Labor Unions starting a third party

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Seems ttystick asked the question I was.

One if Wal-Mart comes in and runs the smaller match a ts out of business and tells everyone else to take it or leave it with their shitty wages. Some don't have a choice.

When people are desperate and work for cheaper wages 8t will actually drive wages down. Not up.

Two. Show a free market anywhere.
Free markets exist in books as a theoretical model. That is a good thing. Pure capitalism is a very painful thing that has no regard for society.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Fantasy?

Do you mean the kind where people advocate having a coercion based central authority who will extort from them in order to ensure that those same people are "protected" from people who might extort from them?
You might have benefitted from taking a class that did not have 101 in the title.

So you are saying that the "company store" was a good thing? I mean, all those laborers could have just said no and starved.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I hate baseball.

Since when is the formation of labor Unions 'more government'? The current legal obstacles against labor organization is in fact the influence of government regulation. As usual, you're backwards.

How would you propose to level the playing field between Walmart and its employees?

You hate baseball ? Commie. Probably throw like a girl too.

I propose a free market. Not the crony one you try to assign my position to. The one where Walmart wouldn't be subsidized and enabled by government and any of its employees could start a competing business tomorrow without third party interventions etc.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Free markets exist in books as a theoretical model. That is a good thing. Pure capitalism is a very painful thing that has no regard for society.

Incorrect. Free market transactions exist wherever a mutual exchange between willing parties, unimpeded by an intervening third party, occur.

Do you conflate what people call "capitalism" today with an actual free market? I think you might be.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Seems ttystick asked the question I was.

One if Wal-Mart comes in and runs the smaller match a ts out of business and tells everyone else to take it or leave it with their shitty wages. Some don't have a choice.

When people are desperate and work for cheaper wages 8t will actually drive wages down. Not up.

Two. Show a free market anywhere.

I'll agree with your implication that free markets aren't very prevalent, in the macro sense. They should be.


If a free market existed as a norm, that would make it easier for individuals to start a business wouldn't it ? Since a real free market wouldn't have governmentally imposed constraints. Instead the market itself, (customer feedback) would be the regulating factor, which is a good thing.

If a business / person didn't deliver quality or was a bad actor, customers would be able to choose alternatives from any number of competitors. leaving the bad actor to suffer the consequences of their poor quality etc.



A free market exists whenever two willing parties make an exchange without intervention of an unwanted third party. Haven't you ever made a free market transaction before ?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You might have benefitted from taking a class that did not have 101 in the title.

So you are saying that the "company store" was a good thing? I mean, all those laborers could have just said no and starved.

It's funny how on one hand people reasonably assert that a single choice of service providers based in some kind of extortion is a bad thing, (you mentioned "company store") then on the other hand they ignore the same circumstances when it comes to central authoritarian governments providing so called "services" and also disallowing free market competitors.


So, what is your definition of a "free market" worldly scholar ?
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
It's funny how on one hand people reasonably assert that a single choice of service providers based in some kind of extortion is a bad thing, (you mentioned "company store") then on the other hand they ignore the same circumstances when it comes to central authoritarian governments providing so called "services" and also disallowing free market competitors.


So, what is your definition of a "free market" worldly scholar ?
It is a theoretical model useful for the study of economics.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
It is a theoretical model useful for the study of economics.

In the macro sense it is the aggregate of individual free trade interactions where parties come together on a voluntary, mutual and consensual basis and make a willing exchange.

So logically in a micro sense, a free market interaction, supports peaceful exchange and voluntary human interactions on a more personal scale.

If it isn't a voluntary exchange, it isn't a free market thing which is happening. No doubt we've both made these kinds of exchanges, so it isn't "theoretical" or untried. Although, free market exchanges are prevented from occurring on a large scale by........wait for it........coercion based governments and their cronies.

You're welcome.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
In the macro sense it is the aggregate of individual free trade interactions where parties come together on a voluntary, mutual and consensual basis and make a willing exchange.

So logically in a micro sense, a free market interaction, supports peaceful exchange and voluntary human interactions on a more personal scale.

If it isn't a voluntary exchange, it isn't a free market thing which is happening. No doubt we've both made these kinds of exchanges, so it isn't "theoretical" or untried. Although, free market exchanges are prevented from occurring on a large scale by........wait for it........coercion based governments and their cronies.

You're welcome.
Interesting definition. I guess you can define it how ever you want. Either way, I'm agin it. I believe that the government has a right to exist and is invested with the powers to intercede in the "free market" to ensure equity and promote social objectives - including justice. So I guess you will die a slave, a well raped one at that.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Interesting definition. I guess you can define it how ever you want. Either way, I'm agin it. I believe that the government has a right to exist and is invested with the powers to intercede in the "free market" to ensure equity and promote social objectives - including justice. So I guess you will die a slave, a well raped one at that.
So you are against exchanges where two willing parties make a voluntary trade between themselves ?

You believe "justice" can be administered when a third party intervenes, using force to dictate or change the terms the original two parties have agreed to ?

So what you are really saying is some people, those in government, have more right than those who are not. How does that ensure equity again?
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
So you are against exchanges where two willing parties make a voluntary trade between themselves ?

You believe "justice" can be administered when a third party intervenes, using force to dictate or change the terms the original two parties have agreed to ?

So what you are really saying is some people, those in government, have more right than those who are not. How does that ensure equity again?
No. Yes, markets need to be managed. For example, a business should not be able to deny it's services to certain groups. If you don't like it you are free to fuck off.
 
Top