4 ms·

Actual libertarians rather than the confused type so popular in the US are all for it. Look at anarcho-syndacilists for example

RA_Fisher 8y ago
Yep. Though we're a rare breed I'll admit, I'm an American libertarian and I'm supportive of unions and collective bargaining. I have a caveat in that I don't support laws that interfere with such bargaining or artificially increase one party's market power (closed shop laws). In the US this identifies me as being "right to work" which is often seen as anti-union. For example I don't support the UAW due to their long history of using the state to increase their market power.
- carlmr 8y ago
  >For example I don't support the UAW due to their long history of using the state to increase their market power. That's a fair caveat from a libertarian standpoint. It's just that most of the self-declared libertarians I meet seem to have the idea that the state should forbid unions from interfering with their idea of a free market. Which sounds very unlibertarian to me.
  - RA_Fisher 8y ago
    I agree that does sound unlibertarian too me too.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  When people say they “support unions” they mean that they support laws that “artificially increase one side’s bargaining power”, which you say you don’t. The most important of such laws are ones that inhibit employers from replacing striking workers.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Without this law and the corollary of reasonable firing (as in with a lawful reason), unions are dead on arrival as anyone willing to unionize will get fired on the spot. This is similar to the procedural loophole of registering manifestations where the mayor or other redeposit body can virtually countermand the right to organize. It happens all the time.
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      I 100% agree and should have said that in the original post. I’m not exactly sure how I feel about those laws (though I flat out oppose attempts to require cause for firings in general), but I mainly wanted to point out that principled libertarians trying to square the circle, the way the person I was relying to was, are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Unions can only exist and be effective, in the vast majority of cases, because the state uses its coercive power to give them artificially-inflated bargaining power. Whether that’s for the better or worse is a different question.
    - RA_Fisher 8y ago
      If conditions are bad workers have an increased ability to unionize. If they're not bad they don't. That seems like a fair incentive for businesses to keep conditions good. I think unions got a bad rap precisely because they used the government as a lever (and the trappings of that, e.g. UAW bosses in Detroit). If the government steps back the system balances itself.
- ttoinou 8y ago
  There is nothing 'classic liberally' wrong with unions if they don't require everybody in the profession to adhere to them and don't have a monopoly
FussyZeus 8y ago
^ This. The only thing that I really have against unions is that so many make it difficult to get a job where they operate, and on the flip side, require membership to work at a given employer. If a union's benefits are so good (and they often are) then there shouldn't be a need to put people in against their will.
wafflesraccoon 8y ago
Gatekeeping who is and isn't an "Actual libertarian"
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  That's not really gatekeeping. In order for words to have meaning they have to preclude the set of all things they are not. There is a cogent argument that support of collective bargaining is compatible with the philosophical school of libertarianism, and that a liberatarian subscribing to that school of thought would consequently support it. It's not necessarily self-evident, and you can argue against it if you'd like, but then it's simply a disagreement. Gatekeeping implies an unreasonable barrier being imposed on an ingroup or social identity (not typically a political or philosophical school of thought). For example, "you're not really a fan of <band> if you can't name all the songs from their <obscure album>." People disagree about the finer points of political ideas all the time. But drawing a line in the sand doesn't immediately signify gatekeeping, it signifies normal debate. This is especially evident if you compare the example I gave to what you're calling gatekeeping: it would be unreasonable to require all fans of a band to have episodic recollection and deep opinions on every song ever recorded by the band. But it would not be unreasonable to assume a libertarian with philosophical fidelity to the school of thought supports collective bargaining. Again, it might not be correct, but it's not ridiculous. As a meta point, I'm noticing a trend online where people will give a quick driveby dismissal using terms from the popular zeitgeist. Typical, recent examples include "gatekeeping", "whataboutism" and "gaslighting." Sometimes these are appropriate criticisms to levy at someone's argument and they draw a real insight. But they're also frequently abused or pigeonholed into discussion in contrived ways. From my perspective this seems like a more subtle equivalent of collecting logical fallacies to point out in other people's arguments online. It's symptomatic of something larger: that snark is the modern saboteur of reasoned debate. Very, very rarely is a single sentence critique of another person's point anything more than a middle brow dismissal. It sounds intellectual but there's no deconstruction or antithesis involved. If you wanted to substantially critique the commenter's point, it would probably have been more appropriate to cite "No True Scotsman" instead of "Gatekeeping". Better still would be to skip the trite idiom altogether and explain why you consider it an error with substantive depth. A pithy comment only convinces those who already agree with you. A meaningfully persuasive one convinces the audience, if not the original commenter.

RA_Fisher 8y ago

Yep. Though we're a rare breed I'll admit, I'm an American libertarian and I'm supportive of unions and collective bargaining. I have a caveat in that I don't support laws that interfere with such bargaining or artificially increase one party's market power (closed shop laws). In the US this identifies me as being "right to work" which is often seen as anti-union. For example I don't support the UAW due to their long history of using the state to increase their market power.

carlmr 8y ago
>For example I don't support the UAW due to their long history of using the state to increase their market power. That's a fair caveat from a libertarian standpoint. It's just that most of the self-declared libertarians I meet seem to have the idea that the state should forbid unions from interfering with their idea of a free market. Which sounds very unlibertarian to me.
- RA_Fisher 8y ago
  I agree that does sound unlibertarian too me too.
marcoperaza 8y ago
When people say they “support unions” they mean that they support laws that “artificially increase one side’s bargaining power”, which you say you don’t. The most important of such laws are ones that inhibit employers from replacing striking workers.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Without this law and the corollary of reasonable firing (as in with a lawful reason), unions are dead on arrival as anyone willing to unionize will get fired on the spot. This is similar to the procedural loophole of registering manifestations where the mayor or other redeposit body can virtually countermand the right to organize. It happens all the time.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    I 100% agree and should have said that in the original post. I’m not exactly sure how I feel about those laws (though I flat out oppose attempts to require cause for firings in general), but I mainly wanted to point out that principled libertarians trying to square the circle, the way the person I was relying to was, are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Unions can only exist and be effective, in the vast majority of cases, because the state uses its coercive power to give them artificially-inflated bargaining power. Whether that’s for the better or worse is a different question.
  - RA_Fisher 8y ago
    If conditions are bad workers have an increased ability to unionize. If they're not bad they don't. That seems like a fair incentive for businesses to keep conditions good. I think unions got a bad rap precisely because they used the government as a lever (and the trappings of that, e.g. UAW bosses in Detroit). If the government steps back the system balances itself.
ttoinou 8y ago
There is nothing 'classic liberally' wrong with unions if they don't require everybody in the profession to adhere to them and don't have a monopoly

FussyZeus 8y ago

^ This. The only thing that I really have against unions is that so many make it difficult to get a job where they operate, and on the flip side, require membership to work at a given employer. If a union's benefits are so good (and they often are) then there shouldn't be a need to put people in against their will.

wafflesraccoon 8y ago

Gatekeeping who is and isn't an "Actual libertarian"

throwawaymath 8y ago
That's not really gatekeeping. In order for words to have meaning they have to preclude the set of all things they are not. There is a cogent argument that support of collective bargaining is compatible with the philosophical school of libertarianism, and that a liberatarian subscribing to that school of thought would consequently support it. It's not necessarily self-evident, and you can argue against it if you'd like, but then it's simply a disagreement. Gatekeeping implies an unreasonable barrier being imposed on an ingroup or social identity (not typically a political or philosophical school of thought). For example, "you're not really a fan of <band> if you can't name all the songs from their <obscure album>." People disagree about the finer points of political ideas all the time. But drawing a line in the sand doesn't immediately signify gatekeeping, it signifies normal debate. This is especially evident if you compare the example I gave to what you're calling gatekeeping: it would be unreasonable to require all fans of a band to have episodic recollection and deep opinions on every song ever recorded by the band. But it would not be unreasonable to assume a libertarian with philosophical fidelity to the school of thought supports collective bargaining. Again, it might not be correct, but it's not ridiculous. As a meta point, I'm noticing a trend online where people will give a quick driveby dismissal using terms from the popular zeitgeist. Typical, recent examples include "gatekeeping", "whataboutism" and "gaslighting." Sometimes these are appropriate criticisms to levy at someone's argument and they draw a real insight. But they're also frequently abused or pigeonholed into discussion in contrived ways. From my perspective this seems like a more subtle equivalent of collecting logical fallacies to point out in other people's arguments online. It's symptomatic of something larger: that snark is the modern saboteur of reasoned debate. Very, very rarely is a single sentence critique of another person's point anything more than a middle brow dismissal. It sounds intellectual but there's no deconstruction or antithesis involved. If you wanted to substantially critique the commenter's point, it would probably have been more appropriate to cite "No True Scotsman" instead of "Gatekeeping". Better still would be to skip the trite idiom altogether and explain why you consider it an error with substantive depth. A pithy comment only convinces those who already agree with you. A meaningfully persuasive one convinces the audience, if not the original commenter.