Libertarianism and Private Power

[vaids_13]

A very interesting article entitled Let It Bleed: Libertarianism and the Workplace.

The article is in response to Bleeding Heart Libertarians, a very impressive cast of professors who subscribe to libertarian ideals. The articles main premise is the challenge of perspectives, primarily in the way by which Libertarianism rebukes any form of state power while remaining indifferent towards private power, even in some of its most pernicious forms. The primary use case that it runs through is the work place, outlining the litany of freedoms restricted in standard workplaces, and then analyzes the workplace using orthodox libertarian philosophy.

It's somewhat lengthy, but a great read for anyone who has the chance. Given the amount of political debate on this forum, I thought there would be some who find the article interesting.

I've pasted the concluding paragraphs of the article below:

One way the state can protect workers from coercion and thereby defend their freedom is to interfere with freedom of contract, by making some contracts altogether impossible and by insisting on fair contractual terms for others. This notion, that the preservation of freedom sometimes requires the restriction of freedom, may induce incomprehension or apoplexy in the libertarian—but it should not. After all, libertarians are themselves committed to such a thought in their basic justification for the state: the coercion of the state frees people from the “wild” coercion of lawless individuals. When the law makes me unfree to do a thing that has the happy consequence that nobody can coerce me to do that thing. Nor can I be bargained or negotiated into a position where I have to. In this way the state preserves my freedom when it forbids me from making a contract to enslave myself. Similarly, when states insist, as they do in many jurisdictions outside the United States (Montana is the only the state in America that has such a provision), that employers must show just cause for firing people, it thereby protects them against the kind of encroachments on their freedom that employers are tempted to make. Another way to protect workers’ freedom is to give them more voice on the job. If entry and exit are emblems of freedom because they express the voluntary will of the individual, why limit those expressions to two moments: when she steps inside the workplace and when she leaves? Would the worker not have more freedom if she had more opportunities to express and act upon her will inside the workplace? Not just more occasions but also more ways to express her will? To say something beyond “I’m staying” or “I’m going”? Imagine if she were free to say, without fear of punishment, “I think you should change your policy of not allowing women to wear skirts?” Or “I’m going to the bathroom” (or, better yet, if she didn’t have to say that all)? Or “I think you should consider voting for the Green Party”? Would not those greater opportunities for expression (greater in variety and occasion) increase freedom rather than diminish it? It’s true that these expressions of worker freedom require limitations on the employer’s freedom to fire workers. But that, it seems to us, is at the heart of any notion of equal freedom in society: your right to swing your arms always ends just where my nose begins. These are just some of the considerations that lie at the heart of any defense of unions, regulation of contract and the workplace, and workplace democracy. Whether we call that defense egalitarian liberal, social democratic or democratic socialist, libertarians reject it as an abridgment of economic freedom and, more particularly, the freedom of owners to do what they wish with their property. But the defense of freedom requires such interventions. Private power, left as unrestricted as the Bleeding Hearts would leave it, simply gives too much scope to private empires of tyranny and domination. Taking freedom seriously means confronting the unfreedoms that ordinary people are subject to in their ordinary lives: the Bleeding Hearts, with their fetish of private property and contract, just can’t do that.

[Commodore]

Libertarianism rebukes any form of state power

false

that article consistently conflates freedom with entitlement

Another way to protect workers’ freedom is to give them more voice on the job. If entry and exit are emblems of freedom because they express the voluntary will of the individual, why limit those expressions to two moments: when she steps inside the workplace and when she leaves? Would the worker not have more freedom if she had more opportunities to express and act upon her will inside the workplace? Not just more occasions but also more ways to express her will? To say something beyond “I’m staying” or “I’m going”? Imagine if she were free to say, without fear of punishment, “I think you should change your policy of not allowing women to wear skirts?” Or “I’m going to the bathroom” (or, better yet, if she didn’t have to say that all)? Or “I think you should consider voting for the Green Party”? Would not those greater opportunities for expression (greater in variety and occasion) increase freedom rather than diminish it? It’s true that these expressions of worker freedom require limitations on the employer’s freedom to fire workers. But that, it seems to us, is at the heart of any notion of equal freedom in society: your right to swing your arms always ends just where my nose begins.

A worker should be free to say what they want, and an employer should be free to fire them for it. If the worker doesn't like that, they should only apply to companies with free expression clauses in their employment contract.

If my company doesn't want me to say something, I won't say it (but I may start looking for alternative employment). I don't begrudge them that, it's their right to set the conditions for employment, and it's my right to accept or reject them. I don't get to impose my standards on anyone else, I am not entitled to a workplace of my liking, it requires mutual agreement.

[thadeus]

^ Keep pretending like there's no such thing as power.

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Commodore false that article consistently conflates freedom with entitlement A worker should be free to say what they want, and an employer should be free to fire them for it. If the worker doesn't like that, they should only apply to companies with free expression clauses in their employment contract. If my company doesn't want me to say something, I won't say it (but I may start looking for alternative employment). I don't begrudge them that, it's their right to set the conditions for employment, and it's my right to accept or reject them. I don't get to impose my standards on anyone else, I am not entitled to a workplace of my liking, it requires mutual agreement.

I seriously don't think you've ever had to look for a private-sector job before. To be perfectly frank, I straight up laughed at the second part of this. With the recession we're in (caused once again, as I have to note, by the complete failure of private markets), and the implicit threat of not even getting a job for most people, your "sticking" clause is going to be free expression in the workplace? Hah. And that's in countries with some amount of governmental force counter-balancing private coercion. Try pulling that s**t in China with no rule of law. Some workers think suicide is preferable, but then again, at least they didn't have to look around for mutual agreement on that.

In any case, libertarianism also suffers from the greater weakness of mistaking "freedom" as "freedom" from government. Which is unfortunate, because society has so many influences that are non-governmental that are pervasive and push people towards things that they would not do in nature. For example, McDonalds pushing crap food as things we should consume, and religion ordaining men and women being together as the only "natural" thing (what with documented evidence of homosexual behavior in animals---I don't think so).

[Rumblemintz]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm I seriously don't think you've ever had to look for a private-sector job before. To be perfectly frank, I straight up laughed at the second part of this. With the recession we're in (caused once again, as I have to note, by the complete failure of private markets), and the implicit threat of not even getting a job for most people, your "sticking" clause is going to be free expression in the workplace? Hah. And that's in countries with some amount of governmental force counter-balancing private coercion. Try pulling that s**t in China with no rule of law. Some workers think suicide is preferable, but then again, at least they didn't have to look around for mutual agreement on that. In any case, libertarianism also suffers from the greater weakness of mistaking "freedom" as "freedom" from government. Which is unfortunate, because society has so many influences that are non-governmental that are pervasive and push people towards things that they would not do in nature. For example, McDonalds pushing crap food as things we should consume, and religion ordaining men and women being together as the only "natural" thing (what with documented evidence of homosexual behavior in animals---I don't think so).

Would you restrict a private entity's freedom by saying they cannot market their junk as they see fit or denying a group to practice their beliefs?

[Classic]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm In any case, libertarianism also suffers from the greater weakness of mistaking "freedom" as "freedom" from government. Which is unfortunate, because society has so many influences that are non-governmental that are pervasive and push people towards things that they would not do in nature. For example, McDonalds pushing crap food as things we should consume, and religion ordaining men and women being together as the only "natural" thing (what with documented evidence of homosexual behavior in animals---I don't think so).

Funny you would used McDonalds in your example here. The only reason they have the sales they have is because of government subsidies. Big competitive advantage over say a locally owned an operated vegan sandwich shop.



If forced to stand alone, you know, in a free-market setting, i'm sure they couldn't lure people in at the rate to eat their poison they currently do. The average person is an idiot, and idiots buy on price when they don't understand or are oblivious to the features of the product they're buying.

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Rumblemintz Would you restrict a private entity's freedom by saying they cannot market their junk as they see fit or denying a group to practice their beliefs?

No, but I wouldn't lie to myself and say that getting rid of government would grant people "freedom", and therefore is ultimately a very desirable thing.

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Classic If forced to stand alone, you know, in a free-market setting, i'm sure they couldn't lure people in at the rate to eat their poison they currently do. The average person is an idiot, and idiots buy on price when they don't understand or are oblivious to the features of the product they're buying.

You don't think McDonalds the chain could out-price the local vegan shop, no matter what, if price point were the ultimate deciding factor? I'd venture that they could---easily. Especially with no government restrictions at all (assuming a cut of all subsidies, means it is fair I can assume McDs does not have to follow labour regulations anymore).

[Mathloom]

By default, a government should actively try to be as small as reasonably possible. Is this something everyone generally agrees with?

[Rumblemintz]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm You don't think McDonalds the chain could out-price the local vegan shop, no matter what, if price point were the ultimate deciding factor? I'd venture that they could---easily. Especially with no government restrictions at all (assuming a cut of all subsidies, means it is fair I can assume McDs does not have to follow labour regulations anymore).

I think they could even with child labor laws because their business model is most likely superior. Give both the vegan shop and McDonalds equal footing, say from a start up, and McDonalds still wins out unless the vegan shop has a product that's cheap to make and sells as well. Let's face it, it's cheap food for the masses. It has it's place. But you can't regulate stupidity.

[vaids_13]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm I seriously don't think you've ever had to look for a private-sector job before. To be perfectly frank, I straight up laughed at the second part of this. With the recession we're in (caused once again, as I have to note, by the complete failure of private markets), and the implicit threat of not even getting a job for most people, your "sticking" clause is going to be free expression in the workplace? Hah. And that's in countries with some amount of governmental force counter-balancing private coercion. Try pulling that s**t in China with no rule of law. Some workers think suicide is preferable, but then again, at least they didn't have to look around for mutual agreement on that. In any case, libertarianism also suffers from the greater weakness of mistaking "freedom" as "freedom" from government. Which is unfortunate, because society has so many influences that are non-governmental that are pervasive and push people towards things that they would not do in nature. For example, McDonalds pushing crap food as things we should consume, and religion ordaining men and women being together as the only "natural" thing (what with documented evidence of homosexual behavior in animals---I don't think so).

Absolutely agree.

Although Libertarian arguments may tend to have merit on a variety of issues, the fact remains that absent any government intervention on private industry, lay citizens will always be subject to pernicious and predatory practices- in the workforce, this can manifest by way of degrading contracts with stipulations like unreasonable hours, unpaid overtime, poor work conditions, and the like. When economic conditions eliminate the possibility for alternatives, workers will accept coercive abuses by industry (and as you rightly noted, it is indeed a fanciful reality to suggest the utopian free market will always present sufficient alternatives). It is in fact a necessary practice of free societies to ensure freedom is enjoyed by its citizenry, and part of that is regulating those that abuse and inhibit individual freedoms in wildly unreasonable formats.

[Haymitch]

Haven't had time to read through the article yet, so please forgive me if this is not relevant. However, the issue of "private tyrannies" has been addressed by libertarians* before: http://mises.org/daily/3304

*Lower case, not upper case... unless you're referring to the (lame) Libertarian Party.

::EDIT::

I just want to say that libertarianism is so misunderstood on this BBS it is depressing. I guess it's better to be severely misunderstood than ignored, but not much so. To paraphrase Houston's own Stephan Kinsella, to be a libertarian "only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that 'we' 'need' things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that... The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the same — innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the stomach for this; others are more civilized — libertarian, one might say — and prefer peace over violent struggle."

To find out what libertarianism is and is not, and the counter-arguments to all of the tired, old critiques, check out Jacob Huebert's Libertarianism Today, published in 2010.

[thadeus]

The article linked above only discusses whether private entities can use physical force to coerce people.

This is a ridiculously narrow definition of tyranny.

[Rashmon]

Originally Posted by vaids_13 Absolutely agree. Although Libertarian arguments may tend to have merit on a variety of issues, the fact remains that absent any government intervention on private industry, lay citizens will always be subject to pernicious and predatory practices- in the workforce, this can manifest by way of degrading contracts with stipulations like unreasonable hours, unpaid overtime, poor work conditions, and the like. When economic conditions eliminate the possibility for alternatives, workers will accept coercive abuses by industry (and as you rightly noted, it is indeed a fanciful reality to suggest the utopian free market will always present sufficient alternatives). It is in fact a necessary practice of free societies to ensure freedom is enjoyed by its citizenry, and part of that is regulating those that abuse and inhibit individual freedoms in wildly unreasonable formats.

I've said it before and will say it again: all the civil liberties in the world mean **** if your corporate overlord is left unfettered to trample them underfoot.

[thadeus]

I don't expect we're going to get many libertarians (lowercase or otherwise) commenting on this thread. The whole idea rests on faith, and you can't really argue in favor of faith. If you try, you end up painting yourself into corners repeatedly.

I do think it's hilarious when free-marketeers try to paint their worldview as 'rational' though.

[vaids_13]

Originally Posted by thadeus I don't expect we're going to get many libertarians (lowercase or otherwise) commenting on this thread. The whole idea rests on faith, and you can't really argue in favor of faith. If you try, you end up painting yourself into corners repeatedly. I do think it's hilarious when free-marketeers try to paint their worldview as 'rational' though.

Given their propensity to inundate this forum with threads and posts, I'm surprised at the lack of responses from some of the better known libertarians on this forum.

[Hightop]

Originally Posted by thadeus I don't expect we're going to get many libertarians (lowercase or otherwise) commenting on this thread. The whole idea rests on faith, and you can't really argue in favor of faith. If you try, you end up painting yourself into corners repeatedly. I do think it's hilarious when free-marketeers try to paint their worldview as 'rational' though.

I will take faith in humanity over faith in government "regulators" any day.

[thadeus]

Originally Posted by Hightop I will take faith in humanity over faith in government "regulators" any day.

Are those two things in strict opposition? Also, how is supporting all actions carried out under the name "private enterprise" synonymous with "humanity"?

Are you just going to sling around bumpersticker slogans?

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Hightop I will take faith in humanity over faith in government "regulators" any day.

Do you have faith in the same institutions that flagrantly manipulate interest rates for their own benefit and are involved in all kinds of fraud, cut costs by dumping toxic waste in Somalia, and generally seek to extradite the most resources possible in order to beat superfluous projections that grant them bonuses?

By faith in humanity, what exactly do you mean?

[Northside Storm]

I will take faith in gorgeous women wearing mini-skirts over creepy church sing-along get-togethers ANY DAY.