On Unions in Libertopia

[madd0ct0r]

I remember Duchess posting on this a few months back. The thread didn't get much traction, but it stuck with me and so I threw it at reddit. RIP my inbox

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/c ... ons_would/

MY op:

EDIT: a portion of replies I'm getting are focused on the defination of 'libertarian' and the rainbow of american groups that claim it for their particular beliefs. If in doubt, replace 'libertarian' with 'minimally regulated, minimal government intervention' in the following argument.
Disclaimer, I'm a Brit who's also lived and worked in several developing countries, so I've seen first hand the damage, exploitation and general cost to societies of un-regulated (or highly corrupt) health and safety at work laws. I also don't have the same knee-jerk association of unions and criminal gangs that seems to prevail in discussions I've watched americans have.
That said, let's move into the meat of the disscusion. 1) a libertarian economy is not interfered with by the goverment. You want to force people to sign slavery contracts? it's allowed. By the same token however, there are no laws preventing people from forming unions, or those unions taking action to promote the interest of their members. If the industry can maintain blacklists, so can the unions. If ]a company decides to close stores to punish union members](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... rnalSearch), they run the risk of a rival firm that will work with unions taking the bulk of the sales in that area.
An antagonistic culture between unions and corporations is not the only option of course, and companies with forms that favour longer term thinking (like walmart, ironically) but also Waitrose in the uk (employee owned) might thrive when others get bogged down in strikes and penalties.
2) unions get more and more effective the larger they get. At heart, they are simply rebalancing the power between a huge corporation and a single worker. The largest unions appeared in nationalised industries - the largest conglomerates of the day. There is a strong selection pressure for small unions themselves to form alliances, or even full unions with each other to increase their bargining power. An ineffective union will loose members to a more effective one and the market will deliver
3) the unions themselves suffer the problem of free-riders. People who do not join but benefit from the union driving up minimum working standards and safety. If providing things like out-of-work support costs the union (and thus the corporations they work with) then companies that manage to avoid using union workforce will face a slight advatnage. As such, for strong unions, it is wise to agitate for political change, so that all workplaces have to conform to those same standards, that union type out of work support have to be applied to the entire workforce to prevent more predatory models from gaining a competitive advantage. This also has the advantage, especially at the minimum level of starvation, slavery and loss of limb I've seen, of being a moral thing to do.
4) Some people may have a very high risk tolerance (for whatever reason), and want to do without the safety nets and complain at the cost or inconvenience it puts on them as an employer, employee or as a tax payer. They will continue to complain, but when their individual demands conflict with organised forces, whether as a corporation, worker's union, or an insurance company, they will loose.

So far I've learnt that some american unions are corrupt or stupid, and that redditors care much more about the definition of 'liberal' then anything else in the thread.

[K. A. Pital]

Reddit can really bring political discussion to unseen lows. I'd just stay clear of the place.

As such, for strong unions, it is wise to agitate for political change

Agitate how? What "change"? There's anarchy. And not the ultra-advanced utopian-technocratic anarchy where everything's governed by AI or expert councils... an anarchy with corporations as the second largest unit of power (government is either nonexistent or not regulating anything). Unions may seize factories, like in Argentina, but whether this will help them under the circumstances remains unclear. I'm also not sure (government isn't regulating shit, border probably fully open) that the companies wouldn't simply replace the entire workforce with migrant wage slaves. Finally, coopting unions is a well known corporate practice. F.I.S.T.

[Guardsman Bass]

If we're talking about the type of Libertarian Land that allows things like selling yourself into slavery, then it's not a stretch to imagine that the unions of said Libertopia could also have pretty strong legal contracts that they could use against any potential free-loaders in response for signing up. Lawsuits, monetary penalties, denial of access to union-owned facilities and training, and so forth. Hell, they might even have extremely broad "non-compete" requirements, along the lines of "if you go outside the union requirements on the job, you can't work within 500 miles of your previous workplace".

Some stuff like that used to exist before the late 19th century, at least on paper. The right to quit an at-will job didn't exist, with existing master-and-servant laws requiring that your employer release you before you could work somewhere else. Of course, that was difficult to enforce, but it did exist.

[biostem]

My problem with umbrella "Libertarianism" is that you need regulations in some areas - are you going to wait until a bunch of people get sick or die, before the public stops buying food or beverages from some company that decided to cut costs by not following proper quality control/cleanliness steps? What about if a group of people decided to get some guns together and declare themselves the "official militia" for some area? With no "real" police or military, you'd be hard pressed to get the rest of the locals to band together and risk their own lives to bring them down.

I *want* my water quality, food safety, utilities, police, fire fighters, etc, all well regulated and funded by taxes - I simply do not get the whole "no use of force" libertarians...

[Soontir C'boath]

Libertarianism seem to rely on the altruistic nature of human beings as a whole (bloody haha) and that the market will correct itself when people act on it, but as we see already, there's a shitload of people willing to eat McDonald's craptastic burgers as is. So... *shrugs*.

[Welf]

Libertarianism seem to rely on the altruistic nature of human beings as a whole (bloody haha) and that the market will correct itself when people act on it, but as we see already, there's a shitload of people willing to eat McDonald's craptastic burgers as is. So... *shrugs*.

Most libertarians act on a profound lack of knowledge of how markets actually work. They assume a perfect market, with no information asymmetry, perfect knowledge, immortal agents and no cost to information. A minority may has an idea, but simply considers market outcomes as a moral given.

[Guardsman Bass]

That's not really true. Libertarians are aware of things like information asymmetry and so forth - it's just that they think that non-state actors in a "night watchman" style minimalist government will eventually bridge the gap on it. I remember reading one of Milton Friedman's books and he pointed to non-profit consumer groups and so forth, and more recent libertarians have said that the "reputation" systems in some of the sharing economy companies have reduced the need for consumer protection regulations in those areas.

[K. A. Pital]

That's not really true.

It is true.

Libertarians are aware of things like information asymmetry and so forth - it's just that they think that non-state actors in a "night watchman" style minimalist government will eventually bridge the gap on it.

Libertarians even fail to understand purchasing power (with the competition of buyers, when a tiny incremental improvement in the life of a rich buyer is literally bought with the hunger and death of the poor). They have no fucking chance of understanding information assymetry except in vain talk only.

I remember reading one of Milton Friedman's books and he pointed to non-profit consumer groups and so forth, and more recent libertarians have said that the "reputation" systems in some of the sharing economy companies have reduced the need for consumer protection regulations in those areas.

Did they offer any proof, or as usual it was all empty talk and no numbers?

[Panzersharkcat]

Libertarianism seem to rely on the altruistic nature of human beings as a whole (bloody haha) and that the market will correct itself when people act on it, but as we see already, there's a shitload of people willing to eat McDonald's craptastic burgers as is. So... *shrugs*.

Most libertarians act on a profound lack of knowledge of how markets actually work. They assume a perfect market, with no information asymmetry, perfect knowledge, immortal agents and no cost to information. A minority may has an idea, but simply considers market outcomes as a moral given.

Err, that is patently untrue. There is a large amount of criticism from libertarian economists of the perfect competition model and a lot of work on the market as a way of discovery.

@madd0ctor: If you want to ask this thing on Reddit, I'd suggest asking on r/mises. My personal view is that unions would likely play a very valuable role in a pure free market. Employers are human, like everybody else, and there will be dickheads who'll try to engage in exploitative behavior. Unions would be a guard against that kind of behavior and perform other valuable services, like helping members find work if they move across the country. I'm only a lay libertarian so I don't any specific data on this off the top of my head. I can try to look it up but I likely won't be able to until Friday or Saturday. (I can't say anything for Friendman since he's from a different strain of libertarianism. I haven't really read much from him.)

[K. A. Pital]

So Mises did not propose an "evenly rotating economy" as a model?

Mises created an artificial construct, the evenly rotating economy (ERE), from which to ascertain the source of entrepreneurial profit and loss. In particular, the ERE is characterized by two distinct elements. First is the elimination of the temporal element, second is the removal of changing market data. The second point necessarily arises from the first.

This is very similar to other economics' abject failures to include overtime development, information and human deficiencies, etc. This "large work" is something new, too. Austrians and libertarians basically hate experimental economics (they hate even the Neoclassical economists, who, like Samuelson, tried to give economics the foundation of rigorous science and rightfully ridiculed libertarians for rejecting the scientific method) because experiments sometimes give unexpected results that put the "market efficient!" claim to rest.

For example, Mises ERE proposes that the only source of change in prices, economy as a whole, is capitalist profit and loss. Can this be even defended in real life?

[madd0ct0r]

if there's anything that reddit thread clarified for me, it's that there's a bunch of people who claim the term libertarian and dismiss the other groups as not 'true' libertarians.

I would hypothesise it fits other stereotypical teenage political infatuations since it offers a simple, clear world view with the establishment as the bad guys who are preventing you going out.

[Guardsman Bass]

There really is no "true libertarian". You've got the Mises' folks, the bleeding heart libertarians, the market liberal libertarians, the libertarian socialists, and so forth. And like any political view, the simplicities of the theory are not always correct when up against the messiness of real life.

[K. A. Pital]

Most libertarians are just fracturing, which is the behaviour of political losers - real capitalism has long pushed them into oblivion, despite them being its most dedicated worshippers...

Kinda like the left is also defeated by the crushing iron foot of the capital, and it just endlessly fractures searching for some obscure truth. Same with "libertarians". Except most of them are even more hopelessly outdated, the left looks back to the glorious and terrifying XX century, while the libertarians look to the late XIX century and revel in their rejection of even the basic principles of scientific knowledge (re: Mises and most of them who follow his "praxeological" view). They get their due share of ridicule for that.

[Panzersharkcat]

So Mises did not propose an "evenly rotating economy" as a model?

Mises created an artificial construct, the evenly rotating economy (ERE), from which to ascertain the source of entrepreneurial profit and loss. In particular, the ERE is characterized by two distinct elements. First is the elimination of the temporal element, second is the removal of changing market data. The second point necessarily arises from the first.

This is very similar to other economics' abject failures to include overtime development, information and human deficiencies, etc. This "large work" is something new, too. Austrians and libertarians basically hate experimental economics (they hate even the Neoclassical economists, who, like Samuelson, tried to give economics the foundation of rigorous science and rightfully ridiculed libertarians for rejecting the scientific method) because experiments sometimes give unexpected results that put the "market efficient!" claim to rest.

For example, Mises ERE proposes that the only source of change in prices, economy as a whole, is capitalist profit and loss. Can this be even defended in real life?

He did. I don't have an informed opinion on the ERE. I only know that Hulsmann wrote an article back in 2000 in an Austrian journal arguing against it. I haven't gotten around to reading Human Action yet and probably won't be for a while. Busy and I find cat pictures to be a more productive use of my time than political discussion. As far as praxeology goes, I'm on the fence about it. I've only read that it should be seen as more akin to geometric proofs, with empirical evidence as useful to back things up but not required. Not totally convinced.

As far as Keynesians like Samuelson go, they haven't exactly done a bang up job. As one example, they were blindsided by the collapse of Bretton Woods while Hazlitt saw it coming back in 1946. They also never saw stagflation coming, even though it shouldn't be possible by the Phillips Curve. Samuelson also argued in his textbook that the Soviet Union's command economy could "even function and even thrive." I do not recall enough at the moment to offer an informed opinion on neoclassical economics.

There really is no "true libertarian". You've got the Mises' folks, the bleeding heart libertarians, the market liberal libertarians, the libertarian socialists, and so forth. And like any political view, the simplicities of the theory are not always correct when up against the messiness of real life.

Then there's the "thick" and "thing" libertarian infighting.

I would hypothesise it fits other stereotypical teenage political infatuations since it offers a simple, clear world view with the establishment as the bad guys who are preventing you going out.

I dunno about others but I came to it after starting as a pretty standard Democrat. I found it intellectually and ethically consistent with my preference for letting people live and let live. I'd prefer to leave out the armchair psychology, though. It's why, of the Mises I have read, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality is my least favorite. It's him psychoanalyzing people and claiming opposition to capitalism is due to jealousy or whatever. It's the same category of annoying attempts to just dismiss the other side without addressing their arguments. (To go slightly off topic, I consider "move to Somalia" the same idiocy as "move to North Korea." It's just coming from a different side.)

Anyway, I'll have to leave the topic. Don't have much time these days. I think the union question was answered anyway, even if you disagree.

[K. A. Pital]

Thanks for the answers. I wasn't so sure of what the modern Mises club makes of the ERE myself (having read only Mises himself and not the followers - I'm sure you'll also excuse me in that since I'm a radical socialist, I really don't have all the time to devote to reading libertarian publications, although I do read some of them). Not sure Samuelson was so wrong about the Soviet economy either, the collapse came for political reasons first and foremost (lack of democracy, rapid political reform, collapse of national indentity and its replacement by local identities), Samuelson was therefore correct in that the USSR could've perservered and continued to produce stuff in a purely economic sense (because it already underwent much worse things remaining politically stable)- even if, as J. Kornai argued, such an economy would always be an economy of shortage (indeed, every economy is an economy of shortage, the problem of a centrally planned one is that it tries to do away with economics of exclusion, while fundamental constraints of scarcity remain unresolved).

I also think that the old economists (of the general equilibrium tradition) were wrong, because the capitalist economy is in a perpetual disequilibrium and the equilibrium, in fact, does not exist (in practice). In this, I agree with socialist, neokeynesian and behavioural-empirical economists, and disagree with the neoclassical ones.

I'm not sure if the Austrians incorporated the equilibrium theory in their writings (it does seem implicit in some cases, not so in other cases), and I'm not sure what to make of the libertarian economic thought in general: some of them accept marginalism, others reject it, some accept equilibrium, others don't...

[Guardsman Bass]

I tend to see equilibrium in a market as being kind of like the equilibrium point in a pendulum. You're constantly being pulled toward it, but you never really get there as long since it's a dynamic economy where things are always change. Instead, it oscillates around it, with booms and busts.

[K. A. Pital]

The existence of Marshallian or Walrasian equilibria is itself a massive problem; if they exist, then linear programming can be utilized to have a planned economy function in equilibrium or close to equilibrium (at least, that's what the theorists have been working on). That's not the outcome Austrians would like to have - although other libertarians may be more at peace with the possibility of a theoretical planned economy in equilibrium if they never assign much value to the equilibrium itself. Personally though, I find the whole concept of general equilibrium kind of funny and not really realistic (it is not applicable when any temporal and spatial shocks occur; the so-called Shumpeterian shocks can nowadays happen with every little discovery).