nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / klipper!biep / 11:46 pm Jan 9, 1985 >[] > The main thing which bothers me in Libertarianism is that they > want me to fight. I have to forsee everything, and take my > measures. I want to work and live *for* a society, not to > fight *against* it. My first question (what if my neighbo[u]r > buys all the land around me, or in another way controls all > the resources I need) was answered in that way (you should > have forseen that, and acted accordingly). Well, now wait a minute. The implication was pretty clear in your question that your neighbor was not being all that reasonable. (would YOU buy up the land surrounding someone's plot and then deny them exit?) If you posit a situation in which you're surrounded by contentious, unreasonable people, and then worry that a libertarian society wouldn't let you escape this fact, I think you're straw-manning (to coin a verb). The answers you got were consistent with the situation as you described it. I, at least, assumed that you were worried about a neighbor who would NOT say, "Oh, sure. Tell you what, you can use my driveway here for (very small fee)". > Now I would like a third > question, taken from reality. I will not say whom it concerns, > however, since that might have bad effects. > The situation: > > A labo[u]r union almost controls an industry. Many years ago > a man looking for work (which was scarce) came at that industry. > Three and two years ago two of his sons did the same. All three > had more or less the same experience. > They weren't communists and didn't want to be. However, the union > was. So they didn't want to share the union. I will leave away the > physical threats, since I assume the Libertarians will agree with > me on that point. I want to jump to the next step. The board of > directors of the industry was told: "There are non-unionists in > this industry. Choose: either tell them to either go away or become > a union member, or we'll go on strike." Now all three are union > member, and pay to the communist party. > > I guess that, according to Libertarian standards, the "unionists" > didn't initiate force (I'm not talking about the threats), so > it was their right to do so: They had the right of strike, and > anyone may decide not to want to work with anyone he doesn't > want to work with. After all, for each of the unionists, the > board of directors could have fired him. They only could not > fire *all* of them. > The unionists do not, in a libertarian society, have the "right to strike" UNLESS they've negotiated this with the management. Let me clarify this just a little: in a libertarian society, you are expected to keep your agreements, and if, for example, you tell your boss: "No, I'm not coming back to the mine, it's unsafe", you've no right to keep him from hiring someone else (unless having that right was part of your agreement with your boss). Thus you've probably got the right to strike, (in the sense of everyone quitting at once) but probably not the right to keep others from being hired in your places. In societies where governments give unions the right to keep others from taking up the work union members have abandoned (or "hiring scabs"), the governments certainly should bear the blame for giving the unions the power to control an industry (though of course the unions bear the blame for abuse of this power). Now consider a libertarian society. Bear in mind that individuals and organizations have no pre-existing obligation, except not to initiate force or fraud against each other. 1. Unions are in a MUCH weaker position. They cannot cause the government to protect them from foreign competition, they cannot prevent management from hiring scabs should the union strike, unless it is in the union contract that scabs shall not be hired. Unions would certainly exist, but they would occupy a much less (artificially) powerful position. 2. A Union would almost certainly be able to completely "control" an industry only by providing a valuable service to the companies involved. People whom the unions *REJECTED* such as non-communists in the example you give, and such as blacks in various parts of US history, would be obvious recruits for a new company entering that industry and intending to be non-union -- it could in your example, offer a wage greater than (the union wages - the communist contribution) at less cost to itself than the union companies incur paying their employees. This would be a tremendous incentive for a union that almost controlled an industry to give in on such issues as the one you cite -- its "monopoly" is in great danger of being broken. > At the moment, the go[u]vernment tries to break the labo[u]r > union force, but it's difficult. And why not? The government created the situation in the first place, and if there's one thing harder than cleaning up someone else's mess, it is cleaning up the mess you make yourself. As for your other question, the one about parents being able to abandon dependent children, I did not notice it (perhaps the article never reached here). This is a subject of wide debate among libertarians today, but I suspect that it would not be a more widespread problem in an operating libertarian society than it is in our society (even though our society has no clear age limit for childhood). If you can, please re-post (or mail me) the original and I'll let you know what *I* think of it, though I warn you in advance, no two libertarians seem to agree totally on the issue of childs' rights.
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (01/17/85)
[WARNING: 175 line article ahead!!!] In article <1881@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >>***** inmet:net.politics / klipper!biep / 11:46 pm Jan 9, 1985 >>[] >> The main thing which bothers me in Libertarianism is that they >> want me to fight. I have to forsee everything, and take my >> measures. I want to work and live *for* a society, not to >> fight *against* it. My first question (what if my neighbo[u]r >> buys all the land around me, or in another way controls all >> the resources I need) was answered in that way (you should >> have forseen that, and acted accordingly). > >Well, now wait a minute. The implication was pretty clear in your >question that your neighbor was not being all that reasonable. (would >YOU buy up the land surrounding someone's plot and then deny them exit?) Well, perhaps ask a lot of money (how do you define "too much"?) >If you posit a situation in which you're surrounded by contentious, >unreasonable people, and then worry that a libertarian society wouldn't >let you escape this fact, I think you're straw-manning (to coin a verb). >The answers you got were consistent with the situation as you described >it. I, at least, assumed that you were worried about a neighbor who would >NOT say, "Oh, sure. Tell you what, you can use my driveway here for >(very small fee)". That's true, I *still* am talking about "bad" guys who try to control my life for their profit, or for fun, or anything. I have been told I should have forseen what they were trying, or at least what they *might* do. That is, I should have taken my measures *against* society (= "the others"), and if I have been as stupid as to trust them, well, pity. For me, a reasonable society has something like what is called in Dutch a "hardheidsclausule", a way of escaping consistency in extreme cases. If some day a I find myself locked up (in any sense, so an unreasonable monopoly will do), I should have a chance to to call to that "hardheids- clausule", and some impartial, ultimate instance should look at my case and decide what's reasonable. (I think I didn't see the point you are making. Please explain if this response doesn't make any sense) >>[I tell about three persons who were forced to join a communist union by their boss, who was forced to do so by threat of strike] > >The unionists do not, in a libertarian society, have the "right to >strike" UNLESS they've negotiated this with the management. Let me >clarify this just a little: in a libertarian society, you are expected >to keep your agreements, and if, for example, you tell your boss: "No, >I'm not coming back to the mine, it's unsafe", you've no right to keep >him from hiring someone else (unless having that right was part of your >agreement with your boss). Thus you've probably got the right to strike, >(in the sense of everyone quitting at once) but probably not the right >to keep others from being hired in your places. But that was the whole point. They are working in a general utilily, (which is making big losses due to the low population density and the mountainful(?), rocky land, but it gets money from utilities which do make profit, in other parts of France, so it can keep working), which cannot: - stop the production (for humanitary reasons, or doesn't that count?) - find enough skilled labo[u]r in a reasonably short time. So the company would surely fire any unionist who stayed away from work, *if he was the only one*. But since it cannot fire them all, it has to keep them all, so it has to choose *for* the unionists, *against* the people I'm talking about. That was what I meant with the difference between indivi- duals and masses. >In societies where >governments give unions the right to keep others from taking up the work >union members have abandoned (or "hiring scabs"), the governments >certainly should bear the blame for giving the unions the power to control >an industry (though of course the unions bear the blame for abuse of this >power). I don't know how the French go[u]vernment has done in this respect. >Now consider a libertarian society. Bear in mind that individuals and >organizations have no pre-existing obligation, except not >to initiate force or fraud against each other. > > 1. Unions are in a MUCH weaker position. They cannot > cause the government to protect them from foreign competition, > they cannot prevent management from hiring scabs should the > union strike, unless it is in the union contract that scabs > shall not be hired. Unions would certainly exist, but > they would occupy a much less (artificially) powerful > position. Why? Once they have enough influence somewhere they are not going to loose it any more: they can force (is this "initiation of force"?) the company to gradually fire non-unionist members, and to employ unionists. By letting the most active opponents being fired first, I guess they can actually prevent the forming of a counter-union, as long as they take their time, so that most employees think "If I keep calm, I will be able to stay until retirement". [BTW, will there be retirement money? And money for the "lame and blind", who cannot work? Will charity work in a society where one is taught to consider his neighbo[u]r a possible opponent?] > 2. A Union would almost certainly be able to completely > "control" an industry only by providing a valuable service to > the companies involved. People whom the unions *REJECTED* > such as non-communists in the example you give, and such > as blacks in various parts of US history, would be obvious > recruits for a new company entering that industry and > intending to be non-union -- it could > in your example, offer a wage greater than > > (the union wages - the communist contribution) > > at less cost to itself than the union companies incur paying > their employees. This would be a tremendous incentive for a > union that almost controlled an industry to give in on such > issues as the one you cite -- its "monopoly" is in great danger > of being broken. I think the startup will cost too much (telephone and electricity cables to those who decide to give the new company a try; the old one refusing to connect the existing telephone net with the one yet to be. >> At the moment, the go[u]vernment tries to break the labo[u]r >> union force, but it's difficult. > >And why not? The government created the situation in the first place, >and if there's one thing harder than cleaning up someone else's mess, >it is cleaning up the mess you make yourself. As I said, I don'k know how the French go[u]vernment is/has_been involved in the growth of union power. >As for your other question, the one about parents being able to >abandon dependent children, I did not notice it (perhaps the >article never reached here). This is a subject of wide debate >among libertarians today, but I suspect that it would not be >a more widespread problem in an operating libertarian society than >it is in our society (even though our society has no clear >age limit for childhood). If you can, please re-post (or mail me) >the original and I'll let you know what *I* think of it, though >I warn you in advance, no two libertarians seem to agree totally on >the issue of childs' rights. I don't have it any more. I'm not sure whether I posted it to net.politics too. At least it went to net.philosophy and net.abortion. It went a bit along this: -One may kill a child before it's born -Birth doesn't magically brew humans from fetuses -So that cannot be the reasonable limit for the right to kill your child -There are two limits: =The logical limit: when a person starts to be "mature" (whatever that may be) emotionally and intellectually =The natural limit: when a person, when abandoned, would be able to stay alive (which depends, of course on the environment) -Libertarians will, I guess, keep the natural limit: killing a child is never allowed, removing alive from the womb is, and abandoning after birth is too. [I suppose you understand this was satire] A forth thing which I once have mentioned (in a light way): If one considers the world countries being the owners of all their territory, granting people right to live there as long as they kept to their laws, then the world is a libertarian country (except that countries like the USSR don't give their people a chance to leave, and there is no go[u]vernment.) Why would it be different in a "true" Libertaria? Some people will acquire land, and make laws for people who want to be on it. That people will have legal power to do so, so one might call it a country. Perhaps the mistake liber- tarians make is to suppose that "their" lot is *theirs*. It's not. It's state property. You are born too late: all the land of the world is already divided. In Libertaria this will happen too, sooner or later. [ I am saying this with more certaincy than I intended ] -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/20/85)
In article <416@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes: >If one considers the world countries being the owners of all their territory, >granting people right to live there as long as they kept to their laws, then >the world is a libertarian country (except that countries like the USSR don't >give their people a chance to leave, and there is no go[u]vernment.) No, the world is an anarchy. The definition I use (which may not correspond with any other definition) is that a libertarian society has a final arbitrater (which we call a government) for disputes between members, but an anarchy has no such arbitrater. >Why would it be different in a "true" Libertaria? Some people will acquire land, >and make laws for people who want to be on it. That people will have legal >power to do so, so one might call it a country. Perhaps the mistake liber- >tarians make is to suppose that "their" lot is *theirs*. It's not. It's >state property. You are born too late: all the land of the world is already >divided. In Libertaria this will happen too, sooner or later. Ah, but saying "this is my land" isn't sufficient to give you control over it in Libertaria. You have to *use* it. When all the land is in use, you are out of luck, no matter what system of government you have; you can't get any more land without displacing something. To provide yet another fable, suppose I find some land that is obviously unused (no structures, and no roads leading to the area) and homestead it. In Libertaria, the land is now mine until I quit using it. In the anarchy we have now, the government that claims to own the land will either throw me off, or start charging rent (maybe calling it "property tax"). Final comment: in the anarchy we live in, most countries claim not only the land, but also the people living on it as their property. <mike
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (01/23/85)
In article <665@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Mike Meyer) writes: >In article <416@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes: >>If one considers the world countries being the owners of all their territory, >>granting people right to live there as long as they kept to their laws, then >>the world is a libertarian country (except that countries like the USSR don't >>give their people a chance to leave, and there is no go[u]vernment.) > >No, the world is an anarchy. The definition I use (which may not correspond >with any other definition) is that a libertarian society has a final >arbitrater (which we call a government) for disputes between members, but >an anarchy has no such arbitrater. > Ok, I feel I just am missing too many facts on Libertarianism to be able to judge it. Here are some questions: - Where does the go[u]vernment in Libertaria (generic name for a Libertarian country) come from. Is it elected? If so, what about the minority that voted against? If not, how then? - Is it the go[u]vernment that decides when something is reasonable (my neigbo[u]r is infesting my land with sound waves. I am a physicist and for my experiments I need *silence*, and my neighbo[u]r keeps whispering all the time)? If so, where does it get its authority from? - Do legal persons (non-natural ones) exist in Libertaria? May I start a charity company which will survive me? (Something like Nobel, for instance, is that allowed?) Must there be natural persons to be held responsible in case something goes wrong? >Ah, but saying "this is my land" isn't sufficient to give you control over >it in Libertaria. You have to *use* it. When all the land is in use, you >are out of luck, no matter what system of government you have; you can't >get any more land without displacing something. > >To provide yet another fable, suppose I find some land that is obviously >unused (no structures, and no roads leading to the area) and homestead it. >In Libertaria, the land is now mine until I quit using it. In the anarchy >we have now, the government that claims to own the land will either throw >me off, or start charging rent (maybe calling it "property tax"). > > <mike But what exactly is *using* land? A person who owns a lot of land and has other people living on it, doesn't he *need* spare land to provide relax possibilities, and to secure a future for new-born children? -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/27/85)
>No, the world is an anarchy. The definition I use (which may not correspond >with any other definition) is that a libertarian society has a final >arbitrater (which we call a government) for disputes between members, but >an anarchy has no such arbitrater. Then by your definition, the world of countries is a libertarian society, not an anarchy. We DO have a World Court, whether the US recognizes it or no; the World Court is SUPPOSED to act as an arbitrator. (Isn't that the function of a court rather than of a government?) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/30/85)
>> No, the world is an anarchy. The definition I use (which may not correspond >> with any other definition) is that a libertarian society has a final >> arbitrater (which we call a government) for disputes between members, but >> an anarchy has no such arbitrater. >> -- Biep (biep@klipper) > Then by your definition, the world of countries is a libertarian > society, not an anarchy. We DO have a World Court, whether the US > recognizes it or no; the World Court is SUPPOSED to act as an > arbitrator. (Isn't that the function of a court rather than of a > government?) -- Martin Taylor (mmt@cdiem) I believe that what Biep wanted to say is that libertarian society has an arbitrator which can enforce its decisions. The World Court cannot, which is why "international law" is a joke, why the World Court serves mainly as a propaganda platform, and why the world is not a libertarian society. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/31/85)
In article <1337@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >>No, the world is an anarchy. The definition I use (which may not correspond >>with any other definition) is that a libertarian society has a final >>arbitrater (which we call a government) for disputes between members, but >>an anarchy has no such arbitrater. >Then by your definition, the world of countries is a libertarian >society, not an anarchy. We DO have a World Court, whether the US >recognizes it or no; the World Court is SUPPOSED to act as an >arbitrator. (Isn't that the function of a court rather than of a >government?) >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt Oops. You're right. I should have stated that the arbitrater also has the power to back up it's decisions. Since the US ignores the World Court, it obviously doesn't have that power. <mike