6 ms·
Why There Is No Moral ‘Right to Strike’
- ftxbro 3y agothey are comparing strikes to a doctor doing the following stuff: > Assume that the physician (the employee) goes on strike. His ultimatum: “You pay me twice the fee I am now getting or I quit! Moreover, I shall use force to prevent any other physician from attending to your ailment. Meet my demands or do without medical care from now on.” fee.org is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat... which is a conservative think tank like the cato institute
- rufus_foreman 3y ago>> fee.org is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat... which is a conservative think tank like the cato institute If it's a bad argument, it's a bad argument whether it's from a conservative think tank or from someone else. If it's a good argument, it's a good argument whether it's from a conservative think tank or from someone else. It's up to you to show that is a good or bad argument, rather than committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.
- cazum 3y agoIt's a bad argument because it's a bad argument. It also happens to be a bad argument from people who traditionally and historically have made similar bad arguments.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago>> It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument This is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
- ddingus 3y agoIn context the user meant: >>It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument[, not because it came from Cato] They also imply the bad of the argument is obvious. I do not entirely agree and believe their comment would be improved with just a bit of work. They did not seriously intend to present a circular fallacy. Just saying.
- nvm0n2 3y agoIt actually is circular as written, especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments. As there's no evidence they evaluated the argument at all, we can assume this history is also based on reasoning of the form "it's bad just because" this this boils down to "it's bad just because, just like everything else they say". Also, you're being too generous to assume there's an unstated justification for why it's is a bad argument. Pretty obvious that there isn't, they just assume anything said by the authors must be bad because tribes.
- ddingus 3y agoI don't think I am being generous at all. That's a common speech pattern and often the intent is basically as I stated. Cato does, in fact, produce many bad arguments. Now they don't get it all wrong. They have produced good material. That said, I personally do not consider them reputable.
- cazum 3y agoIt can't be circular reasoning because it's not an attempt at reasoning. It's an incredibly common English phrase that means "The argument is independently bad on it's own merit", not an attempt to show a logical incongruity. Others have already explained why the argument does not hold up, I don't need to repeat their work here. And if we want to be pedantic, "especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments" would make my "argument" an ad-hominem fallacy, or perhaps poisoning the well, but not circular reasoning. But again, as I said, the argument is bad independent of the people who made it.
- jqpabc123 3y agoIt's up to you to show that is a good or bad argument It's a bad argument. "Moreover, I shall use force to prevent any other physician from attending to your ailment". This is illegal. Basically, they are equating union strikers with criminals. It is a particularly bad argument when applied to physicians. The American Medical Association is effectively a labor union of doctors with monopoly control over licensing and legal practice of medicine --- the only such union in the country. Which helps explain why the average US physician earns over $350K a year.
- readthenotes1 3y ago"This is illegal." Is it only illegal for physicians and not sanitation workers, baseball players, or actors?
- jqpabc123 3y agoIt is illegal for anyone to use force in this way. During the baseball strike of 1994-95, MLB teams hired replacement players. No one used force to prevent it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_replacement_players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_...
- friend_and_foe 3y agoSo a right is only a right if it is not illegal? I'll inform the lawmakers, they will be very pleased about this.
- jqpabc123 3y agoSo a right is only a right if it is not illegal? Union workers have a right to strike. They don't have the right to use force to prevent others from doing their job. In fact, lots of picket lines in recent years have featured a police presence to enforce this.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
- friend_and_foe 3y agoThe comparison is made to force the reader, who may very well believe in a moral right to strike, to find the fundamental principle underlying it. If there is no fundamental principle then all the moralizing of striking is just opportunism justifying itself after the fact. Qualitatively, the two scenarios are the same, they differ only in degree. The action is the same, the outcome is only more destructive in one vs the other. But if there is a moral right to strike, it applies to both professions because a right is universal and absolute.
- invalidname 3y agoThis is called a strawman argument. Even in the writers strike some productions got a pass to keep working and finishing important projects. Doctors and nurses were on strike here, urgent care and treatment was still given. This is a ridiculous argument designed to strip away the only power working people have against corporations.
- eesmith 3y agoA fundamental principle in the US is that people are allowed use legal means to make money, even if that means others may make less money. You may call that "opportunism", likely using the neutral definition "putting self-interest before other interests when there is an opportunity to do so, or flexibly adapting to changing circumstances to maximize self-interest" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism . If you have a problem with that, what then is the moral right to form a limited liability company? How are companies not just opportunism by the owners of the company?
- friend_and_foe 3y agoI wouldn't call that a fundamental principle. A contentious state of affairs that we all begrudgingly live by because that's the world we are in. Nobody likes it when laws are crafted that create injustice because it is profitable. I personally am not an opportunistic person in that sense. I don't think someone has a right to shield themselves from liability for their actions. I don't try to do so, and I only passingly consider the legality of behavior I engage in, and only consider the ethics or morality. I would never engage in behavior that would cost someone else knowingly for my own benefit, legal or not. I'd like to live in and help build a society where, from first principles, when we understand the ethics or morals of certain behavior, if something is deemed unethical it is illegal, and likewise the opposite. That's me personally, and probably a lot of people. That's one of the reasons I don't live or work in SV. So I'd say no, it's not a principle and I agree, limited liability is not a moral right. Which brings us back to the topic at hand: striking is not a moral right either.
- notacoward 3y agoAFAICT fee.org is trying to be for schools what the Federalist Society is for courts - i.e. ultra partisan and a good candidate for the banned-sites list.
- MollyRealized 3y agoAbsence of care for ailments has the potential of being life-threatening. Television shows or movies are not.
- nvm0n2 3y agoBut the principle in question isn't specific to any one industry, so how is that a relevant distinction?
- rcme 3y agoI find it a lot simpler to drop moral framing of economic issues altogether.
- corinroyal 3y agoSo do most oligarchs. Their victims, not so much.
- rcme 3y agoNot sure what your point is, exactly. We are third parties trying to understand events in a complex world. My point is that using morals to understand economic events is not helpful.
- corinroyal 3y agoThe Pope disagrees: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html#No_to_the_new_idolatry_of_money https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortatio...
- rcme 3y agoIs he worth listening to? As far as I understand, the Catholic Church has had a number of moral failings.
- corinroyal 3y agoSo? Anyone can uphold or betray their own values. This is a pure expression. Did you read it? Sections 53-60 of his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (2013) make a strong case in favor of looking at economics through the lens of ethics. As a flavor, it begins: No to an economy of exclusion 53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape. Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.
- corinroyal 3y agoI love that a conservative think tank funded by oligarchs has an opinion about morality. I'll take my morality from people who know what that is.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoAttacking the messenger and not the message is probably the easiest way to avoid addressing the message itself, and also the most tired and transparent.
- sambapa 3y agoMedium is the message
- corinroyal 3y agoRight. As if you thoroughly evaluate all obviously self-serving propaganda thrown your way. This shit wasn't written for me, it was written for stupider people who don't have good heuristics. Billionaires fund propaganda outlets for a reason and it's not truth seeking.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoI do, yes. You look down on everyone that disagrees with you and do no critical thinking.
- corinroyal 3y agoI didn't notice you doing any critical thinking either, but since you mentioned it, let's do some together and see if the article has any merit. Shall we? The author's argument, such as it is, seems to be that striking workers have no moral right to prevent employers from hiring scabs as this is an infringement on the right of the scab and employer. It's basically bullying, they argue. But in our system it's actually not workers who hold most of the power. That would be the oligarchy or ruling class which owns the vast majority of all their is to own. Unasked by the author is why society should allow so few to control such a large proportion of the resources? Isn't it immoral for so few to have so much while the majority suffers? Isn't it immoral for employers to force workers to compete for crumbs in their own country? Why, yes it is. As citizens, we asked ourselves is there any reason that we should allow oligarchs to hold all the cards? There are some advantages to an entrepreneurial society, but there must be forces to counter the power of the rich or else society will suffer. So as a counterbalance to this power, we grant strikers the right to prevent scabs from being hired. If we did not, employers would enjoy a race to the bottom where everyone in the working classes suffer to a greater extent than the scabs do in this scenario. So the morality of the strikers actions is assured as they are working toward the greater good. This race to the bottom, of course, is the goal of the author. He's carrying water for the oligarchs, who don't want any counterbalance to their unjustified power.The argument is made in bad faith and transparently self-serving. So there you have it. Heuristics work. And no, I'm not responsible for reading all the bullshit bad actors pay to shovel out. The whole point of this firehose of bullshit is not to contribute to legitimate social discourse, but to derail any such discourse from happening in the first place. If the working classes can't conceptualize our relationships to power, then we can't oppose those who hold power unjustly. As a citizen, you should know this. It is on the test.
- MattPalmer1086 3y agoThe argument seems to be that by striking, the employee is preventing the employer from employing someone else in that role and also depriving them of work. I thought most US employment was "at will" and employees can be terminated for almost any reason?
- jqpabc123 3y agoIf the employer has a legal contract with a labor union, the contract can stipulate allowable terms for termination.
- hprotagonist 3y agoOne method used by unions in pursuing the just rights of their members is the strike or work stoppage, as a kind of ultimatum to the competent bodies, especially the employers. This method is recognized by Catholic social teaching as legitimate in the proper conditions and within just limits. In this connection workers should be assured the right to strike, without being subjected to personal penal sanctions for taking part in a strike. While admitting that it is a legitimate means, we must at the same time emphasize that a strike remains, in a sense, an extreme means. It must not be abused; it must not be abused especially for "political" purposes. Furthermore it must never be forgotten that, when essential community services are in question, they must in every case be ensured, if necessary by means of appropriate legislation. Abuse of the strike weapon can lead to the paralysis of the whole of socioeconomic life, and this is contrary to the requirements of the common good of society, which also corresponds to the properly understood nature of work itself. John Paul II, Laborem Execrens, 1981
- freediverx 3y ago[flagged]
- WaitWaitWha 3y ago(in response this article flagged) I posted this because it is a different approach to strike, which impacts technology businesses increasingly. I read, nay, I seek out all kinds of material, across spectra and axes. How else would I learn and improve myself? The only two choices in intellect is either to stagnate or grow.
- eesmith 3y agoThe third choice is to regress. Without careful study you may end up degrading yourself and others. Just because you like reading urban legends doesn't mean you should spread the falsehood described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight_flashing#Urban_legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight_flashing#Urban_legen... , at least, not without the context that it should be treated as false.
- eesmith 3y agoCommonwealth v. Hunt is the legal case which established the right to unions in the US. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt . The crux of the decision is: > We think, therefore, that associations may be entered into, the object of which is to adopt measures that may have a tendency to impoverish another, that is, to diminish his gains and profits, and yet so far from being criminal or unlawful, the object may be highly meritorious and public spirited. The legality of such an association will therefore depend upon the means to be used for its accomplishment. If it is to be carried into effect by fair or honorable and lawful means, it is, to say the least, innocent; if by falsehood or force, it may be stamped with the character of conspiracy. If you use legal methods to form and carry out a union, then it is fine. The moral right to strike is the same as the moral right to form a company. Archive.org tells me Commonwealth v. Hunt is not mentioned in the two page appendix essay "There Is No Moral Right to Strike" of "The Coming Aristocracy" at https://archive.org/details/comingaristocrac0000leon_p8i8/page/168/mode/2up?q=%22strike%22 https://archive.org/details/comingaristocrac0000leon_p8i8/pa... . The argument hinges on a definition that a strike is a "coercion to force unwilling exchange or to inhibit willing exchange", which is a something Commonwealth v. Hunt addressed over a century previous.