It doesn’t matter what you think. Either refute my premise(that Rothbard was an anarchist), or refute the reasoning that led to my conclusion. Show me how an anarchist can oppose voluntary association of free people, while not supporting a state, or coercion in any way.
No, I do not have a quote of Rothbard saying “I support unions!,” but it is not an opinion, it is 100% fact. Either refute my argument, or accept it. There is no third option(I fully expect you to dance around with the “oh well, I guess you don’t have a reference then” and not respond to my actual argument, which will, of course, confirm my argument as true).
“[An anarchist] MUST support unions.” doesn’t follows from “An anarchist certainly could not support the state.” This is a fallacy. It seems that one can oppose both the state and unions, just like one can oppose both the state and gangs or both gangs and unions. What someone supports or doesn’t support is entirely a matter of free choice. One may support a neighbourhood watch or not. If they do does this now necessarily mean they support gun control? Or does this mean they necessarily don’t support gun control. I just don’t see how it adds up.
That’s precisely the problem. You’re using mainstream terminology, which overlooks the subtleys and factions and ideas. You’re using it as a package deal term. The term “socialism” has been used to refer to a whole slew of various concepts and ideologies. It could be used to refer to anything ranging from a Stalinist to an individualist anarchist. The same is true of “capitalism”, as “capitalism” could be used to refer to anything ranging from state-capitalism to anarcho-capitalism, hence it would be no more legitimate for me to argue that “capitalism is inherently statist” if your definition of capitalism is stateless.
It’s not a non sequitur, as a thouroughly explained WHY my conclusion follows its premise. I’m not saying that Rothbard advocated unions as the best economic structure, or that he would have voluntarily joined one himself, just that he supported their existence, and he, as any anarchist would, supported the choices of people to voluntarily opt in to one.
Nibbler, I think part of the issue here is how you are phrasing it. It’s not that an anarchist inherently must support unions in the sense of a personal preferance, it’s that they must tolerate its existance on the condition that it is voluntary. Otherwise, I’m with you on this, and you essentially just clarified the matter in your post above this one.
I’m a proponent of the notion that libertarianism inevitably involves a voluntary-contextual pluralism in which one has to have a base level of tolerance for the consequences of liberty, which are not uniform. Given the diversity of demands, different people will certainly opt for the formation of and association with numerous different forms of organization and numerous different specific organizations. So long as you have no unchosen positive obligation to join or serve them, there’s not that much you can do about it other than disassociation, free speech, competition and compromise. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to improve the consequences of liberty, but one cannot violate the context of liberty in the process.
That doesn’t answer the question of how I am being disingenuous (What do you mean? I’m being sincere as far as I can tell). And you can accuse me of conflating because I don’t go along with your definitions, whatever they are (you still haven’t clarified you think socialism is in clear, general terms). And what exactly is the problem with using mainstream terminology? As long as my meaning is understood, and my arguments are sound, what’s the problem? Why should I (or anyone else for that matter) change my terms and go into lengthy explainations of them to avoid offending your sensibilities? If you know what we mean when we say socialist or capitalist, why act as if we mean something else by the terms in the context that we use them?
And you still haven’t answered my question. Is a coop not just a corporation where the shareholders and employees are the same ppl?
K, sure, fine. By the same token he “supported” anti-anti-semetism and still called it a menace. I’m sure that there were many other things that he “supported” and yet spoke out against.
Because the mainstream terminology is double-speak, full of anti-concepts, package deals and false dichotomies.
A “corporation” does not exist as a “corporation” without the legal status of “corporation” granted by the state. Sure, you can have joint-partnerships, but they aren’t the same thing as the contemporary corporation at all. So no, a coop isn’t a “corporation”, it’s just a less vertically integrated firm, and joint proprietorships on a free market are not the same thing as the contemporary corporation. Likewise, the type of unions that a genuine social anarchist would support wouldn’t be the same thing as a union in the sense of state legal status, especially since the idea is that every union can secede and you are under no unchosen positive obligation to join a given union. So I fail to see any rationality in this anti-left-libertarian fuss.
Please don’t call me disingenuous here. I’m just going to use the same argument and apply it to a different topic to show that the argument is weak by itself.
A “marriage” does not exist as a “marriage” without the legal status of “marriage” granted by the state. Now, while the last sentence has some truth to it, it also doesn`t mean that there is no such thing as marriage without the state.
Ok, i guess not.
And I fail to see the rationality in all the left-libertarian fuss with the corporation. As for unions, I sort of think of them as gangs of workers. Sure they could be peaceful, but that would defeat the purpose of them forming into unions in the first place. How can one of these “voluntary” unions increase worker’s wages above market levels without engaging in coercion? and what other purpose could they possibly serve?
And what’s wrong with a corporation anyway? it’s just a voluntary organization. The justification for limited liability for repayment of debts is the principle of freedom of contract. The justification for limited liability for shareholders from tort damages due to negligence is that managers, not shareholders, are responsible for oversite within the corporation. And to the extent that the doctrine respondiate superior is invoked, only managers can be held liable for the neglience of employees because they are the one responsible for day to day operations and procedures within the corporation. The justification for entity status is that it allows shareholders to sue together and be sued together as a matter of convenience. I don’t see how this violates the rights of any third party. Perpetual existence just means that the business doesn’t dissolve when one of the shareholders dies, as happens in partnerships.
Just because Rothbard opposed laws against unions does not mean that he thinks that unions would survive on the free market he fought for his whole life. Rothbard also opposed laws against business cartels. Does that mean that in a Rothbardian society business cartels would proliferate? No. Furthermore, Rothbard also believed that organized labor led to violence. The evidence I have seen points to Rothbard being an anti-union guy on economic grounds, specifically in Man, Economy & State pgs.620-632. That’s the way I read it. Though I might have missed something pointing to the contrary. If you can find something in Rothbard’s huge number of works pointing towards your thesis I’ll apologize.
Also, Raimondo pointed out in his biography that Rothbard’s family had had some difficulty with unions in his lifetime (see Raimondo, Justin. 2000. An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard. Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, pp. 59–61).
It doesn’t bother me that you believe that unions would proliferate so much as when you extrapolate Rothbard’s position based on no evidence and flawed logic.
It’s quite simply really. Uniting the workers as a collective gives them bargaining power that they do not have as individuals. Business owners must meet the demands of the union(higher wages, more benefits, etc.) or risk losing his entire workforce, which would result in a very quick collapse of his company. This is a perfectly legitimate operation, although I forsee business owners making employees sign yellow-dog contracts, and firing workers who are trying to form a union, which is again, a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
No one has said anything’s wrong with corporations. LL have no problem with corporations at all, they just point out that many businesses exist and thrive today, thanks to state granted privileges. Without these privileges propping them up, they’d crumble.
The fact that unions are nonviable in the free market is a proof that they must rest upon violence/coercion in order to survive. Why would an employer in a free society not simply fire all union workers if he wasn’t afraid of violence? There is absolutely no reason for him not to unless the union threatens some form of coercion or vio lence against either him or those he may hire to replace them. Unions would go from being “special intrest group” indirect gangs to direct gangs. One cannot simultaneously hold that unions are economically nonviable and that they would not devolve into gangs.
Individualist anarchists who are for socialism, aren’t individualists.
Not at all. State Capitalism is fascism or corporatism, which are extreme socialist positions. Capitalism itself does not require a state. Socialism does.
That marxists, and red anarchists insist on claiming fascism is capitalism, and the state is happy to oblige them (clue #1 they are on the wrong track), the incorrect definition is used.
These words are clear in their meaning. It seems to me that people who choose to obfuscate definitions are trying to create confusion, or being intentionally dishonest.
Thanks for making the point made by several you are arguing with.
In a free market, unions (labour cartels) would cease to exist. They are non-viable, and thus will disappear without coercion via violence, property destruction or state support behind them.