5 ms·

Supporting rent control and believing that the widely held view among economists that free markets improve public welfare is a lie promulgated by a capitalist e

Supporting rent control and believing that the widely held view among economists that free markets improve public welfare is a lie promulgated by a capitalist elite is equivalent to believing all foreigners are evil and that vaccines are a conspiracy pushed by Big Pharma. It's not a false equivalence, and for me to explain to you how your theories constitute baseless conspiracy theories is outside the scope of this discussion. If you'd like to have an indepth discussion about economics, please create a post in another forum, and link me to it, and I'd be happy to carry it on there. >>Eg, the law must not prevent a company and a union from signing a contract to make the company a closed shop Prohibiting companies from discriminating against unionized workers is an infringement on the freedom of contract, as are several other legal prohibitions relating to how companies are permitted to deal with workers attempting to unionize, and unionized workers striking. Laws relating to collective bargaining, which prohibit a company from negotiating with any party other than the union, in the event that a work unit votes to unionize, are blatant violations of the freedom of contract. Unions would have no market power without said laws. If you support the upholding of the free market, and the principle of contract liberty that underpins it, then you are acquiesing to the total disempowerment of unions.

eesmith 7y ago
"Unions would have no market power without said laws" Well, that's a-historical. Unions existed before laws were in place to support unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt . The union power in the late 1800s was not built on laws which supported them. Often the government stepped in to fight the unions. And the unions sometimes won power, and were able to get the laws changed to prevent, eg, bloodshed in the future. Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?". Your "freedom of contract", if you really believed it, should apply to any situation which restricts trade. If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation. "Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine. Similarly, a company A might contract with company B so that B is the exclusive supplier of temp workers. "Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine. But somehow "organizations A and B enter into a contract such that A will only hire members of B" when B is a union is not fine? Balderdash.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  Unions were very weak pre-labor-laws. Unionization rates were very low consequently. Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal activity, ranging from blockading company premises (e.g. stopping trains) to setting up picket lines that involved violence against 'scabs'. >>Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?". I'm happy to carry that line on in another forum. >>If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation. Of course, but labor laws, as they stand, prohibit companies from negotiating with any party but the union in the event that one of their work units unionizes and demands collective bargaining. This is regardless of what the company agreed to.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    So, "no power" = "very weak"? You sure you haven't moved the goalposts? The Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society won the labor action, and the lawsuit. Why should I believe the Society was weak? Wait employed five or six Society members, and only one not willing to be in the Society. That sounds like the boot industry, at least, had a high unionization rate. Of course, that was a craft union. I think you are talking about industrial unions. Which didn't, you know, really exist until after there were big industries in the late 1800s. "Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal activity" I don't think you read the Wikipedia page on Commonwealth v. Hunt that I linked you to. It was clear that the Society's power emanated from the threat of a walkout, and not from any sort of illegal activity. Indeed, the court decision was that "labor combinations were legal provided that they were organized for a legal purpose and used legal means to achieve their goals." (quoting Wikipedia). A walkout must be legal in a free market. Otherwise it's forced labor to say that someone can't quit if they no longer want to work a given job. You write "as they stand". Which is entirely my point. We are not in a free market. If people really want a free market, they need to advocate for removing restriction on both labor and capital. Those who only want to remove restrictions on the control of capital, and not labor, are using "free market" hypocritically. Edit: And remember, the union powers prohibited by Taft-Hartley were legal until then, so those aren't examples of the illegal actions you refer to.

eesmith 7y ago

"Unions would have no market power without said laws" Well, that's a-historical. Unions existed before laws were in place to support unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt . The union power in the late 1800s was not built on laws which supported them. Often the government stepped in to fight the unions. And the unions sometimes won power, and were able to get the laws changed to prevent, eg, bloodshed in the future. Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?". Your "freedom of contract", if you really believed it, should apply to any situation which restricts trade. If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation. "Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine. Similarly, a company A might contract with company B so that B is the exclusive supplier of temp workers. "Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine. But somehow "organizations A and B enter into a contract such that A will only hire members of B" when B is a union is not fine? Balderdash.

CryptoPunk 7y ago
Unions were very weak pre-labor-laws. Unionization rates were very low consequently. Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal activity, ranging from blockading company premises (e.g. stopping trains) to setting up picket lines that involved violence against 'scabs'. >>Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?". I'm happy to carry that line on in another forum. >>If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation. Of course, but labor laws, as they stand, prohibit companies from negotiating with any party but the union in the event that one of their work units unionizes and demands collective bargaining. This is regardless of what the company agreed to.
- eesmith 7y ago
  So, "no power" = "very weak"? You sure you haven't moved the goalposts? The Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society won the labor action, and the lawsuit. Why should I believe the Society was weak? Wait employed five or six Society members, and only one not willing to be in the Society. That sounds like the boot industry, at least, had a high unionization rate. Of course, that was a craft union. I think you are talking about industrial unions. Which didn't, you know, really exist until after there were big industries in the late 1800s. "Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal activity" I don't think you read the Wikipedia page on Commonwealth v. Hunt that I linked you to. It was clear that the Society's power emanated from the threat of a walkout, and not from any sort of illegal activity. Indeed, the court decision was that "labor combinations were legal provided that they were organized for a legal purpose and used legal means to achieve their goals." (quoting Wikipedia). A walkout must be legal in a free market. Otherwise it's forced labor to say that someone can't quit if they no longer want to work a given job. You write "as they stand". Which is entirely my point. We are not in a free market. If people really want a free market, they need to advocate for removing restriction on both labor and capital. Those who only want to remove restrictions on the control of capital, and not labor, are using "free market" hypocritically. Edit: And remember, the union powers prohibited by Taft-Hartley were legal until then, so those aren't examples of the illegal actions you refer to.