May Day? Pretty Bad

By On May 2, 2012 · 83 Comments · In A Bleeding Heart History of Libertarian Thought, Current Events, Libertarianism, Liberty, Uncategorized

I was not planning to blog about this, but I must take the pen to support Ilya Somin and Jason Brennan against their critics, in particular fellow blogger Roderick Long (whose work I admire.) Unlike Rod and those he cites, I do not romanticize worker’s movements. Throughout history, worker’s movements have been the origin of, and breeding ground for, all kinds of populist demagogues, tyrants, and other enemies of liberty. Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Juan Domingo Perón, Hugo Chávez, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, and even Pol Pot were the products of worker’s movements. In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of any worker’s movement (or any mass movement, for that matter) that supported libertarian principles. If we move from history to theory, we can ask: what would be a worker’s movement libertarians can endorse? The answer is obvious: a worker’s movement in support of free markets and political freedom. For example, a worker’s movement against oppressive employers in cahoots with the government would be a movement libertarians should support. But these are not the worker’s movements I know.  Those I know support government’s nationalization of private enterprise, increased regulation of markets, erection of trade barriers, persecution of political enemies, mob justice, and a variety of nationalist and populist causes, including sometimes aggressive war, that, to put it mildly, are inconsistent with principles libertarians hold dear. Moreover, those movements indulge in a form of communication that Guido Pincione and I have called discourse failure. They use slogans that rely on short and simple causal connections that the populace can understand. Those movements (or rather, their leaders,) in  their pursuit of political change, tend to overlook the complex and counterintuitive economic arguments in support of markets that libertarians endorse. And with good reason: there is little chance these leaders will motivate the political changes they seek by invoking Hayek or Friedman. Perhaps my own experience colors my skepticism: the worker’s movement in my native Argentina ranks second only to the fascist Junta of the 70′s in the systematic destruction of the Argentine social fabric and, especially, of the once highly competitive Argentine private sector. I do not deny that a worker’s movement on behalf of liberty is possible; however, history does not warrant much optimism. I’m not big on symbolisms, but for my  money, using May Day to honor the millions of victims of communism (obsolete and outmoded as that may sound to our younger readers) is a better use of our symbolic energies.

 
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306096974 Tom Pappert

    I think that many sympathize with the Occupy movement because they are just as “shut out” by the mainstream media and political establishment as the libertarian movement. Although the Occupiers had immense success yesterday, blocking out entire streets of major cities such as Montreal, you probably didn’t hear about it on MSNBC. When Ron Paul gets 10,000+ people attending rallies in California of all places, or Gary Johnson gets record setting voter turnouts, you definitely don’t hear about it on MSBNC.

    I agree completely that celebrating communism and socialism completely ignores the lives lost as a result of the inferior system, but that doesn’t invalidate or vilify the Occupiers. I think that it would be prudent to work together where possible to enact the small amounts of change that libertarians and OWS liberals could agree upon. Neither parties believe in corporate welfare, for instance, and both condemn it vigorously.

    I say that the liberty minded should let OWS attempt to enact its socialism, counteract it with small government reform, and work together against the Progressive Republicans and Progressive Democrats where ever possible.

    • Damien S.

      Gosh, you think socialism is responsible for lots of lives lost, but are okay with OWS trying to implement it?

      I’m guessing you’ve shown the inconsistency and slipperiness a lot of people use, in a single post.  A lot of the time Sweden and the rest of Western Europe, or simple things like universal health care, get condemned as “socialism”.  But when right-wingers want to bring out the big guns, they’ll restrict socialism to the Communist countries, since it’s hard to talk about the lives lost in countries that have abolished the death penalty and have the lowest homicide rates in history.

      The Occupy “socialism” of Medicare for All and going back to 1950s tax brackets is obviously not the “socialism” of Stalin.

      Err, that is obvious, right?

  • Silly Wabbit

    ”
     a worker’s movement in support of free markets and political freedom”

    “They use slogans that rely on short and simple causal connections that the populace can understand”

  • Damien S.

    “They use slogans that rely on short and simple causal connections that the populace can understand.”

    Ah, not like “taxation is theft”, then.

    “Those movements (or rather, their leaders,) in  their pursuit of
    political change, tend to overlook the complex and counterintuitive
    economic arguments in support of markets that libertarians endorse. ”

    But libertarians never overlook the complex and counterintuitive arguments in support of government interventions.  *cough*

  • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

    Bravo, Fernando, Bravo. This is probably the first post on this site that I completely and enthusiastically agree with. Your “average” person, including obviously workers, is grossly ignorant of history, economics, current events, and of course even the rudiments of political theory. Thus, they are easily manipulated and exploited by every would-be dictator that walks down the block, including the ones you mention.

    Anyone who doubts this should take a minute to review this world’s sordid and disgusting history of anti-Semitism, which continues to this day. The fatal attraction of the world’s workers to socialist and communist dictatorships is in fact historically connected to anti-Semitism, as the Jews are often portrayed in political propaganda as nasty capitalists. As the famous English historian A.J.P. Taylor noted in describing the rise of Hitler, “In the beginning, anti-Semitism was an easy outlet for the vague socialism of the National Socialist rank and file, the destruction of Jewish shops a showy substitute for social change. As always, anti-Semitism was the socialism of fools.”

  • http://www.realadultsex.com figleaf

    Except, of course, one of the things that distinguishes BHLs here is that they’re as opposed to state-enforcement of employer’s “rights.” Like, oh, say, the flipping President of the United States sending out 12,000 U.S. Army soldiers in on the side of employers during the Pullman Strike!

    I mean, yeah, yeah, it would be great if the labor movement got behind (BHL) libertarian principles.  But you know what?  Those things generally turn up in, um, opposition to governments invested in the interests of employers and resource extractors.  The labor movement in India?  Started against the British Raj-imposed economic conditions on workers, right?  The labor uprising of the Boxer rebellion?  Workers rising up against British and Chinese-imposed economic conditions on workers, right?  Heck, even the nasty little Communist insurgencies in Latin America were largely fueled by, what, discontent with economic conditions imposed by (of all f-ing things) banana companies and backed up by various corrupt governments (often with further backing, again, from the U.S. government.)

    So you can say it however you like.  But I’m… pretty sure that if there had been no state support for radical employers (including support for business “employment” of slaves in the Americas and elsewhere) there might have been a little more room for non-radical, libertarian labor movements.

    Should the government side with workers during labor disputes?  Not really.  Should the government side with business during labor disputes?  Not that either.  Should the #%!~#% government pass laws making it effectively illegal to form or join a union or make it outright illegal for members freely associating in a union to negotiate wages?

    Queerly, a lot of “hard” libertarians seem to think so.  Which makes them as contemptible as those who thought Britain’s labor governments were just hunky-dory in the 1970s.

    figleaf

  • Ilya Somin

    I, of course, agree with nearly everything you say here, Fernando. Thanks! However, Solidarity is a rare  example of a “workers movement” that was (mostly) pro-liberty. It included a much wider range of people than workers and trade unionists. However, it did start as a labor protest, and Lech Walesa was the leader of protesting workers in the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk. When he eventually became President of a noncommunist Poland, Walesa presided over some of the most successful free market reforms in Eastern Europe (though the policies in question were mostly handled by his ministers).

    That said, this was a rare exception to the general rule that labor union movements are mostly hostile to liberty and free markets.

    • agobbi60

      Agreed, Ilya. I was thinking about Solidarity on my way to work today (no pun intended).

  • berserkrl

    Since most people are not libertarians, most movements for anything are going to appeal to statist means.  That is why Christians, Muslims, atheists, feminists, environmentalists, educators, physicians, moral reformers, antiracists, and, yes, labour activists have frequently (though not always) appealed to statist means.  If we condemn all movements that employ statist means, as though that exhausted what they were about, then we will condemn everything and understand nothing.

    In evaluating the labour movement, particularly the 19th-century (and early 20th) movement before it got co-opted by the state, we can ask:  what problem was it addressing? what goals did it seek? what means did it use?

    The problem it addressed was the imbalance of power between workers and employers.  The goal it sought was worker control of industries.  Both of those are perfectly consistent with libertarianism (more than just consistent, I would argue:  as libertarians we should care about people being pushed around, whether the person doing the pushing is a boss or a bureaucrat).  The means it used were a mix of libertarian ones (education, boycotts, strikes) and non-libertarian ones (freelance violence, and later state patronage as that became available).  Of course the employers used violence too, usually on a vaster scale.

    As for the labour movement producing dictators — well, should we likewise condemn Christianity for giving us Torquemada, and atheism for giving us Stalin?

    • berserkrl

      worker’s movements have been the origin of, and breeding ground for, all kinds of populist demagogues, tyrants, and other enemies of liberty.

      Yes, would-be tyrants have frequently sought to co-opt movements for the liberation of the oppressed.  But that’s not a reason to oppose liberation.  

       For example, a worker’s movement against oppressive employers in cahoots with the government would be a movement libertarians should support. But these are not the worker’s movements I know.

      The fact that you don’t know them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.  Right now, anarchist involvement in the labour movement is growing — and the most impressive victories for labour recently have been ones that bypassed the assistance and imprimatur of the state and its tame unions, achieving its goals purely by free-market means — such as the Immokalee workers against Burger King.

      I recommend Kevin Carson’s “Labor Struggle: A Free-Market Model.”    This is what we as libertarians should be supporting, not spitting at.

    • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

      Just curious: when workers in the late 19th/early 20th century went out on strike, and other individuals wished to take the jobs vacated by the strikers, did the strikers get out of the way so that the replacements and the employers could conclude a mutually beneficial arrangement? What about the libertarian rights of the replacement workers, or do they not count? I don’t think this violence was “freelance,” nor were many other types of labor violence; remember Jimmy Hoffa.

      • berserkrl

        By “freelance” I meant “non-governmental.”  As for whether the strikers got peacefully out of the way — sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Both workers and employers frequently deviated from the non-aggression principle, certainly (as is generally the case with political disputes, since most people aren’t libertarians).  But that hardly exhausts what judgments are worth making about the dispute.  Resistance fighters against the Nazis often violated the non-aggression principle too, but that hardly means there’s nothing to choose between the Nazis and the Resistance.

        • berserkrl

          In any case, the most effective kinds of strikes are slowdown and work-to-rule strikes on the job, not the kind where you walk out.  No wonder that the state’s “pro-labour” legislation sanctions only the later.

          Carson’s “The Ethics of Labor Struggle” is invaluable here.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            You understand that under our current labor laws 51% of workers may appoint an exclsuive  bargaining agent that can contract with employers. And that this contract legally binds the other 49%, even against their will, right? And, you understand that in the 27 states with “agency shop” laws, all workers must pay union dues, even if they don’t want to, right? And you are aganst such laws, right?

          • berserkrl

            Yes, obviously I am against such laws.  But remember that the overall effect of labour laws is to favour employers, not workers (see Carson here and here) — just as the allegedly anti-big-business regulations of the progressive era actually increased business power (see Childs here).

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            I am in favor of repealing all the labor laws mentioned above on the familiar libertarian principle that all relationships, including employment, should be fully consensual–full stop. However, I think that this would in practical terms benefit non-union workers at the expense of union ones. It would not benefit employees generally against employers, but if it did then so be it (see first sentence). Carson’s fantasy to the contrary rests on the purported effectiveness of “on the job sabotage” and boycotts as effective weapons against employers–good luck with that.

            His fantasy also rests on the idea that all trademark protection should be repealed so that anyone could pass their goods off as “Nike” by adding the swoosh, or “Apple” by using its icon. I find this proposal to be morally objectionable, but that is a debate for another time. 

          • berserkrl

            If on-the-job strikes are so ineffective compared with walkout strikes, why were employers so willing to embrace legislation accommodating the latter so long as they could ban the former? And if secondary boycotts are so ineffective, how do you explain Immokalee?

          • berserkrl

             You also misrepresent Kevin’s position on trademarks, but see his response below.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            I am not sure exactly what you mean by an “on the job strike.” It seems to me that workers commonly now ”work to the rule” or don’t put out 100% effort, and this is perfectly legal.  Is this what you mean?  In a truly free market, employers would simply fire these workers and find new ones.

          • j_m_h

            I personally don’t quite get that response. Why is it a foregone conclusion that a truly free market will produce the type of employment agreement/terms/contact that you indicate?

            Who really knows what a “free market” is going to produce as most agree that none seem to exist.

            Of course, even in today’s world, employers that get a reputation for firing people who perform at some defined acceptable level go out of business — no one wants to work for them. (Putting it differently, if the minimum is not acceptable then it’s not the minimum is it?)

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            As I have said before, I am for a “truly free market” as a matter of moral principle. I don’t care what the outcome is, although I see nothing inconsistent with speculating about which groups(s) will benefit.

        • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

          I fail to see the connection between organized crime’s infiltration of labor unions and the state. Organized crime is a perfect fit with organized labor. The mob can force unwilling employers to use union shops, and can get access to union pension funds. A match made somewhere other than in heaven.

          • berserkrl

             For one thing, the very existence of organised crime depends in large part on the state.   State prohibitions of victimless crimes (drug and alcohol use, gambling, prohibition, etc.) create artificially high profits in these areas, which attract risk-friendly, violence-friendly entrepreneurs into the market.

            For another, the model of labour organising encouraged by the state’s labour laws (negotiation for salary and perks, rather than replacing the wage system with workers’ co-ops) creates a niche for organised crime.  There’s a reason that it’s tractable unions like the teamsters, rather than radical unions like the IWW, that get taken over by organised crime.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            In my adult lifetime I have seen at least 100 companies go from start-up to world-beater in a decade or less. All could have been organzied as woorker co-ops, but none were. Why is that? If you and other left-libertarians believe that worker co-ops can compete successfully against your conventional top-down corporation, I suggest you go for it. I would have absolutely no regrets if you succeed, but I estimate the chances of this to very closely approximate nil. Steve Jobs constrained by the need to convince a hundred other people of the soundness of his vision equals a recipe for failure.

          • berserkrl

             All could have been organzied as woorker co-ops, but none were. Why is that?

            Because the government rigs the rules of the game in favour of large hierarchical corporations and against workers’ co-ops. I could win a race against a cheetah if I were allowed to pile enough weights on the cheetah.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rick-DiMare/100000504645309 Rick DiMare

            I’m in agreement there. There’s no way the average working stiff can compete with central banks and the legal machinations of moneyed corporate interests, so the worker joins a union, thinking that will substitute for what is not understood. But all union membership usually does is add another leach to wages. (But it doesn’t have to be this way. Unions could actually be a powerful force in helping the worker acquire a property right in worker wages.)

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            How?

          • Kevin Carson

            Mark:  If market enterprises can compete successfully against state-owned and centrally-planned enterprises, why weren’t there more of them in the USSR? If worker-owned, self-managed cotton cooperatives were so much more productive than slave-worked plantations, why weren’t there more of them in the old South?

            You don’t think maybe there’s just a little selective, structural pressure against cooperatives under state capitalism?

            As the result of a very long historical process of Enclosure and other primitive accumulation, state-enforced artificial scarcity rents, etc., a disproportionate share of capital is concentrated in the hands of absentee investors. And as the result of state regulatory cartelization, most industries are controlled by a handful of oligopoly firms that share the same hierarchical and authoritarian institutional culture — and are protected by cartelization from experiencing the full competitive ill effects of their pathological business cultures.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            I don’t agree here at all. Every start-up faced entrenched competitors that in various ways were aided by the state.  Every start-up was at one time a one or two-person operation. All could have been formed as worker co-opts, but none of the successful ones were. I don’t think this is a mere coincidence.

          • j_m_h

            Ever hear of a company called SAIC, Mark? 

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Actually, no. But I could name a 100 wildely successful conventional corporations that were formed as start-ups within the last 20 years. 

          • berserkrl
          • berserkrl

            Every start-up faced entrenched competitors that in various ways were
            aided by the state.

            So I can win a race against a cheetah that has a huge weight on it more often than I can win a race against a cheetah that has a smaller weight on it.  That’s hardly surprising.

            All could have been formed as worker co-opts

            Freudian slip?

            I don’t think this is a mere coincidence.

            Neither do I.  I wasn’t arguing that it was a coincidence.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            ??? Again, what “weight” are you talking about?

          • j_m_h

            While I don’t completely reject the idea that some stacking of the deck against worker-coops exists, or that some prejudice is not present in the credit markets, I don’t think that’s the whole story.

            Any ideas on the relative contributions of factors that lead away from such a form of organized production?

          • berserkrl

             Re Steve Jobs:  if you mean convincing some pre-existing group of a hundred people, then yes.  But why that?  Why couldn’t he convince a hundred new people and they could form the co-op?  I mean, in order to succeed he did have to convince people, no?

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Why would an entrepreneur want to convince anyone of his vision but him or herself. I have known a few. They wish to succeed on their own terms, to realize their own vision, not to work as a committee. It is one thing to convince self-interested investors that you have a great idea or product, quite another to convince your co-workers who are not nearly as gifted as you are. A camel is a horse designed by committee (or worker co-opt).

          • berserkrl

            It is one thing to convince self-interested investors that you have a
            great idea or product, quite another to convince your co-workers who are
            not nearly as gifted as you are.

            In other words, you didn’t read the post of mine that you’re responding to.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Have you ever been close friends with or worked for a successful entrepreneur? I have done both. I find everything you say on this subject seriously divorsed from reality, sorry. 

          • berserkrl

             Yes, I have.  How is that a response to anything I said?  Your last response showed you hadn’t even read the post you were responding to.

          • j_m_h

            And yet camels are much better than horsed in quite a few ways from what I’ve heard (smarter, faster, carry heavier loads, more versatile in their diet) though admittedly a nasty beast. Then again if anyone tried to harness or saddle I would be too;-) 

          • Joe J Grimm

            In a worker co-op there is no reason to expand the size of a business if the marginal return on a new employee is less than the current average return per employee.

            In contrast, a “normal” corporation has incentive to expand as long as marginal return on new employees is positive.

            A successful cooperative looks and behaves differently from a successful non-cooperative.

          • Damien S.

            Conventional corporations have a clear advantage in raising capital.  If one is leftist enough to question the principles of capital ownership, then that’s as significant as slave plantations outperforming free farmers.

          • berserkrl

            Conventional corporations have a clear advantage in raising capital.

            No surprise, then, that laws mandating upfront capitalisation requirements favour conventional corporations.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            What specific laws are you talking about?

          • berserkrl

             All the myriad laws that require you to come up with a certain amount of money before practising a given business. 

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            See immediately above.

          • berserkrl

             I’m including licenses, fees, the whole pile.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            I thought capitalists are greedy and want to make money. If co-ops are at a disadvantage it is because investors don’t think they will be very profitable. What about union pension funds, with billions of dollars? Why don’t they invest?

          • Damien S.

            How does one invest in a *worker-owned* business, Mark?  The basic idea is hostile to traditional means of raising capital, which sell ownership — equity — for investment.  It’s not a matter of profitability; it’s that if you raise lots of conventional outside capital, you’re not a worker-owned business anymore!  Co-ops would have to raise money through debt or preferred stock.

            Grimm’s observation of less marginal incentive to expand seems possibly salient; you also wouldn’t have empire-building by managers.

            But there are worker-owned business with on the order of 100,000 employees; obviously they *can* grow and compete.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Well, then the state is not suppressing them, right?

            Just to be clear, I have nothing against co-ops; its just that I think the idea that they will take over the business world in a free and fair competition is a fantasy.

          • Damien S.

            “very existence of organised crime depends in large part on the state”

            Sort of.  The state creates artificial profts in such businesses, but it’s also creating lacunae in state law enforcement — the prostitute or drug customer can’t safely to go the police for redress, and you get pre-state or private law enforcement instead, like feuding and raiding, and social structures (gangs, feudalism) and values (fealty, honor, respect, manliness) that closely resemble those found when states collapse or never developed.  Get rid of the state entirely, and you don’t have a black market in drugs and gambling, but you get gangs controlling land instead.

            (Actually you see that now, too. Protection money and “shame if your building burned down” and such.)

          • berserkrl

            Get rid of the state entirely, and you don’t have a black market in drugs and gambling, but you get gangs controlling land instead.

            Not so much.

          • Damien S.

            Yeah, I’ve seen those claims before.
            OTOH: while Somalia as a whole doesn’t have a state government, the relatively stable and prosperous Somaliland does.  Your own link indicates municipal clan councils and taxation in Somalia, and a strong clan provides some benefits of a state.  There’s also been a lot of violence and territorial fighting in Somalia not mentioned in that article, perhaps flaring up after it was written.

            http://somalilandpress.com/somaliland-annual-crime-statistics-released-2009-16866
            Between the death stats and the population numbers, Somaliland has a homicide rate of 2 per 100,000 — lower than the US and close to the social democracies of Western Europe — while Somalia has a rate of at least 81 per 100,000, and possibly 126 if Somaliland’s 3.5m people is subtracted from the 9.3m Google claims for Somalia.

            Iceland’s a bit of a special case, and one could argue whether it really counts as stateless.  Even on Friedman’s account, it collapsed when economic inequality got too big…

          • berserkrl

             Even on Friedman’s account, it collapsed when economic inequality got too big…

            Right, but remember what caused that.

      • Sergio Méndez

        Funny…is like you paint it only as workers applied to violence…Employers and bosses haven´t used the state in almost every country to advance their goals? Haven´t they used violence to destroy strikes (I wonder if you actually know the origin of may day). Why aren´t you condeming them too using the same standards you apply on workers?

        • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

          Of course I condemn violence from any side. Nothing I said was contrary to that.

          • Sergio Méndez

            Then, by your own logic, you should be condeming the whole enterpreneur class, wage system etc (you know, the same way you atacking the who labour movement for its mistakes or uses of force and appeal to the state).

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Exactly what did Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, the Goggle Boys, etc. do, other than make many of their employees and shareholders filthy rich, that I should condemn them for? As for the state’s involvement in labor–please see my coment above.

          • berserkrl

             Exactly what did Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, the Goggle Boys, etc. do,
            other than make many of their employees and shareholders filthy rich,
            that I should condemn them for?

            You might want to reread Sergio’s point.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            I have no idea who the Immokalee workers are or what they have done. So I am not condemming them. Nor did I condemn all workers or unions. I have no complaint against unions per se–just their use of the state to employ coercion against other workers and employers. I don’t think all employers employ violence either, so I don’t condemn them as a class.

          • berserkrl

             If you have no beef with the labour movement generally, then why did you say “bravo” to Fernando’s post?

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            I don’t have a beef with non-violent unions; workers movements have often been a force for evil, as Fernando described. Hence, my “bravo.”

          • berserkrl

             I have no idea who the Immokalee workers are or what they have done.

            Who they are and what they have done.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Great, I am all for non-violent efforts to advance one’s economic interests.

          • Sergio Méndez

            Mark: 

            Aside of what profesor Long already commented, don´t all those you mention relly on stuff like “intelectual property laws” (while, in the case of Zuckemberg, they don´t have any problem in selling people personal data without their consent to other companies) to make money? Isn´t that the use of a state granted priviledge, based by the use of force and coercion? Just courious…

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            In principle, I believe that IP protection is morally legitimate, although our particular laws need big reforms. As to FB, I don’t know enough of the facts to comment about whether they have done something wrong. But, if they have done something illegal, every trial lawyer in America will be gunning for them. So, they will not get away with anything.

  • http://www.facebook.com/astrekal Alex Strekal

    There’s a consistent pattern here – conflating the co-option of workers movements by state elements with the worker’s struggle itself. The implications of the commentary in this post are also markedly *elitist* in orientation – in which you more or less have to dismiss the masses unsophistocated dolts who don’t understand the libertarian’s vastly superior, oh so academic, oh so sophistocated, “economic reasoning”. We’ve heard it all before: you don’ know economix!

    The institutional colors of this blog’s contributors are showing. This is why it won’t ever be much more than a speculative circle jerk among libertarians.

  • Aeon Skoble

    Largely with Fernando here.  These movements, when they get power, then use that power to block competition just the same as corporations do.  Is it not unions which push for things like minimum wage legislation and occupational licensure? 

    • berserkrl

      But why do so many libertarians identify the statist aspects of the labour movement with the labour movement, when they don’t identify the statist aspects of business with business itself?  Why the double standard?

      Is it not unions which push for things like minimum wage legislation and occupational licensure? 

      Yes, business unions — those that got co-opted into being junior partners of the big-government/big-business axis, and thereby abandoned the historical goals of the labour movement — have done so.  You don’t see the Immokalee workers doing that.  Once again see Carson here and here.

      • Aeon Skoble

        No double-standard here.  I am not a cheerleader for the GOP any more than I am for labor movements.  Any group with access to political power will use it to its own benefit. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/jtlevy Jacob Levy

    ”
    what would be a worker’s movement libertarians can endorse? The answer is obvious: a worker’s movement in support of free markets and political freedom. For example, a worker’s movement against oppressive employers in cahoots with the government would be a movement libertarians should support. ”

    On the one hand, “oppressive employers in cahoots with the government” is such a normal state of affairs that this could count as an endorsement of almost every labor movement that isn’t a political party.  On the other, it seems quite narrow.

    What about a worker’s movement for procedural protections within employment, seeking to get employers to renounce at-will employment and commit themselves to procedures for adjudicating cause?  Or to pressure employers to commit to prohibiting sexual harassment by managers?  Or to pressure employers to adopt pension systems such that pensions obligations would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy?  Or to commit to the provision of sick days, worker’s compensation insurance for on-the-job injury, and parental leave?  Or simply for collective bargaining over wages?

    In Libertopia, the terms of employment contracts would be open to negotiation.  Fine.  But defaults are very powerful, and for many jobs there will be no individual renegotiation of the basic employment and human resources handbook.  Workers’ attempts to get the things I listed above will generally continue to take the form of group activity.  And, even if the employer isn’t “in cahoots with the government,” some of us would want to cheer at least some of those outcomes.  Outside Libertopia, there are often regulations that we oppose about those topics, but employers and employees can contract above regulatory baselines, and we can still cheer some of those outcomes.

  • Kevin Carson

    I would argue that workers movements rely on “short and simple causal connections” that mainstream libertarians and the professed “free market”  Right have done a great deal to promote. and they advocate government intervention because they take at face value the so-called “free market” discourse they hear in the mainstream media.

    The term “free markets” and “free enterprise” are closely associated in the public mind for good reason, with loathsome human filth like Tom Delay and Dick Armey. On venues like CNBC and the WSJ editorial page, we constantly hear things like astronomical CEO salaries and drug patents described as part of “our free market system.” We hear people like Mitt Romney characterizing their vulture/chop shop model of predatory capitalism as “free enterprise.” Frankly, if I thought the “free market” actually meant what the pointy-haired MBAs and business news talking heads meant by it, I’d hate it too. 

  • Kevin Carson

    Mark:

    1) I don’t think most libertarians who oppose trademark laws support the ability to fraudulently pass off one’s product as someone else’s. The problem is when the law criminalizes commercial free speech by companies no one is in genuine danger of mistaking for someone else, in the name of “trademark dilution.” And also when the law criminalizes production of identical knockoffs, those of similar design, or modular accessories and spare parts compatible with a trademarked design ecosystem, even when they are eplicitly advertised as a generic *competitor*.

    2) You really think removing the Taft-Hartley restrictions on secondary sympathy and  boycott strikes, or the ability to impose cooling off periods, would benefit non-union at the expense of union workers?

    • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

      Your #1: I thought the point you were making is that relaxing trademark protection would keep corporations from moving their production overseas. The small reforms you are talking about–which I support in general– would not have this effect. Nike would still shop for the lowest cost labor and would continue to be successful because people want to buy the genuine Swoosh. I am also not willing to acknowledge that patent protection is morally impermissible, so the “similar design” could not infringe any Nike patent, in my view.

      Your #2:  You may be right about these specific parts of T-H, but this law is absolutely key to union organizing because it provides that if the union can get to 51%, it becomes the exclusive bargianing agent, able to legally bind the other 49%. The 49% must also pay union dues even if they don’t want to (in most states). I am in favor of repealing the entire statute, and let the chips fall where they may.

      • Kevin Carson

        The big difference for the Apple business model, though, is that the same job shops in Zhenzhen that currently contract to produce iPhones could *legally* produce identical phones without the Apple logo or the brand-name markup, and market them domestically themselves for a price much closer to production cost.

        Counterfactual speculation, I know, but I think sole bargaining agent status (especially given how hard that is to achieve this days with punitive firing and professional union-busting consultants) is hardly compensation for giving up devilishly effective pre-Wagner tactics.  Before Wagner union membership commonly went from 1% of a shop to nearly 100% when a flying wedge announced “down tools, we’re on strike.” And it was probably easier to get workers to walk out in hot blood on such a wildcat strike than it is today to get them to join an organizing committee and take union cards with near-certainty of punitive firing.

        • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

          Why couldn’t Apple prohibit this by contract? If Apple couldn’t for some reason, how does this help workers, rather than the owner of the “job shop”?

  • Google

    Alex got you guys:
    “There’s a consistent pattern here – conflating the co-option of workers movements by state elements with the worker’s struggle itself. The implications of the commentary in this post are also markedly *elitist* in orientation – in which you more or less have to dismiss the masses as unsophistocated dolts who are the ideological pawns of ideas they have simply absorbed, and of course they don’t understand the libertarian’s vastly superior, oh so academic, oh so sophisticated, “economic reasoning”. We’ve heard it all before: you don’ know economix!
    The institutional and standard libertarian ideological biases of this blog’s contributors are showing. This is why it won’t ever be much more than a speculative circle jerk among privileged libertarians. Your bleeding hearts don’t bleed very deeply.”

    • http://www.sandiego.edu/~mzwolinski Matt Zwolinski

      “speculative circle jerk”? How charming.

    • berserkrl

      Well, there’s more than one flavour of BHL on this blog.  We have, at least, two regular labortarians and two guest labortarians. The opening wedge!

      • http://www.facebook.com/astrekal Alex Strekal

        Unfortunately, the left-libertarians are apparently the minority flavor of BHL. But hey, at least we do have you guys around to stick a monkey wrench into the discourse from time to time. It certainly makes the blog more interesting – especially when, in response to your commentary, the majority consensus of the blog pops up to make it evident that they don’t really have bleeding hearts; in particular, that they actively demonize the very elements that their bleeding hearts should be extending to – the unwashed masses. What a wonderful reinforcement of elitism that they engage in.

        So okay, you (and the few ALL comrades) get a bone: your bleeding heart bleeds more deeply than the rest.

  • Al Bundy

    From the perspective of a libertarian-leaning student at a pretty left-liberal university, the argument we’re having shouldn’t be “May Day: good or bad,” but how do we show the public that wide government power serves (and by definition can only continue to serve) the interests of the rich and already powerful, not workers. The many people across the world who celebrate May Day obviously like it and identify with it, whatever the actual historical circumstances may be. Wouldn’t it be more fruitful to add some anti-statist pro-freedom flair to the whole thing, rather than rally against it?

  • Damien S.

    “Right, but remember what caused that.”

    One thing caught my eye: “The cogency of this explanation is doubtful.
    Wealthier farmers had more hay, but they presumably also had more
    livestock; hence they most likely did not have more hay per head
    of livestock. Since wealth was held predominantly in land and
    livestock, not in currency, it’s unclear why hard winters should
    be expected to have a less severe impact on wealthy farmers than
    on poor ones.”

    Economies of scale of risk.  If you have a lot of animals, and a hay shortage, you can kill some livestock  and still have a breeding population.  If you have only a few, you may have to kill them all, or kill some and lose the survivors to disease, and thus be broke in livestock terms.  No milk or wool, no new calves, no animal labor.

    In general the poor will be closer to going broke, and the rich will be able to take bigger risks; the Matthew Effect applies to concentrate wealth even without the wealthy hiring armies or influencing the government.

    http://www.localhistories.org/iceland.html
    “Meanwhile
    during the 12th century conditions on Iceland deteriorated. It may have
    been partly due to overgrazing. The forests were also cut down and the
    result was soil erosion. With no wood to build ships the Icelanders were
    dependent on Norwegian merchants.”Seems of possible interest.