But we're talking about the government forcing a third party into the process of two parties negotiating compensation. Like I said I don't have any problem having unions, we need collective bargaining, hell several years ago I suggested starting an IT union on this very list to represent the interests of "exempt salaried" employees who regularly get screwed over.
I just don't want to see it forced on anyone. when the government becomes involved in that process to my mind it steps far outside the bounds of it's responsibilities and powers. On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com>wrote: > > Well, hell, if you are just going to take an arbitrary Libertarian stand > point, then you have perfect free and voluntary association even with union > representation because no one is requiring you to apply for or take a > union-represented job. If the notion of a union is too odious to you, then > don't apply for a union job. You still have self ownership. > > Personally, I think that taking it that far is kinda ridiculous. But it is > exactly true in the same reductive Libertarian logic as the rest of it. > > Judah > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:54 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > My statement is based on the fact that ALL LAW is based on the monopoly > on > > the initiation and use of force in order to enforce said law. > > > > Every law on the books is only backed by someone with a gun and a jail > > cell. We need to be more careful about what we decide rises to that > level. > > > > What about free and voluntary association, and self ownership? > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > No one said anything about force, dude. I was talking about the > structure > > > of labor law. > > > > > > I do have some mad respect for the old Wobblies though. They were some > > hard > > > mofos. I don't think we need that now, I do think that things have > > evolved > > > to the point where union structure and power needs to be looked at. > > > > > > That's not what these laws are intended for, however. If you start with > > the > > > premise that unions are bad, you aren't going to do a good job of > > enacting > > > reforms that make unions better. That simple. If you want to start from > > the > > > premise that unions are a good thing but need to be reigned in and make > > > sure that they continue to be a force for good rather than evil, that's > > > another matter. > > > > > > I feel the same way about corporations. Corporations are fundamentally > a > > > good thing. Left unchecked, however, the things that make them good can > > > morph into structures that are capable of a great deal of harm. Unions > > are > > > much the same. > > > > > > Judah > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:40 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yes those things can suck man, but is force really the way to fight > it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359055 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
