Hi, I consider myself a libertarian and i’m studying abroad in London right now where most tend to lean towards the left. In a discussion with a friend, the topic of class warfare was raised. If we created a truely free society, some (i.e. the intelligent and hard wroking) would rise to the top, while others, would constitute the majority and the bottom of the economic ladder comprising of unskilled laborers. Because most are stupid and/or lazy what would stop them from looting and robbing from those with more than them? I mean student here are rioting because their tuitions are being raised by (gasp!) 6000 quid. However, if a legal framework for labor unions existed, I think it could substantially mitigate this issue. While they obviously cause issues of there own including underemployment and even the destruction of companies (GM). It seems that there should be no reason why workers should not be able to voluntarily join together if face of oppression.
I guess i’m asking, should there be a legal framework for a labor union as there is for a Corporation?
How would one keep the poor, if they became the majority or a significant plurality from rioting, looting, and demanding equality by force?
Opportunity cost. The reason people don’t steal regularly across the globe is because stealing is dangerous and risky. I don’t know any rich thieves. Even if you’re a psychopath you’re probably better off getting a job, even if its a “low paying job”.
I also challenge the idea that there will be a lot of inequality under capitalism. In nominal terms, it may produce a lot. But in real terms, its done a pretty good job of feeding/clothing everyone. But all the rich people have Monet paintings 
Stealing is risky only in small numbers, if the numbers get large enough, stealing becomes easier. Isn’t the US government the richest thief of all? people have come to use government as a mechanism of theft, if you somehow take that away from them, they may use other means to steal as a collective. You’re right in that capitalism will raise the living standard of all in the long term but most people do care about nominal inequality. What do you think the healthcare debate is about. So many have access to it now that it upsets those without it. The only way to continue to innovate in healthcare is to make sure that it exists in a free market. But the have-nots will always want more. even if they get the bare necessities, what they view as a necessity will continue to rise and there will always be people to lead them because they can profit from it. I’m not saying that it is a definate but i do consider it likely that their numbers may reach a point where they are able to rob as a collective again, either by force or coersion, and they will damage or take from others as they please until the owners of property hire mercinaries to stop them. Its happened before (there are numerous examples in the late 1800’s). I just can’t figure out the most effective way of preventing it in keeping with classical liberalism. I mean how do we avoid conflict. It may be true that, with todays standard of living, this would not actually be a problem due to most peoples tendancy towards laziness, but if the issue does arise, what is the best way to avoid it?
I also challenge the idea that there will be a lot of inequality under capitalism.
Speaking empirically, rather than praxeologically, I would expect a lot of inequality - though not the same inequalities - under a market society. Aside from sheer differences in inclination and ability generated by inborn and environmental differences, we also have the degree to which these help seize and operate upon particular existing profits; and more generally there may simply be a limited number of people who can do highly valued jobs (say, top executives or lead project engineers) which may cause persistently high returns for them because the actual available human capital is not sufficient to expand their production to the levels of demand.