Congratulations on having the resources to uproot and leave.
I started this thread by quoting a self-professed libertarian giving his definition of what libertarianism is.
Because you’re not “free” to tell someone else what they have to do unless they are physically harming you. You are not “free” to make me buy your art and you are not “free” to make me give you a job.
You are free to create your own job, or take one from me on my terms. But I can’t force you take the job.
You are making up your own definition, and then telling Libertarians they are wrong. Where are you getting your definition from and why is it objectively correct?
And yet you refuse to accept it. You seem to want to prove Libertarianism to be objectively wrong by using your subjective definition. Sorry, but that doesn’t fly.
It only seems this way because you fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between an employer and employees. Employment is achieved through the voluntary actions of both the employee and employer. Both agree to the terms of the employment. If at any point either party no longer accepts those terms, then the relationship can be ended by either side. The employees are free to quit.
Preventing employers from firing workers does not grant the employees more freedom, it gives the employees more power. Freedom is controlling your own actions. Power is controlling the actions of others.
Just a miscommunication then, a conflation of “discrimination” and “Jim Crow laws”. I think I understand what you intended to convey now.
That wasn’t a definition of libertarianism, but rather an elucidation of the principles of libertarianism that are violated by American-style chattel slavery.
This has become the persecution thread all over again. The OP appears to want people to defend a strawman he’s created for the purpose of reinforcing his own misconceived notions of what libertarianism is. The flaws in his assumptions have been repeatedly highlighted, yet here we are, likely to continue spinning our wheels in the mud for another several pages.
Very nicely stated.
Oakminster: Alas, you are correct. The sad thing is, there are plenty of problems with Libertarianism as it exists. Making up stuff so that it seem worse is just silly.
I disagree. In the current labor market, the employer holds all the cards. Without the unions, managment pays employees the very least they can get away with. When they organize in an attempt to gain a more equal footing and get fired for doing so, that is preventing employees from having any power. When demand for labor outstrips supply, then we can talk about how employees are free to take their talents elsewhere. Until then, management should not be able to fire employees for organizing.
Freedom is not situational. Saying “we can only allow you to be free if economy improves” is ridiculous.
A Libertarian would agree with both. They’re free to join the union, and he’s free to fire them.
A Libertarian would agree with both. They’re free to vote however they wish, and he’s free to fire them.
You are forgetting the flip side of Liberty which is Responsibility: you are free to act but must carry the responsibility for your actions.
The employers are already free. To say that they should be able to fuck their employees in the ass because the labor market is in their favor is ridiculous.
Basically it comes down to the fact that Libertarians recognize that utilization of collectively assigned government power is coercive, but believe for some reason that utilization of collectively assigned economic power is non-coercive. “Do what I say or you go to prison” coercive; “Do what I say or you starve” non-coercive.
For what its worth, I guess that this is a passable axiom set from which to derive a philosophy, but I don’t see a compelling argument from first principals as to why this particular axiom is better than one that advocates that would allow for a small increase in government coercion in order to make a large reduction economic coercion.
No, it seems that way because it really is that way. If what you say is true then things must have been really terrific during the libertarian nirvana of the early industrial revolution, where governments pretty much stayed out of the way and individual freedom reigned supreme. Where employers had the freedom to impose any working conditions they liked, like 12 hour days and 6½ day weeks, employ child labor, and send employees into the most dangerous working conditions imaginable, where in fact they often perished, directly or from long-term ill health. Of course employees could… let’s see, oh yeah … they could quit. How did that work out for them? How did it work out for them during the robber baron era, or when Henry Ford hired gangs of thugs to violently break up union rallies?
And I say this as someone who doesn’t even much like unions and has never belonged to one, but they did accomplish a lot for the average working stiff and so did governments and labor laws. Which is the only reason we have even a semblance of a civilized society today. The trouble with libertarian philosophy is that, just like Marxism, it’s unrealistically absolutist and idealistic and has a hard time accommodating the pragmatism that actually makes political systems work. Ron Paul is a pretty bright guy but he constantly struggles with the inherent irrationality of libertarian principles when taken to any sort of practical or logical conclusion, like the question of what is supposed to happen to an uninsured individual if he gets seriously ill. Cutting through the bullshit, the substance of his real answer is that he’s supposed to die, and should be thankful that he had the opportunity to exercise the freedom to make the fatal choice to not have insurance. The question of what happens if he does have insurance but the insurance company exercises its “right” to deny his claim anyway under a clever contract loophole that he was too stupid or careless to understand is yet another interesting matter.
Freedom is a wonderful thing but left to its own devices it always seems to accumulate in the hands of a few. And since it tends to be a zero-sum game where your gain is my loss, this can lead to pretty grim consequences. Like the employer-employee relationship in the absence of labor laws, regulations, health and safety standards, and, where appropriate, a collective counterbalance to the power of the corporation.
Now ***that’s ***nicely said. 
To paraphrase Anatole France: “Libertarianism, in its majestic equality, allows the rich as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread”
Or they could start their own business, individually or in concert with others, and bear the risks associated with being the owner themselves.
Nice mantra you’ve got there. How did that work out usually before workers got legal rights?
Owners don’t have “risks”; that’s what employees are for. To take all the risks, make all the sacrifices and do all the work while the employer/owner reaps the rewards.
You made my point when you started talking about power, and not freedom. They are not the same. And this is a theoretical discussion somewhat - people can’t currently be fired for organizing activities.
Of course management pays employees the very least they can get away with. What’s the alternative, free lunches for all (note the hyperbole)?
No, employers should be able to fire employees because a job isn’t an entitlement. No one owes anyone else a job. Do you disagree with this?
Ignoring the combination of facts that this wasn’t the libertarian ideal, and the previously mentioned externalities that require outside intervention, so what? Libertarianism doesn’t make claims on outcome. Liberty is the goal in and of itself, period. Not great working conditions or better health or job security. Liberty. Some people will suffer through their choices, and some will suffer through no fault of their own. Libertarians recognize and accept this, generally. I tried to state up thread - the real controversy is when externalities enter in.
Libertarians start from the position of wanting for themselves and everyone else to have more freedom. The contrary position is advocating for less freedom. Fuck that shit.
That sounds good, but what does it mean in practice? What is the functional definition of responsibility?
I’m the property owner in Q3 from the OP. I tell the hikers, no, they can’t cross my land. One of them succumbs to heat exhaustion from going the long way around, and dies. What responsibility must I carry for my action?