Here’s a famous libertarian defending the right of workers to form unions and to strike:
I do not understand … how one can say that a strike is criminal. If one man has the right to say to another: “I don’t want to work under such and such conditions,” two or three thousand men have the same right; they have the right to quit. This is a natural right, which should also be a legal right. … Does a man not have the right to refuse to sell his labor at a rate that does not suit him? … [A]n action that is innocent in itself is not criminal because it is multiplied by a certain number of men …. [My opponent] says: “The strike is harmful to the employer, since the absence of one or of several workers is troublesome for him. A strike has an adverse effect on his production, so that the strikers violate the freedom of the employer ….” … [Y]ou say that it is I who infringe on the employer’s freedom, because my refusal to work on his terms has an adverse effect on his production! Note that what you proclaim is nothing else than slavery. For what is a slave, if not a man forced by law to work under conditions that he rejects? … You ask that the law intervene because I violate the property rights of the employer; do you not see that, on the contrary, it is the employer who violates mine? If he has the law intervene to impose his will on me, where is freedom, where is equality?
Guess who said it.
And now here’s a different famous libertarian defending the right of businesses to combine to form trusts and cartels. So guess who said this:
[T]he right to cooperate is as unquestionable as the right to compete … [A]ny man or institution attempting to prohibit or restrict either, by legislative enactment or by any form of invasive force, is … an enemy of liberty …. [T]he trust, then, like every other industrial combination endeavoring to do collectively nothing but what each member of the combination rightfully may endeavor to do individually, is per se, an unimpeachable institution. To assail or control or deny this form of co-operation on the ground that it is itself a denial of competition is an absurdity. … The trust is a denial of competition in no other sense than that in which competition itself is a denial of competition. The trust denies competition only by producing and selling more cheaply than those outside of the trust can produce and sell; but in that sense every successful individual competitor also denies competition. … All of us, whether out of a trust or in it, have a right to deny competition by competing, but none of us, whether in a trust or out of it, have a right to deny competition by arbitrary decree, by interference with voluntary effort, by forcible suppression of initiative.
Notice that both passages employ essentially the same argument; that is, both appeal to the freedom to associate or not to associate, as well as to the principle that what people have a right to do singly they also have a right to do in combination.
But one author employs these arguments on behalf of the rights of labour, while the other author employs them on behalf of the rights of business. So which left-wing libertarian wrote the first passage, and which right-wing libertarian wrote the second?
Okay, guessing’s over; you can peek.
Here’s the defender of unions.
And here’s the defender of trusts.
I leave the moral as an exercise for the reader.
I knew there was a ‘trick’ to it, but that was exactly the opposite of my guesses!
I thought both were Tucker. Okay.
IIRC Jack London uses the same argument for authoritarian Marxism at one point (possibly titled ‘Scabs’): if you defend free association, and you defend the right to strike, then you concede the right to lock-out; since no left-thinking socialist could possibly concede the right to lock-out, then any left-thinking socialist must reject free association or the right to strike. Of course, if the legal owner is locking out the legitimate owners of the workshops, then this argument falls apart.
For a second I thought the first may have been Adam Smith.
I think my thinking may have been influenced by this piece which illustrates than Smith was primarily an anti-mercantilist agrarian and, all told, an opponent of capitalists, John C Medaille’s PDF “The Forgotten Agrarian”. (See link here.) Smith is tougher on capitalists and business bosses than Tucker.
I thought the first was going to be Tucker, too – he made a similar argument over the Homestead strikes
“I do not understand … how one can say that a strike is criminal.”
Neither do I. It seems like Bastiat is defending something quite different from what is now understood as a “strike,” namely a supposed right of workers to maintain their employment while protesting their work environment (i.e., instead of doing their jobs). Rather, it seems like Bastiat is defending the right of workers to *quit* en masse, and not face government-supported sanctions by
their former employers as a result. Who could
object to this position?
Am I missing something here, or is Roderick Long, in his zeal to reach out to leftists, obfuscating?
IIRC, the New York Metropolitian Transit Association, and the courts, did object to Bastiat’s position. Several people were imprisoned for quitting.
Sorry, I should have specfified, what *libertarian*
could object to Bastiat’s position. This is Roderick
Long’s point, yes? That libertarians and leftists have
certain common points?
I never understood the libertarian objection to unionism. While it’s true that modern day unions often appeal to the government, it is also true that the modern corporation does as well (much more so in my opinion). With that being said, the folks at LRC and the Mises Institute spend much more time attacking unions (and unionsim) than corporations. Why is that?
If I were to guess, I would say that unionism is directly associated with statist socialism. I have never met a mainstream trade unionist that is not for as much government intervention as he or she can possibly get their hands on. The same is not true for proponents of business, however. There are plenty of businesspeople who are not particularly pro-government.
Of course, in practice, lots of corporations use a staggering amount of governmental aid to crush their enemies and reward their friends. They tend to do so subtly, in the dark, though. This is in contrast to unions who trumpet the moral righteousness of their position to the heavens as they extol the virtues of government intervention for their cause.
The way you phrase it above, Chris, seems wrong to me. You say:
“I never understood the libertarian objection to unionism…”
and then
“While it’s true that modern day unions often appeal to the government…”
The second sentence is the answer to the first. I would actually state that you are being a bit disingenuous here, though, by using the word “often” to soften the reality that, as it stands now, ALL unions want government intervention. At least all unions I know of.
You follow it up with saying:
“it is also true that the modern corporation does as well …”
That is a good reason why these corporations should indeed be attacked, and it is absolutely true that not enough effort is spent attacking them. I think this is because corporations, unlike unions, do not seem to be IDEOLOGICALLY fixated on enlarging the state. Libertarians are pretty ideological folks, and the open statism of the unionists tend to obscure the subtle back-door statism of the corporations. In reality, I think a good argument can be made that the latter is more dangerous due to the greater power of the entities in question.
I’d mark two reasons why libertarians are less concerned with corporations.
One, they may be ignorant of arguments regarding the extent of corporate acceptance of government favors. A libertarian might not know about some universal benefit corporations have been provided, for example, and therefore discount it in his or her reasoning. A lot of this stuff is, as stated, pretty obscure by necessity.
Two, they may disagree with what a leftist or a left-libertarian counts as a favor. Some folks think incorporation itself is statism, and many libertarians disagree with that stance, and therefore are unmoved by arguments where that is a major factor. Similar issues like land ownership and the mutualists’ labor theory of value are hardly widespread among libertarians, and therefore arguments that couch land ownership or wages as state intervention are likewise likely to be unpersuasive.
Unions have a long and inglorious history of being servants of the State. Corporations may well be more dangerous, but unionists are not helping the issue- contra the hopes of many a left-libertarian, I have seen absolutely no sign of unions ending their alliance with Mordor anytime soon.
The fact that unions (both radical and trade) have used the state to accomplish things doesn’t make them statists, it means they’re using the state pragmatically to protect their own interests. Unions are by nature pragmatist organisations, and they use the tools available to protect their members. People who actually know anything about labour history would be unlikely to call unions “servants of the state”. Generally, “whipping boy of the state” is a more appropriate label. The army and police, when brought to picket lines, rarely turn their guns and trucheons on the bosses.
Regardless, if we’re going to have corporate welfare, I want to have human welfare too. A broken economic system without a social safety net isn’t “more libertarian” than a broken economic system with one, it’s just more deadly to the poor.
If you are committed to focusing on increasing welfare for the poor rather than decreasing it for the rich, statism will never end.
Fair enough regarding the labor history point. I am less concerned, though, of the past actions of the State in the late nineteenth and early to mid twentieth century, though, but more of their present actions. To my knowledge, “our” government does not use guns and batons to break up peaceful strikers much anymore.
Even if they aren’t aligned with the State as it IS, though, they are surely proponents of a massive increase of State power in their favor. I think your ascription of pragmatism to their motivations is being generous. Where you see mercenary pragmatism, I see ideology- they are willfully ignorant of economics and show no signs of changing or a desire to change.
It seems to me our disagreement is a perfect example of why an alliance between libertarians and the left is a doomed project- you are for all manner of increases of state power, just so long as it does “good things” (helps the poor, hurts the rich, whatever you want it to do), whereas I want the elimination of state power. I don’t mean it’s elimination like Marx claims he wanted (which seems somewhat analagous to your perspective). I mean it’s elimination in the standard description of the word- keep reducing it until nothing is left. Not one step forward on the promise of an IOU for two steps back. I don’t mind starting with the rich, and indeed think it should begin there for both pragmatic and compassionate reasons, but yes, the poor have to stop relying on the state, too.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, if so, please correct me, as I do not want to ascribe to you beliefs that you do not hold.
This is a misconception. Police are obviously more limited in there optionsn nowadays, but police brutality on picket lines isn’t uncommon at all. They also have almost free reign in situations where a strike is illegal.
The labour movement as a whole doesn’t have one ideology. I’ll admit that propably a fair number of union people – especially union leaders – in the modern era propably do match your description. However, there is still to this day a healthy anarchist presence in the North American labour movement.
I think the rank-and-file do mostly follow a sense of mercenary pragmatism, though. Ideologues are found in positions of leadership, and as a few commited activists, but the vast majority of union members are just looking out for their own best interests.
Well, I’m actually a social anarchist. I favour an elimination of the state, too, but in terms of economic ideas I’m propably closest to a mutualist – with some other influences, particularily coming from Parecon and anarcho-syndicalism.
However, I’m also deeply involved in anti-poverty activism. I favour community-based, grassroots approaches to solving poverty – things like food not bombs, or the food bank movement before it got apropriated by the state. But to be totally frank, grassroots anti-poverty projects simply don’t have the capacity to meet the basic needs of the number of people living in extreme poverty in North America right now. Most of these people don’t have other options than state welfare. People freeze to death in the streets when there aren’t enough homeless shelters. People get sick and die when they can’t access a hospital.
What I would like to see happen in terms of poverty is that either grassroots-based groups which don’t rely on taxes grow enough to take over for state welfare programs, or state-run welfare programs become more co-operatized – run by the people who use them, and develop to be self-sustaining economically. The problem with either of these solutions is that they’ll take either time to develop, or a lot of resources invested into them as seed money.
Many anti-poverty groups of the 1980s, particularily in the food bank movement, made the mistake of getting absorbed into the state welfare system, and since have become much less able to actually help people out of poverty. They were offered government money, accepted it, and increasingly that funding became tied to the goverment’s priorities (which focused on defining poverty as a self-inflicted situation, which is usually not the case).
I don’t think statism can solve poverty, but state money keeps people alive. Until the fundamental inequalities of a corporatist economy are addressed, it’s nothing but cruel to pull the rug out from under the people who are most disadvantaged by it.
I think there are some fundamental differences between social anarchism and classically-inspired libertarianism, but I think the bigger issue is a political one of priorities, not an ideological one. Libertarians are just more interested in the ways in which statism negatively impacts the middle class than anyone else. I’d love to hear some realistic, creative, libertarian ideas about solving poverty. Usually when it comes up in libertarian circles, talk seems to shift between trying to justify classism with ideas about the poor’s inadequacy and claims that once people are kicked off welfare they’ll find a better situation (something I have yet to see happen in real life). Expecting the desperately poor to just wait it out and starve while you dismantle the state isn’t a reasonable solution. Demanding welfare for the poor be eliminated without supporting a better alternative isn’t reasonable.
I don’t want to drag the discussion out, so I will leave it at this-
First, I apologize for underestimating you. The issues you cite are serious ones, and important to examine in detail.
Second, I honestly believe that in a truly free market, the basic necessities of life will become almost unbelievably cheap. Food (to pick one) is incredibly cheap now, and that is WITH government interference on a massive scale propping up prices. The progressive lowering of costs is the inevitable result of allowing free competition, and it will help the poor most of all. State intervention in the economy (note that I am not talking about welfare, here), as a general rule, tends to harm the poor the most and the wealthy the least.
If I have concerns for people’s long term well being, then, it isn’t the poor as we know it, since while I do believe that some will always be wealthier than others, I also believe that free competition will give nearly everybody a survivable standard of living. More than just survivable, really, but I mention that standard because that is what concerns you the most (as well it should!).
No, my concern is for those who are literally unable to care for themselves due to illness, injury, age, or what have you. The market offers no guarantee for them. All one can do is trust that enough people will care about them to help them- and frankly, as dicey a proposition as that may be, I trust the benevolence of communities more than the largesse of the State to care for them.
I actually mostly agree with you, so I suppose I should apologize for underestimating you, too. I maybe don’t share the same faith in the market that you do, but I do think that you’re largely right. Certainly in the absence of the state the situation would be vastly improved. How we get there is a more complicated question. Regardless, I think I can definitely strongly agree with you on your final point: I trust the benevolence of communities more than the largesse of the State to care for them.
My interest is more in how the benevolence of communities can be made to happen in an effective way. I think that this is fundamentally important question if we want to build a just society, and when I said I’d love to hear some creative, libertarian ideas about it, I meant it.
You may be right that a political alliance between libertarianism and the left is a doomed project, but I think at least some of us can nod to eachother as fellow travellers, even if we aren’t going to work together.