Email
Print
SyndicateA Minority of One
By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, May 18, 2010
By Robert Ringer
As BHO continues to transform the United States into a socialist hell, the latest poke in the eye is the National Mediation Board’s proposal to make it easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize.
For seventy-five years, the rule has been that in order for any class of workers (e.g., pilots) employed by an airline or railroad to unionize, a majority of all employees in that class have to vote for unionization. But the proposed new rule would require only that a majority of employees who actually vote on the question of unionization would be needed to unionize.
All Democrats love unions; Republican progressives love unions; and even many conservatives believe that a worker should be allowed to join a union voluntarily, so long as those who do not want to join the union are not forced to do so.
Which probably makes me a minority of one. Why? Because not only do I believe that workers do not have a right to unionize a company through tyranny of the majority, I don’t believe that any worker has a right to join a union without the consent of his employer.
It is a basic tenet of libertarian-centered conservatism that without property rights, no other rights are possible. Unfortunately, most people do not understand this fundamental concept. They view property only as inanimate matter, separate and apart from a person’s life. They cannot seem to make the connection between the two.
In actual fact, they are so connected that one is virtually an extension of the other. How can one separate a person’s life from his property? If you took everything that an individual owned, the fact is that he would not own his own life, because whenever he attempted to create something for his personal gain, the fruits of his labor could again be confiscated.
The same is true of purchasing property. The money used to make a purchase presumably was earned through the purchaser’s efforts. That makes the money an extension of his life, and, therefore, the same would be true of anything purchased with that money. No matter what the circumstances, when a person’s property rights are violated, his freedom is violated.
A libertarian-centered conservative (i.e., a true conservative) believes that no one has a right to any other person’s property, which includes both his body and everything he owns. Once this concept is understood, it would be proper to say that, in reality, all crime is based on trespassing on the property of an owner.
When people make “humanitarian” statements about human rights being more important than property rights, they are, in a sense, correct. That’s because human rights include property rights, as well as all other rights of man.
A man has the right to dispose of his life and his property in any way he chooses, without interference from anyone else. By the same token, he has no right to dispose of any other person’s life or property, no matter what his personal rationalizations may be.
As explained in Fundamentals of Liberty, there are only three possible ways to view property:
1. Anyone may take anyone else’s property whenever he pleases.
2. Some people may take the property of other people whenever they please.
3. No one may ever take anyone else’s property without his permission.
It is self-evident to anyone who believes in individual liberty that the only morally valid way of viewing property is No. 3. Likewise, no one has a right to tell a property owner (property being land, buildings, a business, or anything else that a person may own) what he can or cannot do with his property.
Take a business, for example. It belongs to the owner, whether he started the business himself or bought it from someone else. No one has a right to take any part of someone else’s business, nor do they have a right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his business.
If a business grows large and has millions of shareholders, the business is the property of many people – the shareholders. Thus, size is irrelevant when it comes to property rights. When property rights are violated against a multinational corporation as opposed to a “mom-and-pop” business, it simply means that far more people become victims of government aggression. It is a moral absurdity to believe that bigness validates aggression.
Therefore, as a minority of one, I am compelled to say that regardless of the size of a business, the only way unionization is morally valid is if the owner of that business voluntarily agrees to it. Why? Because it’s his business! It’s his property! And it is his human right to set the rules for his own property!
In a truly free society, a worker has one inalienable, overpowering right with regard to his job: He can quit at any time. He is not a slave, so his employer cannot chain him to his work. If wants to belong to a union, he is free to search for employment with a company that allows workers to unionize.
The fact that so many people reading this article will find my comments to be extreme speaks only to how far down the road toward socialism we have traveled. We no longer respect property rights, especially when the property is a business. Generations have been brainwashed into believing that abstract notions such as “the good of society” and “social justice” are more important than private ownership.
The proposed new ruling by the National Mediation Board opens a debate over the issue of whether 75 percent of the overall majority of workers in a given class should be required to unionize an airline or railroad, or just 75 percent of those who actually participate in voting on the question. But, in reality, the debate is nothing more than a distraction. The real debate should be over whether or not employees should be allowed to unionize at all without the consent of the owner.
This is precisely the kind of issue that has caused conservatives to lose their way over the years. Until politicians have the courage to confront an issue such as unionization head on and stop buying into debates about whether to move further to the left or stick to what has become the status-quo left, America will continue its acceleration toward total collapse – both morally and economically.
It will be interesting to see if anyone reading this article has a strong enough belief in the absolute sanctity of property rights to agree with what I’ve said here. That would be nice, because it would instantly elevate me to the status of being part of a minority of two.
Syndication:
Please feel free to copy and share this article with your readers. We encourage you to reprint our articles to supplement your own content and drive more traffic to your site – at no charge. The only requirement is that you include the following at the end of each article:
Copyright © 2010 Tortoise Press, Inc.
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. Ringer has appeared on numerous national talk shows and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron’s, and The New York Times. To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity in an Insane World, visit www.RobertRinger.com
_______________________________________
Liberty Education Interview Series
Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.
_______________________________________
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
41 Responses to “A Minority of One”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
Mr. Ringer,
I would agree with your comments only to the degree that a business is required to allow a Union to operate (a weaker version of your ‘business owner permission’) and to the degree that a Union has power granted to it by the state. If a business owner can take a Union as nothing more than a collection of employees with the same rights and limitations as a single employee (to be terminated, to negotiate employment terms, etc.) then it does not have any more power than a regular employee. It is only when the government mandates the employer-union relationship that the trouble starts. Unions only have power to the degree that government grants them that power.
I’ve always been against unions & feel they use blackmail & terrorist tactics not to mention that they suck dry their members.
I haven’t thought about unions this way before, but I do agree. I think the key issue is that the employer (business owner) did not willfully choose to contract with the union; it did choose to contract with the employee. So by forming/joining a union, the employee forces the employer to contract with a third party not of its choosing. The taking of property presumably is something that occurs AFTER enforcing a non-voluntary contract. How do we get Supreme Court decisions reversed, based on thinking that was not considered at the time of the original decision?
Robert
You are no longer a “Minority of One”. I agree with your most recent article. During my professional career I have had the opportunity to work closely with Unions and have found many good people that are patriotic and have a good work ethic. Unfortunately the Unions I have been associated with generally do not reward productivity. They also would rather a fellow union member injury themselves (or sonmeone else) severely due to an alcohol problem instead of confiding in management to correct the problem.
Count me in the minority of two. It is more than just the unionization issue, too. As a small business owner it is a constant battle to try to comply with an ever increasing load of government regulations. One of the most appalling recent examples was when my home state, North Carolina, joined many others in passing a law prohibiting smoking in restaurants, bars and any business where food is served. The last time I checked, most restaurants and bars were privately owned and their customers had the right to patronize them or not. Some were voluntarily non-smoking, others permitted smoking in certain areas and some were smoke-anywhere. It worked fine! I am a non-smoker, but it galls me that North Carolina, the state that tobacco BUILT, has sunk to such a hypocritical level of statism. Regulating the amount of fat, sugar, salt and calories in food is next…
I agree with 99.9% of what you say here. The part I disagree with is I believe employees should be allowed to join a union any time they like. That gives the freedom to the employee as well.
That being said, there should be no such thing as a required membership in a union in order to work at a facility.
The unions and/or employees can attempt collective bargaining. However, if the employer wants to fire all union employees, or hire replacements to fill the open jobs if the employees decide to go on strike, then that is the employers prerogative.
Unions in this case would be more social, more collective negotiating for discounts for their members for everyday expenses, etc. So everyone benefits.
I can easily think of more than the three simplistic ways listed in the Fundamentals of Liberty regarding how individuals view property and ownership rights. I tend to agree with The Constitution of Liberty and F.A. Hayek’s views on unions, private property as it relates to the individual and the community, and the rights of individuals to organize into groups—including labor related groups. It is a complex subject; Dr. Hayek wrote that unions can actually be a good thing;however, he disagreed with allowing unions to have too much power—such as the power to strike.
Here’s the bottom line: As long as America has Casino Capitalism and a dishonest monetary system whereby the Federal Reserve can print and print and print, and then turn this counterfeit money over in the form of zero interest loans to the big banking cartel, the big gamblers of Wall Street, the corporate media hyenas, the corrupt union bosses, and all the other plutocrats—-as long as this type of corruption is America’s business model—then we are doomed and all the criminal elites know it. No country can survive a totally dishonest monetary system like the one that we have in America. Both labor and business is finished. It’s just a matter of time. I give it ten years or less. America is now suffering from classical empire looting. So then, if you want to see America’s future, then look no further than Thailand or Greece—-because that’s the trend. Violence! Revolt! Have-vs- don’t have! Of course the unions will be a big part of the bloodshed. Get ready…….
“Before 2010 is over, the world will be on fire.” ….Gerald Celente.
Count me in your minority, Robert! I could not believe it a few years ago when some guys (not employees, I’m not sure who they were) were in the parking lot of our family-owned business, handing out union propaganda to our employees. How could they trespass like that? I still don’t know the answer to that one…
I am in 100% agreement, Mr Ringer, of the points made today in your blog. One point I wish to illustrate is the Great Campaigner laughs off the label socialist, because he knows he is following step-by-step the play book laid down by Benito Mussolini in the 1920′s as he took totalitarian power. He did it so well, back then, with the connivance and conspiracy of Big Business, Big Capital, and Big Government, it was followed with very slight differences by such supernumeraries as Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Quaddafi, Idi Amin, now Chavez, and being implemented by the carbuncle occupying the White House with manufactured credentials. His attacks on education, health care, agrarian occupations, and private enterprise are all what Mussolini did. The speech he mad week before last to Goldman Sachs for the need for Financial ‘Reform’ are almost plagiarized comments made by Il Duce in 1925 when he grabbed power, daring the legislature of the day in Italy impeach or topple him. For what it is worth. God Bless and enjoy your day, keeping up the good fight. Lance
Robert, for what it’s worth, I agree with you. I was caught up in blinding way it has always been but you’ve opened my eyes and business owners should have the right to unionize or not unionize. However that would be a tremendous step forward, too big for the masses to accept. Not sure what the first step would be but it will probably have to be baby steps at best.
Mr. Ringer, count me in your minority on this issue. Our founders understood the link between freedom and property rights, articulating clearly this inalienable right.
As a financial advisor and stock broker may I also add that common stock ownership in a public company does not denote corporate ownership. This is a common misconception among many who believe that their ownership of common stock gives them some measure of participation in a collective. Not so…common stock gives the owner the right to share in profits, if declared and so designated. Preferred stock and restricted stock serve other ownership rights.
As you have pointed out so many times; this so called progressive thinking has permeated every facet of our culture, even corporate America.
I sure hope we are not a minority of two! But if we are, it doesn’t invalidate the moral rightness of this truth: liberty is inextricably tied to property ownership rights.
I agree with you Robert! It’s pretty apparent that most of the people who have been “gracious” enough to respond, have never owned a business nor worked under a union. Unions are overbearing, controlling bloodsuckers both from the employees and the business owners standpoint! They only have one objective in mind….control!
I stand with you as a minority no matter what the number is!
You have my Vote. Unions are a bastian of control of people who cannot or will not do for themselves. They join a Union to try to take what is not there. They call on past history of blatant abuses of employers on workers as justification for their actions now.
I have worked for Unionized companies and listened to these workers bellyache and complain to me about “management” – of which I was a member, claiming what management was doing. Interesteng always as their complaint had no basis in fact. The Union is a place for them to bitch bitch bitch about why their lives suck so bad. And blame blame blame someone else because their job as a warehouse shelf picker was not worth $25 per hour. AND worst – become the spokespeople and mouthpieces of a national organization/Union – carryiong out their wierd socialist agenda.
Unions – and this new Card Check law that they are trying to pass – are among the scariest parts of BHO’s Socialist agenda.
MUST BE STOPPED!
Obviously We are NOT the minority of 2! I am sure that we are the majority, however many of us who are tied to this system intrinsically, can NOT DECLARE their agreement. I am deeply worried.
Even though a part of my family has continuously controlled organized labor in one of our mid-western states since the 1940s, I couldn’t agree with you more.
I agree with your commentary regarding business owners having the right to decide whether to allow employees to join unions. A smart business owner values employees, looks out for the best interests of their employees, and helpss them and encourages them to advance in the organization and at the same time requires them to meet certain standards. By these actions and providing wages in line with the industry, should eliminate the need for unions
I agree with you 100%.
Robert: I have been reading our posts for over 2 years now, but this is my first post to your blog. You are right-on in your understanding of the problems associated with the “rights of the workers” who want to control their employers through unionization. “Organizers” are not often the cream of the crop when it comes to what defines a good employee. A good worker with skills in his or her chosen trade can usually find work most anywhere; even in tough economic times.
I must disagree with the statement “I don’t believe that any worker has a right to join a union without the consent of his employer.” Absent some contract with a given employee prohibiting this, an employee has the right to join any group he or she pleases.
However, the union (by way of its members) has no right to force an employer to deal with or even acknowledge the existence of said union; at most it can call upon its members (absent a contract to the contrary) to cease selling their labor and/or expertise to the employer unless and until performs some action (generally negotiating a contract with representatives of the union regarding the sale of labor and expertise of its members to the employer).
The employer, however, is fully within its rights to ignore the union and replace the former employees heeding the the union’s request with others who are willing to work under directly negotiated terms.
You are no longer a minority of one, Robert, as this essay hits the nail right on the head. You cannot have liberty period when someone or some group can tell another what they can or cannot do. All that is permitted is to prevent someone from infringing on the rights of others. I know the Democrats and progressives in all parties love unions to bolster their voting bloc, but what they don’t ever seem to do is to acknowledge the basic immorality of it. None of us is entitled to anything, and we can always choose to work elsewhere if we feel our rights have been trampled or our pay is too low or benefits unsatisfactory. Look at what unions have done to “education”! Our public indoctrination system (aka public schools) is run for the benefit of teachers and administrators and cares nothing abou the kids . . . other than to indoctrinate them to be good slaves to the state. I have a teaching certificate but refused to use it in any public school because union membership was required. I have likewise refused to consider any employment offer at any time in my life (I am 60) that mandated membership in a union. Keep up the good fight, Robert! Your ideas and many others espoused by Lew Rockwell and Mises.org are gaining traction in this Marxist morass we have descended into. Jim
Please folks, don’t miss the central theme of Robert’s blogpost “A Minority of One:” The establishment of a union without the consent of the owner [sic. business owner] constitutes violation of the owner’s property and human rights.
If you have an argument to the contrary, I’d love to hear it.
As always, I appreciate your sanity in this world, and thank you for it. I totally agree, and I think the idea carries over to other areas of running a business, as well. Such as who an owner wants to hire or not hire or to whom they rent a rental property. It may be immoral to be a racist and not hire someone because of their color, but it is not the government’s responsibility to legislate morality. A business owner should be able to hire or fire someone based on their own beliefs and standards.
EXCELLENT; EXCELLENT.
“It will be interesting to see if anyone reading this article has a strong enough belief in the absolute sanctity of property rights to agree with what I’ve said here. That would be nice, because it would instantly elevate me to the status of being part of a minority of two.” -Robert Ringer
No sir, it is I who now knows I’m not a party of one. But at ‘our’ last count there are well over a couple thousand with the same understanding of property. (Not counting AIP)
Welcome aboard -Robert Ringer
More at the Center for Economic and Social Justice…
Just Third Way blog has these following postings, don’t tell me you didn’t know.
Restoration of Property
Property
Aristotle on Private Property
Thomas Hobbes on Private Property
What is “Property”?
A Short Course on Property
Robert I know I have asked you before put you really should give Dr. Norm Kurland a call, his number can be found at http://www.cesj.org. or contact me direct.
Tell him Guy asked you to call.
As much as I disdain unions, employees should have the right to organize themselves as they see fit. I object when unions can merge across multiple companies. One union represents all three US automakers. The law would not allow all three US automakers to act as one, but it allows one union the right to conduct what would be a monopoly if business tried the same thing.
One more nod in your favor here Robert. This is just another endless govt. variation of offering “free stuff”. The temptation for many won’t end but it is encouraging to see all these “liberty nuggets” being thrown into the mix esp. the past two years. I’m not optimistic though…yet.
Robert thank-you again for making me think past my anger and learn the facts. Over the years you and I have disagreed but this time I’m in full support. Your writing continues to inspire and motivate me to bea person of liberty. I’m grateful for that.
I agree. Just look what they did to GM.
I’ve never been a fan of unions, so what I am about to say pains me…
Employment is a contract negotiated between an employee and an employer. However, there is nothing preventing a potential employee from spending his own money (property)to hire someone to negotiate for him!If the employee hired an attorney to help him write a contract proposal and the employer did the same, I doubt you would object.
In reality, most employers DO hire attorneys to write employment contracts, so to say the employee does not have that right would be unfair.
Therefore, the concept of hiring someone to negotiate on one’s behalf is legitimate. The problem occurs when the employee is COERCED into hiring a particular union as his representative. It is further complicated when all or most of the employees hire THE SAME representative.
Worse than that is when a union is allowed to represent employees of several companies – companies that may be competitors. They are no longer representing employees in their negotiations with a single employer, but this gives the union the power to control an entire industry! If the businesses got together to set prices or wages for their industry, they would be charged with a crime. Why is it legal for a union to do the same?
I am still opposed to unions – as they are currently structured – but I must defend the individual employee’s right to select a representative to negotiate on his behalf.
I largely agree with you. Where I part company is that I assert that the right to life is paramount. Dead people cannot utilize property. But we are material beings, so property is one of the essential components of life. You tend to make the same mistake that a lot of libertarians make: you overlook victims and declare that some actions are victimless crimes. Although this was a comment, smoking around unconsenting people is a good example. A person’s body is his property, and trespass with harmful substances is not a right, no matter who owns the building. People’s bodies trump buildings. But to get back to the topic of unions, they originally formed because some entrepreneurs took advantage of workers because they believed in social Darwinism. This meant that at the time, the unions were important to establish a new basis for rights of employees. But those days are long gone. Nowadays, unions tend to destroy everyone, and they tend to promote governmental policies that cause grave harm as well, with union dues, against the will of members. A person has a right to ban unions from his property, but has no control over associations among people not currently ON his property. But he also has the right to refuse to negotiate, and to fire anyone who tries to unionize the workers. He has the right to sue anyone who comes onto the property to organize. I have a dear friend who grew up in Ukraine. When they tried to unionize the factory where she worked, she opposed it vigorously, telling the workers, you have no idea what unions really are. I support right to work laws. I agree with jdhjimbo about public schools. Unionizing teachers was the beginning of the SERIOUS decline in the schools. They can no longer be salvaged and need to be shut down.
I’m another member of your growing minority. Business owners should be able to do whatever is best for their businesses. As you say, if employees don’t like how businesses are run, they are completely free to quit.
Wow. . .and I thought I was hardcore right! It’s going to take a few more readings to get this one sorted out in my wee brain; but count me in the minority, please!
I agree with you whole heartedly. I do not feel that any person worth his weight in salt should ever join a union. Back in the day, Unions were necessary, but today, they are more of a hindrance to the production needs of a society, and the company. I love your email/ezine. But the only down side I see is this is a P-E-R-F-E-C-T forum for you to tell people what they need to do to turn our country around. You seem to point out the negatives, but I don’t ever see any recommendations on what we could do collectively to turn this from a socialistic country to a more Conservative God Fearing Country. But I am waiting whenever you are ready.
Rand Paul, the son of the prominent Libertarian, Ron Paul from Texas, ran into some trouble last night after his capture of a primary election in Kentucky.
He was being interviewed by the lesbian Liberal, Rachel Maddow, concerning his (Rand’s) call for the repeal of the 1960′s Civil Rights Act. His highly technical position was that the Civil Rignts Act conflicts with the property rights of owners, as you are discussing here. His position was that a private property owner should be able to exclude any person from his property at his discretion.
Public property is different, he says, but domain over private property should be that of the owner.
This comes into conflict with the supposed rights of anyone invading the private property of the owner (being run as an establishment open to the public, and not to be confused with “public” property owned by the nation).
Rand is going to be pilloried, because the casual listener is only going to hear the side that seems to mean that owners of restaurants, country clubs, other retail establishments, etc. can discriminate against unwanted people. And this is not going to go down well for him. This will haunt him during any election efforts.
Mr. Ringer,
“Paul Anthony” do have a good point on the same basis of your rationale: An employee has a right to hire someone to negotiate on his behalf, using the money of his property.
Enter the unions as a convenient answer to that person’s right.
But human nature sets in and because we all act based on our very own personal interest, union leaders end up holding power, and money to feed it.
Most union leaders are real gangsters to the point of blackmail (“do as I say or I put your business to a halt”), where the original employee’s right is the last or least important issue.
It becomes just an excuse. It never really mattered.
You are not a minority of one on this; as I can see here, we are a bunch.
I believe any person who truly lives in a value-for-value basis, is part of this minority. We do not need, neither want someone controlling our work, and ultimately, our life. We want the total control that comes with being responsible of ourselves.
Thank you for your analytic words; I have found answers in them since the very first line I read in your first book.
Long life for you.
Sorry, Robert, you’ve missed the mark here.
“No one has a right to take any part of someone else’s business, nor do they have a right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his business.”
No one is talking about telling an owner what he can do with his business. But your formulation is akin to institutionalized slavery.
I agree with Blitz120, Paul Anthony, and Duang. Employees can organize themselves any way they see fit. If the employer doesn’t like it, he can fire them and try (in this ages of hyper-specialization) to find qualified people to replace them, at increased time, loss of production, and expense.
You said it best in one of your essays–it’s all about value and competition. My last employer was a stingy ass. We were creating value for him well above our salaries. If we had all had the guts to walk off the job together, it would have instantly caused scarcity, and thus increased demand for our skills.
Many times employers pay their employees just enough to keep body and soul together.Freedom of the employee to quit her job and join elsewhere is more of a fantasy as it it is a choice between starving and getting at least one full meal a day.In such a scenario the employers exploit the workers with pathetic wages and long working hours knowing that they have nowhere to go and even if someone complains the pat and dismissive answer is —well,you don’t like this job,then you are free to leave.
Unions prevent rampant abuse of workers by the powerful employers but with human nature being what it is ,they often go to the other extreme and start terrorizing the bosses!
I will agree with Mr Ringer about unions if the employers were upfront and honest about their profits (or losses) and shared a fixed percentage with the workers (including losses).I think workers would appreciate being on a percentage basis more than being on a fixed salary and with an honest and inclusive management , the tendency to unionize would dissipate.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Robert.
As you point out, in this country – at least at the moment – we have the freedom to leave a job that we don’t like.
And unlike arms merchant above, I think that if qualified people don’t like their situation and leave, soon the company will be forced to address concerns. No “organizing” necessary. I might point out to arms merchant, too, that if you takes a look at what happens during corporate layoffs, you’ll see good, qualified people are let go, and morons retained and the company doesn’t care a whit about the following things: replacing them, time involved, loss of production or expense. I’ll add that the unions don’t care a bit about qualifications; they care solely about seniority, and then once again qualified, hard-working people are let go in favor of gibbering idiots with more seniority.
Only solution in my mind is to have far more small and medium-size businesses than mega-corporations. And to build/buy American.
That’s my opinion, anyway.
Thus, the free market would sort things out by penalizing the company that practiced discrimination. Legislating morals does not work. What is there about this self-evident truth that the progressive does not understand?
Within the context of the article, the comment “Legislating morals does not work.” is fine but as a general statement it doesn’t hold up even for the most ardent libertarian. Society and govt.is based on legislating morals. In the U.S. they are based on a Christian code. Murder and theft are two examples. Even the concept of freedom until another person’s liberty is infringed is based on legislating morals.
The fact that I am even taking the time to leave this comment bespeaks the great respect I have for your writings. Keep it coming.
Mr. Ringer,
Your minority of one appears to be growing! Your argument makes sense to me. Count me in!
Unions are corrosive to business. I’ve never been a member of a union. Cannot imagine how horrible it would be to be forced into joining. Union’s ongoing threat of striking or deliberately destroying a business is abhorrent. We see what unions have done to our auto industry. Business owners confronted with the prospects of unionization of the workers need to be prepared to walk away. Pick up what they can of their business and go elsewhere. Leave the union thugs unemployed as soon as they attempt their first exercise of tyrannical power over their employer. If that became the standard reaction to unionization, people would think twice about ever joining one of those criminal organizations.
Mir Ringer,
I always enjoy your rambles and I think you are correct in stating that “No one has a right to take any part of someone else’s business, nor do they have a right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his business.” However, that goes both ways. In a sense an employee is a business, too.
You are talking about principles here, and we all know that the reality currently looks different – I bet it will get much worse than it already is. In principle I think that nobody has the right to force an employer to “unionize” his business. Any employer should have the right to hire whomever he desires and whoever is willing to work for him. On the other side I don’t think that an employer should have a veto in the unionization of his employees. They may organize themselves however they want, just as employers may organize themselves as they please. If the employer does not want to hire unionized employees this should be his free choice. If there are only unionized employees on the market then that’s that specific market – for good or for bad.
i agree with what you have said in this article, but would like to add one more point…if people create unions they then become slaves to the union, yu have to pay your union fees, & abide by the decisions that are made, if they decide to strike, you must also, you have given up part of your freedom..to become part of a collective…lol…borg