Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Anuj

Should Labor Unions be banned ?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I've come across at-least two Objectivists who had argued to support such a ban. Reasons being that they can as a group exert a "force" on the business owners; that politicians would play vote bank politics using labor unions; that they are a collective group.

 

But a "ban" is usage of force, be it on an Individual or a Group. So wouldn't it be morally wrong to ban it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The meddling of the gov. in economics on the unions behalf is what should be banned. Then they become moot. Thankfully there is no moral justification to ban equivocations on "force"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come across at-least two Objectivists who had argued to support such a ban. Reasons being that they can as a group exert a "force" on the business owners; that politicians would play vote bank politics using labor unions; that they are a collective group.

 

But a "ban" is usage of force, be it on an Individual or a Group. So wouldn't it be morally wrong to ban it ?

This is an easy one, as you can see by the previous two great posts.  If you met a person who claimed to understand Objectivism and also thought a government should ban trade unions, you have gained an important piece of information about that person - they do not understand Objectivism.

 

Objectivist political philosophy is based on a specific view of ethical philosophy, which in turn is based on a specific view of epistemology and metaphysics.  (Don't misinterpret my use of the word "view" to mean "one of many equally legitimate positions).  The truth of Objectivist political philosophy is founded in an accurate analysis of epistemology and metaphysics.  

 

Unlike the opinions of most Rand detractors, who have generally read only a portion of her fiction, Objectivist political philosophy does not seek to favor any person or group in the governed population.  Individuals and groups, workers and employers are free to make any legal agreement they voluntarily choose, individuals or groups.

 

The historic problem with trade unions, as already pointed out, is the same as the problem with some business owners in history.  A Socialist could ask the same question as this OP about the groups that business owner's form, and the Objectivist answer would be the same.

 

That shared and common problem is called "crony capitalism."  Real capitalism does not allow special access or legislative favors for any individual or group.  I'm sure I will eventually find an exception, but so far, every clear abuse I have found in US history, whether originated by labor or management, was caused or motivated by a fact or expectation based in crony capitalism. 

 

The problem in the US economy, now and thru history, is not the actions of private individuals or groups, labor or management.  The problem is the natural evolution of giving a governing body tasks above and beyond the natural function of protecting citizens from force and fraud in exchange for the right to use force.  When you give a government additional tasks you attract the worst in human characteristics, the bullies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The meddling of the gov. in economics on the unions behalf is what should be banned. Then they become moot. Thankfully there is no moral justification to ban equivocations on "force"....

 

Unions as such will not become "moot".  However, the evil of current union-government cooperation (or any legislated economic force for that matter) of course will be banned once govt interference in the economy stops. 

 

Associations of professionals, employers, tradespeople, charities, and consumer groups, will probably be very important arrangements of common interests going forward agreeing to act, fail to act, or persuade, voluntarily agreeing to do so in unison.  They will have economic impact, i.e. help shape demand, supply, prices, wages, etc. but they will not be able to initiate force or commit fraud.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come across at-least two Objectivists who had argued to support such a ban. Reasons being that they can as a group exert a "force" on the business owners; that politicians would play vote bank politics using labor unions; that they are a collective group.

 

But a "ban" is usage of force, be it on an Individual or a Group. So wouldn't it be morally wrong to ban it ?

 

One the best things that could happen to our mixed economy are alternatives to so called government "services" or programs in the private sector.

 

Insofar as it is possible for "private" unions or private enterprises offering union like services to employees, types of employees or groups of employees, could exist and compete with if not eclipse corrupt union-government things of today, such would be a good thing, and a small step towards proper laissez-faire government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL said:

Unions as such will not become "moot". However, the evil of current union-government cooperation (or any legislated economic force for that matter) of course will be banned once govt interference in the economy stops.

Yeah, I meant that they could rant and strike all they wanted but no force by government would be at work. Could have worded that better. Edited by Plasmatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL said:

Yeah, I meant that they could rant and strike all they wanted but no force by government would be at work. Could have worded that better.

 

No prob.

 

It's just the OP raises the specter of "conventional rightwing ideas masquerading as superficial Objectivism" in the form of unprincipled nonintegrated and arbitrary opposition to unions, and your comment about "unions being moot" could be interpreted by those types, as a similar "blindly anti-union" sentiment.  Essentially, reading into it: 1.unions are "bad" as such, but 2. Without the power of government behind them we don't have to worry.

 

Its not that noninterference of government will save us from immoral unions... but that interference (outside the proper role of government) simply IS wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×