if you are lazy, search monster.com for job offers of the type you are interested in. However, after the hire date, it would be foolish to expect one’s market value to remain a constant, especially with our friend inflation. Even without inflation, however, the market price will change, due to accumulation of skill, as well as changing demand for your particular labor (ie, more houses is good news for plumbers).
How to then determine if you are getting your market value, or if you are “selling yourself short” and being a bargain for your employer? You can quit and reapply – scarcely a great plan. You can tell your boss you want a raise, or that you are considering another offer, and would he care to improve on it. For unskilled workers, these options are not ideal. Far better to form a union, and act en masse.
This is a gamble. But an educated gamble – implying that our workers are being, should I dare speak the word, entrepreneurs. They can exploit their employer, because he is tied to a location far more strictly than they, and he has a time preference that may place him under stricter limits than they.
All of this is simply to illuminate the fact that unions, even of unskilled workers striking, are in no way inherently coercive.
Of course, once force is used, it all falls down.
But maybe I’m preaching to the choir here- I’m sure all this was terribly obvious, and so I’ll apologize. After I post..
Axel,
You are mostly preaching to the choir, but your’s is a good explication of a true libertarian position.
Striking is not coercion. Cooperation among workers is not coercion. When strikers block plant entrances, and/or threaten non-union members for trying to take the striking union member’s jobs, then we have crossed the line into coercion. Any law that requires employers to deal with unions in any way is also coercion. Any law that requires non-union members to pay union dues is also coercion. These are the dividing lines for libertarians and others. There is no justification for these coercive means. If it is vulgar to stand by these principles, then I am vulgar.
I suppose I too am vulgar. I am not for or against corporations. I am against corporations using the hammer of the state or any other form of coercion. I am not for or against unions. I am against unions using the hammer of the state or any other form of coercion.
Axel,
Good post, I enjoyed it.
Yancy and greg,
Obviously you have no idea what Kevin means by “vulgar”. Read Kevin’s posts again.
Dave and Kevin,
Are you going to let Vedran have the last word? Usually I don’t care who has the last word in a debate, but Vedran’s last two posts-just like all his posts on this topic- are so immature and intellectually dishonest, somebody needs to set the record straight. If either of you don’t, I will.
P.S. Yes, I know if you want someting done you should do it yourself. However, Kevin is the best proponent of his ideas (obviously), and Dave also seems to have a good grasp of the subject.
bob,
I understand it completely. I would suggest that it is you who needs to reread what Carson wrote. Vedran describes it correctly. This is why they have “given” him the last word.
Yancy,
I totally disagree. Vedran’s childish and dishonest depiction does not fit my understanding of Kevin Carson’s “vulgar libertarianism” at all.
However, in the name of knowledge, please explain to me how Vedran’s depiction of Carson’s “vulgar libertarianism” is correct. I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong.
As for the last word, I doubt Dave and Kevin have “given” it to him because they think he describes it correctly. Another possibility is that they got tired of his emotional, and intellectually dishonest tirades. There have been a few posts on this site that have railed (incorrectly) against Austrian economics that have gotten the last word, for whatever reason. Does that make them correct? Did you say “no”? Exactly. Hence, Vedran’s “last word” does not make him correct. In fact last words in a debate don’t really mean anything- as I’ve said before, the reason I want Dave and Kevin to respond is because I find Vedran’s comments intellectually dishonest.
Until demonstrated otherwise, I’m with Dave and Kevin on this.
Bob,
The question at hand, earlier in the thread, when Dave first linked to Carson’s essay, was whether the vulgar libertarian was a strawman that Carson created and attacked- Vedran’s position. Carson replied by pointing to my comment that stated the following:
Carson made the point that I was a real-life example of what Vedran was calling a strawman. However, Carson did call me more nuanced than usual for acknowledging that unions can use replacement costs as leverage in negotiations.
So, exactly where did I misunderstand the Carson’s meaning?
Vedran,
Obviously one can’t include every single fact about a subject in a single article. That’s not the point.
It makes a big difference whether the fact you exclude is just another fact that incidentally happens to be about the same subject, or whether it’s directly material to a generalization you make in the article.
I don’t doubt that unions kill people under some circumstances, or have resorted to illegitimate force to back up strikes. But since my writing on unions is aimed primarily at showing that they don’t *necessarily* depend on such violence to be effective, the cases in which they do use such violence doesn’t have any material bearing on the validity of my argument. Dilorenzo, on the other hand, makes the generalization that unions depend on violence for their effectiveness, and then fails to mention a major example of how they can exercise effective bargaining power without violence.
If you can’t see the difference, I don’t see much point in continuing to make you see it–especially when the thread is so old.
That, Yancey Ward, is why I gave Vedran the “last word.” I only posted again since you made the rather unwarranted assumption that I didn’t have an answer. In fact, I just considered further efforts futile, for the same reason that it’s so pointless to try to make Person understand an argument.
“In fact, I just considered further efforts futile, for the same reason that it’s so pointless to try to make Person understand an argument.”
He does provide a useful source of criticism though for anti-IP libertarians to sharpen their claws with.
I don’t think this article does justice to Unions at all. I may not know a lot about Austrian Economics (cause still I’m learning), but I am a libertarian and I know about labor history in America, and that fact is the only entities that are “coercive” are governments and big business. And I’m not talking about the clearly biased “labor laws” put on the books like the NLRA or Taft Hartely Amendment, I’m talking about the Pinkerton Agency and other thugs hired by big business to destory, and kill members of labor unions. Therefore, striking peacefully (and most strikes in labor history were peaceful until the Federal government decides to deploy the Nation Guard to fire into crowds and picket lines) has never been coercive. You have to ask yourself, who’s coercing who? Labor unions have gotten a terrible terrible rap in this country and it is a crying shame.
i like carson’s idea that unions and business should be free of all i.r. constraints, and may the best man win.
but since we’re not in a free market, i think it’s safe to call him a vulgar syndicalist.
i’d like to see his articles qualified, acknowledging that episodes of union violence/vandalism and threats do occur, and are often tolerated by police and prosecutors.
i condemn the union cheer-squad as much as the corporate-welfare mob. a pox on both their houses.
Comments on this entry are closed.