Freedom of Association

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The question of unions pits two different versions of free association against each other, and both versions have merit.

Lay out both versions, quick and dirty.

Workers can freely associate themselves into a situation that benefits them.

An individual can decide not to join said free association.

If the second individual is seeking some benefit locked down by the freely associated party that secures that benefit... well, we got ourselves a conflict.

[Fife]

Workers can freely associate themselves into a situation that benefits them.

No shit, Sherlock.

AFAIK, workers can open up their own shop any old time they get ready.

It's still a free country last time I checked, broheim.

[Speaker to Animals]

The way I see it, the corporation is the mirror image of the union. It's an exclusive organization of investors who collectivize their capital for mutual and exclusive benefit. They enforce exclusivity through copyright, patent, and trademark laws. Sometimes they even have laws specifically engineered to keep them in business like livery services do in some cities.

Unions are exclusive organizations of workers who collectivize their labor for mutual and exclusive benefit. They enforce exclusivity through organized labor laws.


A consistent position would entail arguing all of these laws designed to enforce exclusivity are wrong, and therefore the corporation and the union are both morally wrong.

Another consistent position would entail arguing that both the capitalists and the workers have the right to organize their labor or capital.

The common positions in American politics are the two broad categories of inconsistent positions: (1) capitalists have the right to organize but not the workers, (2) workers have the right to organize but not the capitalists. Both of those positions are indefensible in my opinion. The defenses you will encounter are usually lame rationalizations after the fact based on meaningless distinctions that have no bearing on the fundamental moral question that lies at the heart of the issue.

I could probably work just fine within either of the two categories of consistent positions. I can see merits to both. The two inconsistent categories are shit.

[LVH2]

Workers can freely associate themselves into a situation that benefits them.

No shit, Sherlock.

AFAIK, workers can open up their own shop any old time they get ready.

It's still a free country last time I checked, broheim.

I'm opening my own Home Depot. Looking for investors. You in?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Workers can freely associate themselves into a situation that benefits them.

No shit, Sherlock.

AFAIK, workers can open up their own shop any old time they get ready.

It's still a free country last time I checked, broheim.

Unless, of course, workers should like to resist laws prohibiting them from closing their own shop.

For someone as suspicious of state force as you are, I am surprised you find so little in common with the groups of people who have so frequently found themselves at the nastier end of it.

[Speaker to Animals]

Workers can freely associate themselves into a situation that benefits them.

No shit, Sherlock.

AFAIK, workers can open up their own shop any old time they get ready.

It's still a free country last time I checked, broheim.

I'm opening my own Home Depot. Looking for investors. You in?

[Fife]

Workers can freely associate themselves into a situation that benefits them.

No shit, Sherlock.

AFAIK, workers can open up their own shop any old time they get ready.

It's still a free country last time I checked, broheim.

I'm opening my own Home Depot. Looking for investors. You in?

Your business model sucks so far, sorry. I'm here anytime you want to make a better pitch, though.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Elevator pitch:

Home Depot + Hooters = PROFITS.

[Fife]

Elevator pitch:

Home Depot + Hooters = PROFITS.

Sounds legit. What's your beef?

[Martin Hash]

The Best and The Brightest schtick has lost it's appeal, The Rich and Famous schtick, that's in.

Yeah, I'm going to start using how rich I am to win arguments on this forum. There's probably a dozen, "I can do what you did," types who would come at me if I go with accomplishments, but all of them bow down to gold. So, all you "I'm as talented as you are" people, you lose, unless that is, you have more money than me because money is the final arbitrator.

p.s. All you got to do is have 3-digit millions. I was never able to break the $100 million mark.