A better question is would you want to convert the type of people who buy into that nonsense?
B-but Giles, Carson told me that IWW members are the perfect candidates to become anarcho-capitalists!
You seem to have a convoluted idea of what a left-libertarianism is. I think when you hear LL you think Noam Chomsky when you should think Rothbard and SEK III
Nope. When I think LL I think SEK3, Carson, Brainpolice and Molyneux. Chomsky is a socialist.
Murray Rothbard was never a left-libertarian. In fact, I have always found that LL claim laughable. Can anyone here imagine Rothbard promoting unions?
I don’t see how a market anarchist could NOT support unions. They’re a voluntary organization of workers.
*free-market analogs of unions, as unions are typically associated with promoting interests of it’s members via The State, which by proxy, upholds legitimacy of The State itself as a valid apparatus.
That should be a given when discussing a free society.
I doubt many employers would allow them on their property in a free society. I know I wouldnt.
What if you don’t know there’s a union brewing until it strikes?
What in the world does that have to do with unions?
The fundamental right of a property owner to refuse entry, as well as employment, to the free-market analogs of unions.
Again, that has nothing to do with unions. I have no problem with business owners refusing to hire union members. The purpose of unions, however, is to give the workers leverage over the business owner, so he can’t just do whatever he wants(without risking losing his entire work force). To oppose unions you must also oppose free association and voluntary interaction between people. So Rothbard most assuredly vehemently supported unions, for to oppose them would make him a statist. I’m sure he vehemently opposed unions that used state power, but that was due to his objection to the state, not due to his objection of unions.
Wrong. There would be nothing or nobody (except maybe a coercive agent or institute, upon which various agreements & polycentric law would have punishments against) to force people to accept unions in the first place; refusing to associate with unions is also apart of free-association & voluntary interaction.
Unless of course, doing so is a breach of contract or a prior agreement, which unions could have a role in immediate oversight on the employee level, with the higher courts & arbitrators being there to provide services when disputes aren’'t immediately settled…
Are you going to further suggest that there should be forced free-association & forced voluntary interaction? This would be absurd & would violate the very concepts themselves.
A boss being ignorant of a worker’s extra-curricular activities is still part of free association. Unless you are willing to coerce the worker to disclose all private associations, there is no way for a boss to prevent a union. Union workers are not under any obligation to divulge that they have begun a union, until the moment of striking.
Since I have no expressed my views on parenting and children, I don’t see how you have any grounds to make such claims.
“Children having sex” already is common depending on your definition of what constitutes a child. In either case, it would be a misrepresention for you to act as if anyone has advocated or defended actual child molestation.
The fact that you characterize Molyneux as a left-libertarian is amusing, given that he does not identify that way and is not associated with the alliance of the liberarian left.
Exactly. The entire anti-left-libertarian crusade here is based on misrepresentation. The alliance of the libertarian left does not primarily refer to Chomsky/Zinn types at all, it primarily refers to left-rothbardians, agorists and mutualists.
Then you are going to have to selectively ignore some of his writtings, particularly the one in which he advocates homesteading of both the state and corporations (“Confiscation and the homesteading principle”), as well as his Kolko-inspired historical analysis in “Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty”.
The same thing is true of limited liability contracts and corporations.
Dude, what the hell are you rambling about? I’m honestly at a loss for words because of how asinine that paragraph sounded. The union, as a concept, is defined as a voluntary cooperation of workers, at no point have I even alluded to anything to the contrary. I, in fact, made it blatantly clear that the union I support is one of free association, voluntary interaction, and does not use state power. You decided to throw up quite a few RIDICULOUS straw men that are downright retarded, and do not even remotely resemble the positions I hold, or anything I have stated in this thread. I do not support unions that are forced upon people by some “coercive agent or institutions.”(which, as I pointed out, would no longer be a union, as unions are by their very nature voluntary associations) I never said that workers could not decline to join a union if they so choose. I just pointed out that if workers wanted to form a union, you cannot stop them, because to do so you would cease to be an anarchist. This of course means that, as an anarchist you MUST support unions, just as you support any other voluntary interaction between free people.