And breaking the unions.
Not really revolutionary theory is underdeveloped. That’s kind of my little corner of austrian economics.
Do you consider the State to be the police, military, and courts? Is that all?
Aren’t most if not all unions only powerful due to government backing? If the union versus “boss” comes to an impasse I know the government steps in as a mediator.
The state is everyone that receives income from taxation in return for labor. That includes police, military, courts, defense contractors, teachers, etc. etc.
Welfare recipients do not count, as the state could cut welfare and continue to operate normally.
So you’re saying turn those needed institutions into small enough entities to be hired or fired like any other business structure in the private sector currently? Keep the infrastructure and go after the parasitic government officials that don’t do anything but give coercive orders all day and night.
?
Edit: Infrastructure itself may change as competition would increase tremendously as the State monopoly is gone.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Our power to determine what the state ought to become may be extremely limited. We may not have more authority than to impose what the state cannot continue to be.
No. Unions present a real force, and a particularly violent one.
The state makes them powerful legally in return for delegating their violence.
What’s the problem about non-government backed unions? They are just workers associations. In a free society, if they demand nonsense benefits, they will all be fired.
True. That’s what I meant. As long as the State, according to what’s been defined here, joins the free market, then I don’t see a problem.
yes, I’ve been alone in another forum with one other person interjecting at times supporting me. I’ve been up against about six other people. They are talking with me, but so far I haven’t been able to get them to understand that the NAP means peace. I had to dumb it down to peace, and they are still having a hard time wrapping their heads around it. It’s sad. They are asking questions and some seemed to be understanding what I’m saying but it’s very difficult for them to understand that I’m not for violence and murder and if you reject the NAP, if you reject peace, that means murder. They think very abstractly and have a hard time understanding physical reality. No lie. I mean they are really trying and it’s been a long road so far. They are all about Karl Marx and they think he’s been misunderstood.
Yes, the State empowers them to push onwards. It’s a systems failure too. Cause now they are forgetting how to reason with each other. It’s more about, “Demands, demands, demands.” Like a crying two year old.
And there you go. Sounds like a plan. Doesn’t sound like coercion the way the State steps in now forcing the issues. Forcing the irrationality to burst from the discussion process.
Guilds are worker associations. Unions are labour cartels.
In a free society, if they threaten work stoppages, they will be replaced. Their collective bargaining power has always rested on threats of force against the firm and against other workers willing to replace them.
Major Episodes in American Labor History: An Austrian Reevaluation, Part I & II
Inconvenient truths for our leftists and left-sympathetic friends.
That entire series is fantastic.
I want to write a paper on it.
Stranger, I’m actually running across in my readings what is called “civil society”. The civil society is the same as the free market except the latter focuses on the economic aspect of a civil society. They are the same in nature because they are both the spontaneous events of humans living together. The government is the coercive rise of what are deemed unjust and criminal. The State works for the government now, but I think the State if it joins the free market realm of spontaneous interaction it is what Aristotle calls “civil society”. I can interchange the words cause I understand what you mean, but the State in the writings that I come across is consistently intermixed with government. I totally understand the difference you are defining. I see what you mean above as to what the state consists of. I like the concept of “civil society” though cause it includes what the state is but it delineates its’ nature of the current State that works with the government. The civil society is here today, and is spontaneous in activity and the state once it turns away from government powers given to it is called traditionally “civil society”. I think that might clear up any confusion since the State and government are intermixed currently, but civil society is the good side of the state, the free market side of what the current state can potentially be. To use civil society in discussions therefore doesn’t reinvent a concept that is traditionally known and therefore is more widely recognized. Does this make sense?
I’m not sure whether I’ve observed it in this forum (it seems like about 99%-100% of the people here are staunch Anarcho-Capitalists), but LS, that’s got to be one of the smartest things to come out of your mo-keyboard. [:P]
I’m pretty much the most awesome person ever.
[:$]
[:P]
I also noticed that you’re no longer an Administrater.