Last I heard, a while ago when the Senate was debating the trade deal, the union organizers had a lower death rate than the general population in Columbia.
Well, different people will say different things, but the free market is, in the most general terms, a pacifistic way of relating to people in the general conduct of life. That is, you never try to force or intimidate people into doing things your way. If you can’t get something voluntarily, you find an alternative. I, personally, allow for force in certain very rare situations, and do not have nearly as absolute a definition of property as most here, but a true free market is a place where no one man rules over another through threat of active harm. The only harm you are permitted to cause another in a free market is by withholding a good or service, and, it being a free market, it is quite likely that the one you thus inconvenience will be able to find an alternative source.
By the way, do you have dyslexia or something? I’m not trying to be mean. If so, I’d have to apologize for my jabs earlier. If not, read a G D book once in awhile. You might learn something, and in any case would improve your atrocious writing.
Which further decreased demand for labor? What the hell are you talking about?
How is that so?
Capital and labor are both motivated by the same inclination, which is self-interest. Capital wants higher profits, and labor wants higher wages. Obviously, it would be a mistake to give one player a halo and the other one horns; the conflict between capital and labor is a matter of competing preferences, not a matter of justice.
P.S. Since when was it wrong for anybody to “use their bargaining power”? Isn’t that what the free market is about?
I believe the post was sarcastic.
Why wouldn’t I be entirely serious?
I’ve posted here a few times and find everyone here to be very polite and understanding when it comes to questions. But I think immediately resorting to calling Lisa a troll and a “marxoid” is just ridiculous. It doesn’t paint the LDVM institute in a good light since I thought one of the purposes was to further educate people- not put them down for being ignorant of the Austrian school. Lisa sounds just like nearly everyone else that went through micro/macro economic courses in college- and is definitely unfamiliar with the type of terminology that could be used here. I used to think minimum wage laws were necessary, that big business always exploited workers, and that without institutions like the FDA, we’d all be doomed- until I heard about the Austrian school and studied myself. I certainly don’t think I would’ve took the time to do that if I was called a troll over and over for asking some basic questions. There’s no reason to get so emotional when someone comes here who is in disagreement with the free-market- if we are confident in what we believe we should just refute their points and they will come to an understanding.
To the question of- “do employers have the right to kill their workers when they go on strike.” No employers do not have that right- they do have the right to end their contract and fire the workers though. Just like the worker can end the contract and leave the employer. Unionization wouldn’t prevent psychotic murderous employers from killing their workers if that’s what you’re getting at. No one here is against people setting up a union or trying to persuade their employer to give them better working conditions- we just also think that the employer doesn’t have to employ people who are in a union if he doesn’t want to, and he doesn’t have to give better working conditions if he doesn’t want to.
So basically: no one here believes that the government should FORCE an employer to accept a union- or make it illegal to fire striking workers. Without government intervention increasing the cost of setting up a business so much- there would be MORE employers around that would begin to compete for the workers by offering better working conditions/wages.
I agree entirely.
Your first statement is false. Capitalists built wonders and paid workers progressively more as their productivity increased. I suggest you read the book the Wild Wheel on one of those folks Henry Ford. Furthermore, workers took these jobs because they were better off doing the job than something else. This same condition holds true for all people throughout history. The Robber Barons created businesses that gave millions of folks across the world better lives.
As for employers hiring private police. They hired private police forces to expel workers from their property. Keep in mind that the workers don’t own the factory nor do they manage it. Investors own the factory and managers run it. For example the workers in the Homestead strike attacked the Carnegie Steel Factory, not the other way around. Google Homestead Strike for more information.
So:
Why did the owners behave as they did? They were using their property as they saw fit. Their agreement with labor ended and they were negotiating. If labor did not like it then too bad.
Why the workers behaved the way they did? They were using violence and intimidation to get more money from the plant.
looks over his glasses with amusement
Nice catch! Here is a definition of free-market.