undefined | Better HN

0 pointseesmith6y ago0 comments

"Impactful" is such a wishy-washy term.

When done poorly - which I think you have done - another term for your juxtaposition is "false equivalence".

I asked "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'". You have not answered but only asserted.

To your last paragraph, I again point out that "markets free of government intervention" must necessarily include being free of government intervention with respect to labor power. Eg, the law must not prevent a company and a union from signing a contract to make the company a closed shop.

Anyone not supporting a repeal of Taft-Hartley and related labor laws cannot be in support of a free market, by your definition.

But many of the people I hear who advocate for a 'free market' support those anti-labor laws. Indeed, there is an almost complete lack of discussion on the topic.

Ergo, they aren't actually supporting a free market.

You tell me - why aren't more free market economists calling for the repeal of Taft-Hartley?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

CryptoPunk6y ago· 2 in thread

Supporting rent control and believing that the widely held view among economists that free markets improve public welfare is a lie promulgated by a capitalist elite is equivalent to believing all foreigners are evil and that vaccines are a conspiracy pushed by Big Pharma.

It's not a false equivalence, and for me to explain to you how your theories constitute baseless conspiracy theories is outside the scope of this discussion.

If you'd like to have an indepth discussion about economics, please create a post in another forum, and link me to it, and I'd be happy to carry it on there.

>>Eg, the law must not prevent a company and a union from signing a contract to make the company a closed shop

Prohibiting companies from discriminating against unionized workers is an infringement on the freedom of contract, as are several other legal prohibitions relating to how companies are permitted to deal with workers attempting to unionize, and unionized workers striking.

Laws relating to collective bargaining, which prohibit a company from negotiating with any party other than the union, in the event that a work unit votes to unionize, are blatant violations of the freedom of contract.

Unions would have no market power without said laws. If you support the upholding of the free market, and the principle of contract liberty that underpins it, then you are acquiesing to the total disempowerment of unions.

eesmithOP6y ago

"Unions would have no market power without said laws"

Well, that's a-historical.

Unions existed before laws were in place to support unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt .

The union power in the late 1800s was not built on laws which supported them. Often the government stepped in to fight the unions. And the unions sometimes won power, and were able to get the laws changed to prevent, eg, bloodshed in the future.

Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?".

Your "freedom of contract", if you really believed it, should apply to any situation which restricts trade.

If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation.

"Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine.

Similarly, a company A might contract with company B so that B is the exclusive supplier of temp workers.

"Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine.

But somehow "organizations A and B enter into a contract such that A will only hire members of B" when B is a union is not fine?

Balderdash.

CryptoPunk6y ago

Unions were very weak pre-labor-laws. Unionization rates were very low consequently.

Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal activity, ranging from blockading company premises (e.g. stopping trains) to setting up picket lines that involved violence against 'scabs'.

>>Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?".

I'm happy to carry that line on in another forum.

>>If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation.

Of course, but labor laws, as they stand, prohibit companies from negotiating with any party but the union in the event that one of their work units unionizes and demands collective bargaining. This is regardless of what the company agreed to.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

CryptoPunk6y ago· 2 in thread

It's not a false equivalence, and for me to explain to you how your theories constitute baseless conspiracy theories is outside the scope of this discussion.

If you'd like to have an indepth discussion about economics, please create a post in another forum, and link me to it, and I'd be happy to carry it on there.

>>Eg, the law must not prevent a company and a union from signing a contract to make the company a closed shop

eesmithOP6y ago

"Unions would have no market power without said laws"

Well, that's a-historical.

Unions existed before laws were in place to support unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt .

Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?".

Your "freedom of contract", if you really believed it, should apply to any situation which restricts trade.

If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation.

"Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine.

Similarly, a company A might contract with company B so that B is the exclusive supplier of temp workers.

"Freedom of contract" lovers think that sort of exclusive agreement is fine.

But somehow "organizations A and B enter into a contract such that A will only hire members of B" when B is a union is not fine?

Balderdash.

CryptoPunk6y ago

Unions were very weak pre-labor-laws. Unionization rates were very low consequently.

>>Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?".

I'm happy to carry that line on in another forum.

>>If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse