The reason we have “corporations fight for market share” is that we enforce laws against monopolies. Unions have a much stronger position if they band together or “collude” than if they operate independently.
Why do Rand Paul and his father run on the republican ticket? The Republican platform is in conflict with many Libertarian beliefs. Shouldn’t they be running as Libertarian and allowing society and the free market select the best option?
It’s ironic that we are having this discussion over the internet which was developed under Govt contract, based on transistors developed at the research center of a regulated monopoly, using PCs (some of us anyway) that have their OS and hardware available separately because of a govt injunction against IBM.
Because the Republican party is home to people that rue the civil rights act.
Been watching the arguments in this thread and it’s amazing and truly comical how the magical thinking of the Libertarians parallels the magical thinking of Communism.
“If we say the world is going to act this way, then it WILL! (Despite thousands of years of historical citations that Human Nature does not work that way)”
Communists, Anarchist, Libertarians. Ignoring Human Nature to bring you a better world.
And on a moderated message board, no less.
Paul Krugman puts it succinctly:
You’re arguing from an assumption which has not been agreed on. The assumption “Libertarian government would be less likely to intervene against physical violence than the 1960s Federal government was” is simply not correct. Every argument you make while assuming such is flawed.
That might be how it would work. I see it as “the more exclusive store supplies some fragments of a richer clientele,” but I could be wrong. Whether I’m right or wrong, a Libertarian would argue that it’s not the government’s place to decide which of those two sandwich shops are worthy of staying in business.
By what authority would the Federal govt intervene?
From The Nation:
His best workers (female and male) will quit, and either start their own company or work for a competitor. The ho’s that remain will likely not keep him in business.
Maybe in the long run that will work. But what if the employee is a 23 year old single mom living paycheck to paycheck? She can’t afford to be unemployed for a period of time until this new company starts.
Plus, who is to say that the quality employees won’t put out? I would think that personal sexual morality would be independent of job performance, so you would have equal number of quality workers in the “must sleep with boss” company versus the other one.
Or perhaps a perk, or an incentive bonus!
“Oh, goddamn! I won employee of the month again! Shit!”
I actually worked for this guy. Only it wasn’t ALL the female employees. It was just the receptionists. We went through two or three a month. They’d take the job, find out that keeping it involved sleeping with Joe, and either quit or get fired. One time a girl’s boyfriend showed up and tried to beat the crap out of Joe so I got to help bust up a fistfight in the lobby. Eventually he found a receptionist that would put out, and the firings stopped.
It was a crappy place to work and most of the people who stayed any length of time did so because they had some reason they were afraid to quit. One of the programmers was fresh out of drug rehab and was worried no one else would hire him. Another was afraid he’d be deported to Iran if he lost his job. I was going back to school in six months and figured it was easier to stick it out than try to find a place that would hire me for such a short stint.
I don’t know if any of the receptionists ever filed a complaint with the EEOC. Joe was violating so many labor laws, that I’m sure eventually they would have gotten him on something. (I personally reported him to the IRS for not withholding taxes from my paycheck.) He wound up getting busted for forging prescriptions before the feds got around to investigating him.
And they can have my gerbil when they pull it from my puckering dead ass.
Because many of the goods produced by unions are public and non-union members cannot be excluded. If you can’t exclude people from public goods, they tend to free ride. Why join any union at all if you can reap the benefits anyway? Compulsory, monolithic unions are basically required to reduce free riding and increase the provision of public goods.
The intuitive logic of this problem is laid out here.
weren’t there two Cunninghams named randall and howard?
Oh, I get it! His maternal ancestry includes Curly, Shemp, or Moe.
This is just ridiculously, staggeringly, blindingly wrong. I won’t hijack this thread, but I couldn’t let this grossly distorted comment go unremarked upon.
You should really read up on the labor movement in the US, and see which side was really beating on which (and who was killing whom).