Jim Hlavac
| Poliitics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Economic Theory
| Economic Theory |
Unions are nothing more than a cooperative effort by people with
similar interests as they define their own interests. There is nothing
inherently good or bad in a union -- but it is the right of any group
of people to freely associate in this fashion, however they define
it. There should never be a prohibition on any type of union.
On the other hand, there should never be a requirement that
one must join a union. It is morally OK to benefit from some work
by others despite having contributed nothing to the work. The
argument that a worker in a plant must belong to the union because
of the benefits it brings him is based on the destruction of the right
of the worker as an individual to decide if he wants to cooperate
with his fellow workers. Now it is true that it might very well be in
his advantage to cooperate -- but if he doesn't perceive it that is his
business.
There is nothing wrong with a union owning a company -- and
then requiring all workers to be union members. But a union which
owns a company or a portion of one is merely a group of investors,
or entrepreneurs, who not only own the means of production, but
are the producers themselves. It is akin to the small retail store
owner who works at his own business. That the scale of the
enterprise is larger doesn't negate the underlying theory: any one
can own anything alone or in partnership and organize the system of
operation as they see fit.
One thing that happens in dictatorial states is the suppression of
unions. Because the state can not tolerate the existence of an
organized group with its own views. Or you are required to join
some pseudo-union for the benefit of state control.
similar interests as they define their own interests. There is nothing
inherently good or bad in a union -- but it is the right of any group
of people to freely associate in this fashion, however they define
it. There should never be a prohibition on any type of union.
On the other hand, there should never be a requirement that
one must join a union. It is morally OK to benefit from some work
by others despite having contributed nothing to the work. The
argument that a worker in a plant must belong to the union because
of the benefits it brings him is based on the destruction of the right
of the worker as an individual to decide if he wants to cooperate
with his fellow workers. Now it is true that it might very well be in
his advantage to cooperate -- but if he doesn't perceive it that is his
business.
There is nothing wrong with a union owning a company -- and
then requiring all workers to be union members. But a union which
owns a company or a portion of one is merely a group of investors,
or entrepreneurs, who not only own the means of production, but
are the producers themselves. It is akin to the small retail store
owner who works at his own business. That the scale of the
enterprise is larger doesn't negate the underlying theory: any one
can own anything alone or in partnership and organize the system of
operation as they see fit.
One thing that happens in dictatorial states is the suppression of
unions. Because the state can not tolerate the existence of an
organized group with its own views. Or you are required to join
some pseudo-union for the benefit of state control.