4 ms·

> Most of Silicon Valley and HN royalty is staunchly libertarian. Unions are a libertarian concept. Freedom of association is the fundamental underpinning of l

> Most of Silicon Valley and HN royalty is staunchly libertarian. Unions are a libertarian concept. Freedom of association is the fundamental underpinning of libertarianism. Those at the other end of the spectrum stand for supply management instead.

tracker1 4y ago
I've been very libertarian (increasingly so over the decades) for a while and pretty pro union. My issues come from govt forced union jobs in some places, and likewise when govt interferes with planned strikes etc... as much as a railway strike would literally hurt for most of the country, as an example.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Would you say you’re a left-libertarian?
  - tracker1 4y ago
    God no... I think communal leftist libertarianism is just wacky and doesn't make any sense at all. I think most of the left-libertarian movement is disenfranchised left-authoritarians who realize forcing things isn't ok, but haven't dealt with the fact that an idealistic communal utopia isn't really possible. Aside, I tend to get along with most conservatives okay, I'm just far more in favor of more limited govt than they tend to be, and more personal liberty, which tends to collide when they want to make religious views law.
braingenious 4y ago
Would you say that right-to-work is also a libertarian concept? In the context of the United States, right-to-work employers are under less government scrutiny as they don’t have to interact with e.g. the NLRB. If so, unions and the very opposite of unions are “libertarian concepts” and we’ve reached a point where we’re just talking about how words are meaningless and are entirely off-topic.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > Would you say that right-to-work is also a libertarian concept? This isn't a common term where I'm from, so I am admittedly not intimately familiar with it, but as I understand its meaning, as defined by Wikipedia, it removes some degree of freedom of association. So, no, it is in stark contrast to libertarianism.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    A lot of libertarian managers in the US would disagree with that. From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. “Libertarian” has a specific connotation in the US, certainly when we’re discussing employment within the US.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. And they wouldn't be wrong in a vacuum, but what you're forgetting about is contract. In order for association to commence, a union is going to present a contract that spells out what happens in that case, assuming it is of concern to the union members, and the manager will be bound to what has been agreed upon. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        I’m kind of confused here. Contracts are enforced by the government, right? Requiring a piece of paper that the government supports in order to obtain employment does not seem very libertarian. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t actually care about libertarianism because in the US it’s a label self-applied by many kooks (for example, just look up the Libertarian Party nominees for president in… any of our elections) By US standards, in the US job market, “unions are a libertarian concept” is something that only someone unfamiliar with US labor dynamics and the local meaning of “libertarian” would say. It’s a pointless exercise of “Look how I define this word outside of meaningful context!”
bbor 4y ago
Very interesting assertion, never read that before! Do you think we need more governmental protections of unions?
- randomdata 4y ago
  I don't have opinions, but if you are implying that unions aren't working, perhaps supply management is a more appropriate solution to the problem?
BaseballPhysics 4y ago
> Unions are a libertarian concept. As is union busting. As the US learned a long time ago, and then eventually forgot, the freedom to organize without employer retribution can only exist with government coercion. And absent that freedom, any attempt to unionize will be (and in the last 30-40 years, has been) crushed by the capital-owning class.
- randomdata 4y ago
  Absolutely. Freedom of association depends entirely on government upholding the will of contract. What you describe is most definitely not libertarianism. Probably conservatism.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    > What you describe is most definitely not libertarianism. That's just a No True Scotsman fallacy. A libertarian would say that employees can choose their employers, and the employers can therefore dictate the term of employment. One of those terms can be "you are not allowed to freely associate with your fellow employees", and the libertarian would say "if you don't like it, don't work there. #freedom" The realist recognizes that the employer-employee relationship is one that contains a significant imbalance of power, and that it requires a government to step in and put their finger on the scale in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of employees. This isn't theory, it's practical reality that we learned from the post-industrial sweatshop era where child labor was the norm and employees had no rights to speak of. Now, go ahead, feel free to define your personal belief set as "libertarian" if you want. But if you support government regulating the employer-employee relationship, you are not, by any definition I'm aware of, a libertarian.

tracker1 4y ago

I've been very libertarian (increasingly so over the decades) for a while and pretty pro union. My issues come from govt forced union jobs in some places, and likewise when govt interferes with planned strikes etc... as much as a railway strike would literally hurt for most of the country, as an example.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Would you say you’re a left-libertarian?
- tracker1 4y ago
  God no... I think communal leftist libertarianism is just wacky and doesn't make any sense at all. I think most of the left-libertarian movement is disenfranchised left-authoritarians who realize forcing things isn't ok, but haven't dealt with the fact that an idealistic communal utopia isn't really possible. Aside, I tend to get along with most conservatives okay, I'm just far more in favor of more limited govt than they tend to be, and more personal liberty, which tends to collide when they want to make religious views law.

braingenious 4y ago

Would you say that right-to-work is also a libertarian concept? In the context of the United States, right-to-work employers are under less government scrutiny as they don’t have to interact with e.g. the NLRB. If so, unions and the very opposite of unions are “libertarian concepts” and we’ve reached a point where we’re just talking about how words are meaningless and are entirely off-topic.

randomdata 4y ago
> Would you say that right-to-work is also a libertarian concept? This isn't a common term where I'm from, so I am admittedly not intimately familiar with it, but as I understand its meaning, as defined by Wikipedia, it removes some degree of freedom of association. So, no, it is in stark contrast to libertarianism.
- braingenious 4y ago
  A lot of libertarian managers in the US would disagree with that. From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. “Libertarian” has a specific connotation in the US, certainly when we’re discussing employment within the US.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. And they wouldn't be wrong in a vacuum, but what you're forgetting about is contract. In order for association to commence, a union is going to present a contract that spells out what happens in that case, assuming it is of concern to the union members, and the manager will be bound to what has been agreed upon. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      I’m kind of confused here. Contracts are enforced by the government, right? Requiring a piece of paper that the government supports in order to obtain employment does not seem very libertarian. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t actually care about libertarianism because in the US it’s a label self-applied by many kooks (for example, just look up the Libertarian Party nominees for president in… any of our elections) By US standards, in the US job market, “unions are a libertarian concept” is something that only someone unfamiliar with US labor dynamics and the local meaning of “libertarian” would say. It’s a pointless exercise of “Look how I define this word outside of meaningful context!”

bbor 4y ago

Very interesting assertion, never read that before! Do you think we need more governmental protections of unions?

randomdata 4y ago
I don't have opinions, but if you are implying that unions aren't working, perhaps supply management is a more appropriate solution to the problem?

BaseballPhysics 4y ago

> Unions are a libertarian concept. As is union busting. As the US learned a long time ago, and then eventually forgot, the freedom to organize without employer retribution can only exist with government coercion. And absent that freedom, any attempt to unionize will be (and in the last 30-40 years, has been) crushed by the capital-owning class.

randomdata 4y ago
Absolutely. Freedom of association depends entirely on government upholding the will of contract. What you describe is most definitely not libertarianism. Probably conservatism.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > What you describe is most definitely not libertarianism. That's just a No True Scotsman fallacy. A libertarian would say that employees can choose their employers, and the employers can therefore dictate the term of employment. One of those terms can be "you are not allowed to freely associate with your fellow employees", and the libertarian would say "if you don't like it, don't work there. #freedom" The realist recognizes that the employer-employee relationship is one that contains a significant imbalance of power, and that it requires a government to step in and put their finger on the scale in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of employees. This isn't theory, it's practical reality that we learned from the post-industrial sweatshop era where child labor was the norm and employees had no rights to speak of. Now, go ahead, feel free to define your personal belief set as "libertarian" if you want. But if you support government regulating the employer-employee relationship, you are not, by any definition I'm aware of, a libertarian.