The power of government would be better employed in calling out federal troops, if need be, to escort one worker through the gates of his plant than in encouraging plant owners, at the first hint of a labor dispute, to shut down and throw out men and women who want to work.
Fail to protect the right to work — and you may read our epitaph in the words I quote from a Los Angeles newspaper.
/quote
A “right to work”? What’s that? And why is it here? I am under the impression Mises was a minarchist, but I thought… the state is social embodiment of violence. So… why?
Maybe it requires some background to understand this piece. He was writing at a time when the unions threatened to destroy the postwar recovery. There was a brewing calamity. This famed director came to the defense of individuals as against the coercion of labor unions. His defense isn’t perfect but neither were the laws at the time: the negative effects of New Deal era pro-union legislation were mitigated by more legislation granting rights to management and owners too. A free market was not even considered. DeMille’s piece, then, is pretty good. What he defends is the right of an individual to break a strike, to work if he wants to. It has nothing whatever to do with the “communist” notion of a human right to pay.
The issue is enormously complicated. The interventions of the New Deal set up an impossible situation in which very violent unions could loot companies to the point of bankruptcy and prohibit them from employing non-union workers. Later legislation (Taft-Hartley) override the union preference with laws that evened the score but still didn’t provide free association. The Cecil B DeMille piece is EXTREMELY interesting in endorsing the right of scabs to work regardless of what unions do or say. The reference to federal troops here is really a way of saying that people should not be subjected to union violence. It is a fascinating piece of American labor historiography – one that supports free markets.
I apologize for the confusion. Maybe it is the sort of piece that you sort of had to “be there” to fully appreciate. I was personally blown away by it.
I think he is referring to the government itself. Since Ron Paul is at least indirectly approving of government (albeit in a minimal form) by running for office, he is advocating an intrinsically violent and immoral institution. I don’t think he means anything beyond this.
Also, thank you for the contextual information, Mr. Tucker. I was pretty confused by the article myself; “right to work”? It makes a lot more sense now, but the initial reading left me a little befuddled.