:
>>>>> Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
>>>>> over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
>>>>> they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
>>>>> it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
>>>>> their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
>>>>> over the business owner's right to buy labor.

"G*rd*n" >:
>>>> So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
>>>> and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?

"Stan de SD" >:
>>> If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?

"G*rd*n" >:
>> Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
>> corporations and partnerships exist.

"Stan de SD" >:
> And "collective behavior" is only just if you have the option of getting
> out, something that most union types don't agree to.

So you think families are unjust, for instance. They're
a form of collectivity one has no choice about at birth.
I suppose you could say the same thing about states,
counties, towns, and neighborhoods. All "unjust".

But in regard to unions, I don't see the problem. If you
don't like the union, and it has a closed-shop contract
with the employer, you quit the job, just as, if you don't
like the corporation you quit the job. I don't know of
anywhere in the U.S. where you can be compelled to work
for or with either, unless you're a prisoner being
rented out -- and maybe not then either.

You still haven't answered my question about the liberal
rights, by the way. Clearly, if you agree with wrjames,
you don't think employees should have the rights of free
speech, association, contract and representation. But we
don't know what else you want to do away with. I would
also like to hear from wrjames on the issue, since he
was the one who said that unions are "inherently evil".


--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

>>>>>...

:
>>>>>Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
>>>>>over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
>>>>>they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
>>>>>it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
>>>>>their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
> >>>>over the business owner's right to buy labor.

"G*rd*n" >:
>>>>So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
>>>>and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?

"Stan de SD" >:
>>>If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?

G*rd*n wrote:
>> Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
>> corporations and partnerships exist.

Ed Faith >:
> We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage:
>
> 1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are
> trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the
> expense of the customer.
>
> 2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the
> point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same
> effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect
> effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along
> with the producer.
>
> Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more
> efficient.


I don't believe that's relevant. Stan asked why
someone needs a union to represent them. From the point
of view of the worker, collective bargaining and other
employment-related behaviors may be advantageous, because
collective behaviors of all sorts are often advantageous.
That's why human beings are social.

However, I am also not convinced that cartels are always
_generally_ disadvantageous. I know of some instances
where the breaking-up of a cartel has apparently led to
worse service at higher prices. Anecdotes on request.

But this really doesn't matter. If people have a right
to associate, make enforceable contracts, and appoint
representatives, they have a right to form unions. So far
only wrjames and Stan de SD have come out against these
rights (at least for employees). You all libertarians
are supposed to stand up for them -- but as usual you're
leaving me to do the job. I suppose it's class prejudice;
you should try to overcome it if so.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

>>>>>...

:
>>>>>Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
>>>>>over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
>>>>>they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
>>>>>it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
>>>>>their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
> >>>>over the business owner's right to buy labor.

"G*rd*n" >:
>>>>So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
>>>>and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?

"Stan de SD" >:
>>>If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?

G*rd*n wrote:
>> Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
>> corporations and partnerships exist.

Ed Faith >:
> We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage:
>
> 1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are
> trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the
> expense of the customer.
>
> 2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the
> point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same
> effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect
> effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along
> with the producer.
>
> Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more
> efficient.


I don't believe that's relevant. Stan asked why
someone needs a union to represent them. From the point
of view of the worker, collective bargaining and other
employment-related behaviors may be advantageous, because
collective behaviors of all sorts are often advantageous.
That's why human beings are social.

However, I am also not convinced that cartels are always
_generally_ disadvantageous. I know of some instances
where the breaking-up of a cartel has apparently led to
worse service at higher prices. Anecdotes on request.

But this really doesn't matter. If people have a right
to associate, make enforceable contracts, and appoint
representatives, they have a right to form unions. So far
only wrjames and Stan de SD have come out against these
rights (at least for employees). You all libertarians
are supposed to stand up for them -- but as usual you're
leaving me to do the job. I suppose it's class prejudice;
you should try to overcome it if so.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

G*rd*n wrote:

>>>>>>...
>
>
> :
>
>>>>>>Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
>>>>>>over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
>>>>>>they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
>>>>>>it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
>>>>>>their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
>>>>>>over the business owner's right to buy labor.
>
>
> "G*rd*n" >:
>
>>>>>So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
>>>>>and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?
>
>
> "Stan de SD" >:
>
>>>>If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?
>
>
> G*rd*n wrote:
>
>>>Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
>>>corporations and partnerships exist.
>
>
> Ed Faith >:
>
>>We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage:
>>
>>1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are
>>trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the
>>expense of the customer.
>>
>>2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the
>>point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same
>>effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect
>>effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along
>>with the producer.
>>
>>Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more
>>efficient.
>
>
>
> I don't believe that's relevant. Stan asked why
> someone needs a union to represent them. From the point
> of view of the worker, collective bargaining and other
> employment-related behaviors may be advantageous, because
> collective behaviors of all sorts are often advantageous.

And yet someone recently posted that unions are in decline. Which
suggests that perhaps unions were an idea that was tried out and that in
the end did not live up to the hopes of those who joined.

> That's why human beings are social.
>
> However, I am also not convinced that cartels are always
> _generally_ disadvantageous. I know of some instances
> where the breaking-up of a cartel has apparently led to
> worse service at higher prices. Anecdotes on request.

Change itself causes temporary disruption.

> But this really doesn't matter. If people have a right
> to associate, make enforceable contracts, and appoint
> representatives, they have a right to form unions. So far
> only wrjames and Stan de SD have come out against these
> rights (at least for employees). You all libertarians
> are supposed to stand up for them -- but as usual you're
> leaving me to do the job.

It's obvious and goes without saying. If you want me to address that
issue, people have the right to form unions. The only point interesting
to me here is whether unions actually do much good in the long term, for
workers, or the customers of workers - for anyone. And if they do, then why.

In a market, things that create benefits tend to grow in size and/or
number. Someone posted just a moment ago to this thread (I think) that
unions are in decline. That suggests that they don't do all that much
good, for anybody.

> I suppose it's class prejudice;
> you should try to overcome it if so.
>

G*rd*n wrote:

>>>>>>...
>
>
> :
>
>>>>>>Labor unions are inherently evil. They are a group demanding control
>>>>>>over someone else's business. The union didn't invest in the company,
>>>>>>they didn't risk anything to start it or work 80 hour weeks building
>>>>>>it up. They are vendors selling something the company purches to make
>>>>>>their product. But they presume some strange right to exersixe control
>>>>>>over the business owner's right to buy labor.
>
>
> "G*rd*n" >:
>
>>>>>So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
>>>>>and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?
>
>
> "Stan de SD" >:
>
>>>>If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?
>
>
> G*rd*n wrote:
>
>>>Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
>>>corporations and partnerships exist.
>
>
> Ed Faith >:
>
>>We might distinguish between two kinds of advantage:
>>
>>1) Monopolistic advantage. When companies join into a cartel, they are
>>trying to get a monopolistic advantage, improving their lot at the
>>expense of the customer.
>>
>>2) Efficiency advantage. When people join into a company, often the
>>point of this is to be able to produce more product with the same
>>effort, so they can sell more and make more money. This has the indirect
>>effect of lowering prices and improving the lot of the customer along
>>with the producer.
>>
>>Long story short, unions do not get their fame from making workers more
>>efficient.
>
>
>
> I don't believe that's relevant. Stan asked why
> someone needs a union to represent them. From the point
> of view of the worker, collective bargaining and other
> employment-related behaviors may be advantageous, because
> collective behaviors of all sorts are often advantageous.

And yet someone recently posted that unions are in decline. Which
suggests that perhaps unions were an idea that was tried out and that in
the end did not live up to the hopes of those who joined.

> That's why human beings are social.
>
> However, I am also not convinced that cartels are always
> _generally_ disadvantageous. I know of some instances
> where the breaking-up of a cartel has apparently led to
> worse service at higher prices. Anecdotes on request.

Change itself causes temporary disruption.

> But this really doesn't matter. If people have a right
> to associate, make enforceable contracts, and appoint
> representatives, they have a right to form unions. So far
> only wrjames and Stan de SD have come out against these
> rights (at least for employees). You all libertarians
> are supposed to stand up for them -- but as usual you're
> leaving me to do the job.

It's obvious and goes without saying. If you want me to address that
issue, people have the right to form unions. The only point interesting
to me here is whether unions actually do much good in the long term, for
workers, or the customers of workers - for anyone. And if they do, then why.

In a market, things that create benefits tend to grow in size and/or
number. Someone posted just a moment ago to this thread (I think) that
unions are in decline. That suggests that they don't do all that much
good, for anybody.

> I suppose it's class prejudice;
> you should try to overcome it if so.
>

"Ed Faith" > wrote in message
.. .
> And yet someone recently posted that unions are in decline. Which
> suggests that perhaps unions were an idea that was tried out and that in
> the end did not live up to the hopes of those who joined.
>

Unions are in decline in part because of their success. Workers in America
don't always realize what sacrifice was made to create some of our social
standards like overtime pay, 8 hour work day, 5 day week, etc. etc. As unions
decline so do these standards and indeed, the standard of living for American
workers. It is not the union which has not lived up to the hopes of the
American worker ... it is the success of capitalism to determine our
government which has killed the American dream for many.

The main reason unions are in decline is because our society no longer
supports the right of an economic strike without the permanent replacement of
economic strikers. Without the leverage of an economic strike there are fewer
means to leverage better pay and conditions. We have become a society driven
by the lowest bidder ... and you never get more than you pay for.

"Ed Faith" > wrote in message
.. .
> And yet someone recently posted that unions are in decline. Which
> suggests that perhaps unions were an idea that was tried out and that in
> the end did not live up to the hopes of those who joined.
>

Unions are in decline in part because of their success. Workers in America
don't always realize what sacrifice was made to create some of our social
standards like overtime pay, 8 hour work day, 5 day week, etc. etc. As unions
decline so do these standards and indeed, the standard of living for American
workers. It is not the union which has not lived up to the hopes of the
American worker ... it is the success of capitalism to determine our
government which has killed the American dream for many.

The main reason unions are in decline is because our society no longer
supports the right of an economic strike without the permanent replacement of
economic strikers. Without the leverage of an economic strike there are fewer
means to leverage better pay and conditions. We have become a society driven
by the lowest bidder ... and you never get more than you pay for.

Michael Legel wrote:

> "Ed Faith" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>And yet someone recently posted that unions are in decline. Which
>>suggests that perhaps unions were an idea that was tried out and that in
>>the end did not live up to the hopes of those who joined.
>>
>
>
> Unions are in decline in part because of their success. Workers in America
> don't always realize what sacrifice was made to create some of our social
> standards like overtime pay, 8 hour work day, 5 day week, etc. etc. As unions
> decline so do these standards and indeed, the standard of living for American
> workers.

Fishy economic history, I think.

> It is not the union which has not lived up to the hopes of the
> American worker ... it is the success of capitalism to determine our
> government which has killed the American dream for many.
>
> The main reason unions are in decline is because our society no longer
> supports the right of an economic strike without the permanent replacement of
> economic strikers.

But to my libertarian eyes that looks like a privilege enjoyed by
unions. Unless I have misunderstood, you've just argued that unions
cannot survive in a free market, because they require government
intervention.

> Without the leverage of an economic strike there are fewer
> means to leverage better pay and conditions. We have become a society driven
> by the lowest bidder ... and you never get more than you pay for.
>
>

Michael Legel wrote:

> "Ed Faith" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>And yet someone recently posted that unions are in decline. Which
>>suggests that perhaps unions were an idea that was tried out and that in
>>the end did not live up to the hopes of those who joined.
>>
>
>
> Unions are in decline in part because of their success. Workers in America
> don't always realize what sacrifice was made to create some of our social
> standards like overtime pay, 8 hour work day, 5 day week, etc. etc. As unions
> decline so do these standards and indeed, the standard of living for American
> workers.

Fishy economic history, I think.

> It is not the union which has not lived up to the hopes of the
> American worker ... it is the success of capitalism to determine our
> government which has killed the American dream for many.
>
> The main reason unions are in decline is because our society no longer
> supports the right of an economic strike without the permanent replacement of
> economic strikers.

But to my libertarian eyes that looks like a privilege enjoyed by
unions. Unless I have misunderstood, you've just argued that unions
cannot survive in a free market, because they require government
intervention.

> Without the leverage of an economic strike there are fewer
> means to leverage better pay and conditions. We have become a society driven
> by the lowest bidder ... and you never get more than you pay for.
>
>

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
> That is our reality. Wouldn't the dream of "people first" be something to
> realize?

No, that's socialism = Communism.


"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Probably not in our lifetime.

Americans will never be free until the statist American state has been
eradicated.

Those who love freedom vote Libertarian.

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
> That is our reality. Wouldn't the dream of "people first" be something to
> realize?

No, that's socialism = Communism.


"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Probably not in our lifetime.

Americans will never be free until the statist American state has been
eradicated.

Those who love freedom vote Libertarian.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some
right
> to impose their wishes upon everyone else?

Right on brother. Anyone who talks about society, or "the people" are
traitors to the constitution and enemies of Liberty.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some
right
> to impose their wishes upon everyone else?

Right on brother. Anyone who talks about society, or "the people" are
traitors to the constitution and enemies of Liberty.

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Imagine a world where people were ALWAYS more
> important than money.

Money is the only true GOD.
Capitalism the only valid Religion.

Those who love Liberty vote Libertarian.

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Imagine a world where people were ALWAYS more
> important than money.

Money is the only true GOD.
Capitalism the only valid Religion.

Those who love Liberty vote Libertarian.

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > >
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "G*rd*n" >:
> > > > > > > So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> > > > > > > and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Stan de SD" >:
> > > > > > If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
> > > > > corporations and partnerships exist.
> > > >
> > > > And "collective behavior" is only just if you have the option of
getting
> > > > out, something that most union types don't agree to.
> > >
> > > Sure we do. Don't "belong" if you don't want to. But you do have to
pay
> > the
> > > dues if you collect the benefits.
> >
> > And when one is forced to join a union to keep one's job?
>
> Sorry, that is illegal. You can't force someone to join a union.

Yet it happens...

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > >
> > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "G*rd*n" >:
> > > > > > > So you don't believe in the rights of association, contract
> > > > > > > and representation? Or in ownership of one's own labor?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Stan de SD" >:
> > > > > > If you own your labor, why do you need a union to represent you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Collective behavior is often advantageous. That's why
> > > > > corporations and partnerships exist.
> > > >
> > > > And "collective behavior" is only just if you have the option of
getting
> > > > out, something that most union types don't agree to.
> > >
> > > Sure we do. Don't "belong" if you don't want to. But you do have to
pay
> > the
> > > dues if you collect the benefits.
> >
> > And when one is forced to join a union to keep one's job?
>
> Sorry, that is illegal. You can't force someone to join a union.

Yet it happens...

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > >
> > > "Vendicar Decarian" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote in
message
> > > > ...
> > > > > I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to
be
> > > > served
> > > > > by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people.
> > People
> > > > > come first. People are more important than money, machines,
technology
> > and
> > > > > quarterly returns.
> > > >
> > > > WRONG. GOD comes first. And here in America GOD is MONEY.
> > > >
> > > That is our reality. Wouldn't the dream of "people first" be
something to
> > > realize? Probably not in our lifetime.
> >
> > Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some
right
> > to impose their wishes upon everyone else?
>
> ALL people Stan. Even you. Imagine a world where people were ALWAYS more
> important than money.

I don't waste my time imagining silly Utopias and trying to design societies
around them. I'm more interested in reality, and societies that work within
those constraints...

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > >
> > > "Vendicar Decarian" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote in
message
> > > > ...
> > > > > I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to
be
> > > > served
> > > > > by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people.
> > People
> > > > > come first. People are more important than money, machines,
technology
> > and
> > > > > quarterly returns.
> > > >
> > > > WRONG. GOD comes first. And here in America GOD is MONEY.
> > > >
> > > That is our reality. Wouldn't the dream of "people first" be
something to
> > > realize? Probably not in our lifetime.
> >
> > Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some
right
> > to impose their wishes upon everyone else?
>
> ALL people Stan. Even you. Imagine a world where people were ALWAYS more
> important than money.

I don't waste my time imagining silly Utopias and trying to design societies
around them. I'm more interested in reality, and societies that work within
those constraints...

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > >
> > > Who overlooked it? We just don't agree that this investment in
business
> > gives
> > > them any special right to ignore the rights of their employees to
> > unionize.
> >
> > Investment entails property rights. I know that's a concept that lefties
> > don't care for, but those who invest in a business do have rights
concerning
> > their property, despite the ceaseless efforts of socialists to take them
> > away...
>
> Agreed. Investment entails property rights. Fortunately employees are
not
> property.

Did I say they were?

> Employees have rights, even on business property.

As I said, they have the right to be paid, not to be physically abused or
forced to commit illegal acts, and the right to quit and find work
elsewhere.But they don't have the right to steal, vandalize, or approproate
assets they don't own. What part of that do you not understand?

> Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business.

Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not
have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.

"Michael Legel" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > >
> > > Who overlooked it? We just don't agree that this investment in
business
> > gives
> > > them any special right to ignore the rights of their employees to
> > unionize.
> >
> > Investment entails property rights. I know that's a concept that lefties
> > don't care for, but those who invest in a business do have rights
concerning
> > their property, despite the ceaseless efforts of socialists to take them
> > away...
>
> Agreed. Investment entails property rights. Fortunately employees are
not
> property.

Did I say they were?

> Employees have rights, even on business property.

As I said, they have the right to be paid, not to be physically abused or
forced to commit illegal acts, and the right to quit and find work
elsewhere.But they don't have the right to steal, vandalize, or approproate
assets they don't own. What part of that do you not understand?

> Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business.

Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not
have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.

Stan de SD wrote:

>>As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
>>social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about.
>
> Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
> the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
> seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
> (management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
> Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
> choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
> situation...

And there you have it: according to Stain, "freedom of
choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
more than a choice of masters.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Stan de SD wrote:

>>As has been stated very often ... the business owner has no right to quell
>>social interaction on the job to the extent you are speaking about.
>
> Yes he does - he has the right to control the interaction as he sees fit. If
> the employees think that it's excessive, they have the right to quit and
> seek work elsewhere. It's called the "free market", and it keeps both sides
> (management and labor) from becoming too dictatorial or unrealistic.
> Unfortunately, lefties such as yourself don't like the idea of freedom of
> choice, so you would rather impose your own prejudices on an employment
> situation...

And there you have it: according to Stain, "freedom of
choice" means giving the boss complete control over the
workers, and this prevents management from becoming "too
dictatorial". If workers find such total, arbitrary rule
"excessive", why, they can look for another master who will
again have total, arbitrary control over them. Freedom means
more than a choice of masters.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Stan de SD wrote:
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>>"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>>"G*rd*n" >:

> And when one is forced to join a union to keep one's job?

If your employer requires you to join a union as a condition
of employment, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Stan de SD wrote:
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>>"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>>"G*rd*n" >:

> And when one is forced to join a union to keep one's job?

If your employer requires you to join a union as a condition
of employment, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Stan de SD wrote:
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>>"spenzdad" > wrote in message
>>news:aahBc.19627$wS2.12242@okepread03...

> Starbucks offers employment and some semblance of advancement opportunities
> in a semi-decent work environment to people with little or no skills -
> certainly quite generous compared to the state-owned businesses in communist
> countries that you left-wingers use as your business and economic model...

I regularly post articles on subjects like workers
cooperatives, articles to which Stain regularly responds,
and yet Stain still cannot see any possible alternative
business model to the standard old capitalist corporation
and state-capitalist nationalized company. Perhaps someday
he will learn to count as high as three.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Stan de SD wrote:
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>>"spenzdad" > wrote in message
>>news:aahBc.19627$wS2.12242@okepread03...

> Starbucks offers employment and some semblance of advancement opportunities
> in a semi-decent work environment to people with little or no skills -
> certainly quite generous compared to the state-owned businesses in communist
> countries that you left-wingers use as your business and economic model...

I regularly post articles on subjects like workers
cooperatives, articles to which Stain regularly responds,
and yet Stain still cannot see any possible alternative
business model to the standard old capitalist corporation
and state-capitalist nationalized company. Perhaps someday
he will learn to count as high as three.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > s.com...
> > > >
> > > > Who overlooked it? We just don't agree that this investment in
> business
> > > gives
> > > > them any special right to ignore the rights of their employees to
> > > unionize.
> > >
> > > Investment entails property rights. I know that's a concept that lefties
> > > don't care for, but those who invest in a business do have rights
> concerning
> > > their property, despite the ceaseless efforts of socialists to take them
> > > away...
> >
> > Agreed. Investment entails property rights. Fortunately employees are
> not
> > property.
>
> Did I say they were?
>
> > Employees have rights, even on business property.
>
> As I said, they have the right to be paid, not to be physically abused or
> forced to commit illegal acts, and the right to quit and find work
> elsewhere.But they don't have the right to steal, vandalize, or approproate
> assets they don't own. What part of that do you not understand?

Now you lecture to me about things irrelevant to what I said. I understand
that you are incapable of admitting that employees have rights in the work
place. Who said anything about theft, vandalize, etc. ? Why do you drag this
into the discussion?

>
> > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business.
>
> Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not
> have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.

They most certainly do. Again, where does it say that if I buy or build a
business I accrue more rights by doing so. Or that if I opt to be "merely" an
employee I forfeit any that I was born with?

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > s.com...
> > > >
> > > > Who overlooked it? We just don't agree that this investment in
> business
> > > gives
> > > > them any special right to ignore the rights of their employees to
> > > unionize.
> > >
> > > Investment entails property rights. I know that's a concept that lefties
> > > don't care for, but those who invest in a business do have rights
> concerning
> > > their property, despite the ceaseless efforts of socialists to take them
> > > away...
> >
> > Agreed. Investment entails property rights. Fortunately employees are
> not
> > property.
>
> Did I say they were?
>
> > Employees have rights, even on business property.
>
> As I said, they have the right to be paid, not to be physically abused or
> forced to commit illegal acts, and the right to quit and find work
> elsewhere.But they don't have the right to steal, vandalize, or approproate
> assets they don't own. What part of that do you not understand?

Now you lecture to me about things irrelevant to what I said. I understand
that you are incapable of admitting that employees have rights in the work
place. Who said anything about theft, vandalize, etc. ? Why do you drag this
into the discussion?

>
> > Imagine that. A country with rights for everyone in the business.
>
> Businesses are NOT democracies. Those who do not own the business do not
> have the same rights as those who do - plain and simple.

They most certainly do. Again, where does it say that if I buy or build a
business I accrue more rights by doing so. Or that if I opt to be "merely" an
employee I forfeit any that I was born with?

"Ed Faith" > wrote in message
.. .
> Michael Legel wrote:
>
>
> But to my libertarian eyes that looks like a privilege enjoyed by
> unions. Unless I have misunderstood, you've just argued that unions
> cannot survive in a free market, because they require government
> intervention.
>

"Free market" and "government" are determined by those who rule. Currently
those who rule are the corporations because they are free to set policy in a
government mostly run by their representatives. Unless the majority decide to
change this situation it will remain. I guarantee you this situation would
not persist without government intervention. Faced with losing their jobs
anyway, many would simply burn and destroy the business that would threaten
their welfare. We don't allow that kind of anarchy because it is uncivilized.
But we do allow business to damage the livelihood of thousands at a time while
paying outrageous bonus to the chiefs. Do you think Ken Lay would still be
drawing breath if not for "government intervention"?

"Ed Faith" > wrote in message
.. .
> Michael Legel wrote:
>
>
> But to my libertarian eyes that looks like a privilege enjoyed by
> unions. Unless I have misunderstood, you've just argued that unions
> cannot survive in a free market, because they require government
> intervention.
>

"Free market" and "government" are determined by those who rule. Currently
those who rule are the corporations because they are free to set policy in a
government mostly run by their representatives. Unless the majority decide to
change this situation it will remain. I guarantee you this situation would
not persist without government intervention. Faced with losing their jobs
anyway, many would simply burn and destroy the business that would threaten
their welfare. We don't allow that kind of anarchy because it is uncivilized.
But we do allow business to damage the livelihood of thousands at a time while
paying outrageous bonus to the chiefs. Do you think Ken Lay would still be
drawing breath if not for "government intervention"?

Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...

> Anyone who talks about society, or "the people" are
> traitors to the constitution and enemies of Liberty.

Have you ever seen the phrase "We the people"?

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> ink.net...

> Anyone who talks about society, or "the people" are
> traitors to the constitution and enemies of Liberty.

Have you ever seen the phrase "We the people"?

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > s.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Vendicar Decarian" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote in
> message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to
> be
> > > > > served
> > > > > > by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people.
> > > People
> > > > > > come first. People are more important than money, machines,
> technology
> > > and
> > > > > > quarterly returns.
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG. GOD comes first. And here in America GOD is MONEY.
> > > > >
> > > > That is our reality. Wouldn't the dream of "people first" be
> something to
> > > > realize? Probably not in our lifetime.
> > >
> > > Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some
> right
> > > to impose their wishes upon everyone else?
> >
> > ALL people Stan. Even you. Imagine a world where people were ALWAYS more
> > important than money.
>
> I don't waste my time imagining silly Utopias and trying to design societies
> around them. I'm more interested in reality, and societies that work within
> those constraints...

You must live in an awful mean reality Stan if you can't imagine being nice to
people when the opportunity allows. I doubt that we would have the freedoms
we do if not for the imagination of people who came here to make them reality.

"Stan de SD" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >
> > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Michael Legel" > wrote in message
> > > s.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Vendicar Decarian" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Politics in America" ,microsoft> wrote in
> message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > I would like to remind everyone, that we do not have an economy to
> be
> > > > > served
> > > > > > by the people, but rather we have an economy to serve the people.
> > > People
> > > > > > come first. People are more important than money, machines,
> technology
> > > and
> > > > > > quarterly returns.
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG. GOD comes first. And here in America GOD is MONEY.
> > > > >
> > > > That is our reality. Wouldn't the dream of "people first" be
> something to
> > > > realize? Probably not in our lifetime.
> > >
> > > Which people? The self-described "activists" who think they have some
> right
> > > to impose their wishes upon everyone else?
> >
> > ALL people Stan. Even you. Imagine a world where people were ALWAYS more
> > important than money.
>
> I don't waste my time imagining silly Utopias and trying to design societies
> around them. I'm more interested in reality, and societies that work within
> those constraints...

You must live in an awful mean reality Stan if you can't imagine being nice to
people when the opportunity allows. I doubt that we would have the freedoms
we do if not for the imagination of people who came here to make them reality.

Michael Legel wrote:

> "Ed Faith" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>Michael Legel wrote:
>>
>>
>>But to my libertarian eyes that looks like a privilege enjoyed by
>>unions. Unless I have misunderstood, you've just argued that unions
>>cannot survive in a free market, because they require government
>>intervention.
>>
>
>
> "Free market" and "government" are determined by those who rule.

A free market is defined by those thinkers who have proposed and
defended free markets, such as Adam Smith. Not by those who rule.

Michael Legel wrote:

> "Ed Faith" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>Michael Legel wrote:
>>
>>
>>But to my libertarian eyes that looks like a privilege enjoyed by
>>unions. Unless I have misunderstood, you've just argued that unions
>>cannot survive in a free market, because they require government
>>intervention.
>>
>
>
> "Free market" and "government" are determined by those who rule.

A free market is defined by those thinkers who have proposed and
defended free markets, such as Adam Smith. Not by those who rule.

G*rd*n wrote:
> ...
> > But this really doesn't matter. If people have a right
> > to associate, make enforceable contracts, and appoint
> > representatives, they have a right to form unions. So far
> > only wrjames and Stan de SD have come out against these
> > rights (at least for employees). You all libertarians
> > are supposed to stand up for them -- but as usual you're
> > leaving me to do the job.

Ed Faith >:
> It's obvious and goes without saying. If you want me to address that
> issue, people have the right to form unions. The only point interesting
> to me here is whether unions actually do much good in the long term, for
> workers, or the customers of workers - for anyone. And if they do, then why.
>
> In a market, things that create benefits tend to grow in size and/or
> number. Someone posted just a moment ago to this thread (I think) that
> unions are in decline. That suggests that they don't do all that much
> good, for anybody.


I was much more excited by wrjames's and Stan's admissions
that they reject the liberal rights, and was hoping to get
some specifics from them on what they do believe in. They
seemed to have become coy, however, for my questions have
thus far remained unanswered.

As to the decline of unions in the U.S., I can only note that
the workplace and labor relations are heavily regulated by
the government, so that they do not really constitute a free
market. It could be that the present set of regulations is
not to the advantage of unions. And this is what we should
expect, because the government of the U.S. is more plutocratic
than not, and plutocrats tend to be employers rather than
employees.


--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

G*rd*n wrote:
> ...
> > But this really doesn't matter. If people have a right
> > to associate, make enforceable contracts, and appoint
> > representatives, they have a right to form unions. So far
> > only wrjames and Stan de SD have come out against these
> > rights (at least for employees). You all libertarians
> > are supposed to stand up for them -- but as usual you're
> > leaving me to do the job.

Ed Faith >:
> It's obvious and goes without saying. If you want me to address that
> issue, people have the right to form unions. The only point interesting
> to me here is whether unions actually do much good in the long term, for
> workers, or the customers of workers - for anyone. And if they do, then why.
>
> In a market, things that create benefits tend to grow in size and/or
> number. Someone posted just a moment ago to this thread (I think) that
> unions are in decline. That suggests that they don't do all that much
> good, for anybody.


I was much more excited by wrjames's and Stan's admissions
that they reject the liberal rights, and was hoping to get
some specifics from them on what they do believe in. They
seemed to have become coy, however, for my questions have
thus far remained unanswered.

As to the decline of unions in the U.S., I can only note that
the workplace and labor relations are heavily regulated by
the government, so that they do not really constitute a free
market. It could be that the present set of regulations is
not to the advantage of unions. And this is what we should
expect, because the government of the U.S. is more plutocratic
than not, and plutocrats tend to be employers rather than
employees.


--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't

In the referenced article, writes:

>I quite myself from above here, ok?: " That's the purpose of a picket
>line. Otherwise strikers would walk around in FRONT of a building in
>public view to express their message instead of blocking the gates of
>a plant around back where employees enter. Strikes are primarialy
>acts of terrorism, attempts at intimidation using threats and
>violence. Otherwise there's no purpose to a picket line."

The reason for having a picket line where the workers go in is to try
to convince workers not to go in (and to ask workers who are not
involved to refuse to take on the work of those who are). There is no
point in talking to the public when it's other workers you want to
convince.
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.

No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html