Charles K. Clarkson

A similar happening occurs in property management. If I repeatedly allow someone to pay late on a rent, a judge might consider that an explicit a change of rental due date in the lease agreement. Effectively changing the date on which rent is due. For that reason I take two precautions. When I do waive late fees on a late rent, I specifically write it on the receipt and in my lease agreement, I use a clause which specifically allows me to be consistently lenient without an implied change to the rental due date. I imagine that posted No Trespassing signs accomplish the same effect. They state to the world that any leniency on the part of the property owner is temporary and should not be relied upon.

I don't like this line of reasoning. It seems to assume that in a free market only the most economically advantage business survives. That's not really true. Many businesses survive without being the most advantaged. More importantly, I think, is that he doesn't have a right to ask others to pay for his poor decisions. By specializing in only one industry, and further specializing in a very niche market in that industry, he has taken an extreme risk. Such great risk requires a carefully planned exit strategy. Failure to plan for loss of occupation may result in extreme hardship which is a great motivator to plan ahead. I'm not sure I follow this scenario. Yes, consumers don't have a right to any product, but what has that to do with subsidizing an industry. If consumer demand a product, someone will produce it. Any lack of supply is only temporary.

By supplying a superior product. If a Worker's Union provides a better worker than it did yesterday then it can effectively bargain for better wages for its members without using a coercive force. Unfortunately, few unions provide an improved product. I assume from the question that you are asking for the benefits of a Union in a society which does not initiate physical force. In such an economy their would be little demand for traditional unions, because there would be little demand for traditional employees. To fully appreciate how this society would get work done, we must understand that many every day concepts we now use would no longer apply. In our modern societies government supplies a economic framework which we use to trade with each other, it defines what a job is, it (poorly) guides the education of a large portion of citizens, and it is responsible for slowing economic innovation and wealth creation. Look at an enterprising family of four people. Pretend they live at the economic bottom with neighbors in the same boat. Dad loves to cook and mom is always getting requests for food. They turn their modest home into a takeout kitchen. The children chip in and soon business is booming. Their neighbors, not having a lot of cash, barter for fine cooking. Another patron teaches the kids. Someone comes in and cleans for mom. Is this last person a customer or an employee? The employee/customer/consultant lines blur when no definition is forced on society. In a society where citizens are free to peacefully associate, innovate, and compete, we create wealth faster. Outsourcing, cheap foreign goods (no tariffs, no quotas), and more efficient production raise the quality of life of everyone. Demand for more skilled, better educated workers rises as disposable income rises. Like other prices, pay tends to decrease without some noticeable improvement in the product. In such a free society terms like union, employer, and employee would change in substantially different and unknown ways as to become meaningless when compared to our definitions. Without a functioning crystal ball, we at a loss as to how we might apply those terms in that future society.