Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Union Myth
Mises Institute ^ | Oct 2004 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Posted on 12/21/2005 9:16:01 AM PST by Marxbites

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: jess35
we'd still have child labor because they wouldn't be any legislation prohibiting it.

Actually we wouldn't for several reasons. Market pressure from consumers boycotting such companies, not to mention the companies themselves desire to produce the best product and gain the most market share. Capitalism would control the wage market just as any other market. Children could not, and would not in some instances, be able to compete with skilled workers

41 posted on 12/22/2005 5:05:48 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FFforFreedom

His book on capitalism is well worth the read not to mention his meticulous and truthful assessment of the 16th President


42 posted on 12/22/2005 5:07:32 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Yes and thank you Bill!

Everything in DiLorenzo's article is true.

Just because we got a different version in school doesn't prove otherwise! The rotten SOB's - 98% of them anyway.


43 posted on 12/22/2005 5:22:46 PM PST by Marxbites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Uh...children weren't hired for skilled labor. It's not like they were hiring 7 year old craftsmen. There is and always will be a market for jobs that can be done by anyone.


44 posted on 12/22/2005 5:32:46 PM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jess35
The author needs to read up on Robert Owen the capitalist Father of socialism.

Owen finally became ashamed of his self and his wealth, all accrued by child labor, as young as 9 years old.

Painting capitalism as the savior of the world is a tad disingenuous. All of the past and current purveyors of socialism are capitalists.

45 posted on 12/22/2005 5:39:07 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: badbass
badbass wrote:

There are just too many "born losers" in the world for it [idealism?] to ever work. They won't go away.
I have this theory that a certain amount of money and effort is spent by the "achievers" in life to buy off the "non-achievers". This is done so that they don't have to spend all of their time fighting the non-achievers to keep what they've earned.
Sad as it is, I also believe that there is the possibility that it may be the wisest course.

Yep, Sad as it may be, I too see that this may be the wisest course.

-- The Fair Tax idea may be the best way we could 'Constitutionalize' a born loser welfare scheme..
Give everyone in the USA a tax 'prebate'; and let the non-achievers use it to exist on, three hots & a cot style..

The rest of us would then be free to ignore them.

46 posted on 12/22/2005 6:14:56 PM PST by don asmussen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jess35
children weren't hired for skilled labor.

No they weren't. And in many instances today in mills, jobs children would do have been automated. The market has replaced them with a more efficient means of production. Not out of necessity as much as for a company to stay on top of the

There is and always will be a market for jobs that can be done by anyone.

So you have a problem with a young person getting a job? What's the limit? Currently it is 16. However, I would say that today many of the jobs held by 16 year olds could be done by 14 year olds. Are you going to prohibit a young entrepreneur from getting a job because you 'feel' they should enjoy their childhood, or some other nonsense?

47 posted on 12/22/2005 6:37:24 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Marxbites
"The Union Movement: The People Who Brought You the Weekend."

Actually, I think credit for The Weekend goes to God.

Of course The Union Movement is twice as good as God because God only gave us one day off.

That being said, Unions suck.

48 posted on 12/22/2005 6:39:46 PM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

Certainly those who take adavantage of others should be ashamed. Persons of conscience would pay employees enough to retain them surely, or else it's coercion.

Capitalism is not the saviour - Freedom is, capitalism is just one of it's necessary ingredients - it consists of property rights and the rule of law to protect them, freedom of choice and the whole BofR, which rights we were not limited to because Govt was to be limited, not us.

Is it any wonder that one of the freest market economies in the world is also the richest? It is solely due to the fact that Americans have more capital invested per person than other countries who appropriated more of the earnings of their taxpayers. It's a simple concept - less Govt, more freedom and wealth for all.

Think of every dollar wasted by Govt over the last hundred years. The ones that wouldn't have been wasted if Govt had stayed it's constitutional size. The kickbacks and scams. The elected's abuse of travel privileges and expense accounts say, or Ted's Big Dig in Mass, or the other Ted's bridge to nowhere. Now let's say that money was instead continuously put in an account to compound at market rates. We are talkin some huge numbers of opportunity cost to generations of Americans.

If America does not work to reverse our socialist trend and reverse the Genl Welfare, Equal Protection & Commerce clauses back to the Founder's intent, the "golden goose" will be cooked. Never fear for the elites though, their assets are safely tucked away from the IRS, and their "philanthropies" will continue lulling Americans into the tyranny socialism always begets. And they'll still be in charge while the middle and lower classes, who will continue paying for it, merge into homogeniety.

Most socialists today are unadmitted communists. Socialism is THE step to totalitarianism, remember Hitler & Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot? Those failures of utopian propaganda? Those master murderers of many tens of MILLIONS?

The Democrat Socialists of the USA don't know the definition of capitalism, nor care to admit the economic truths that put the lie to them.

Capitalist was Marx's derogation of free markets. He is perhaps the most despicable human being there ever was. Responsible for more deaths than any human in history.

Your view disappoints me.


49 posted on 12/22/2005 8:17:06 PM PST by Marxbites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Thanks Bill


50 posted on 12/22/2005 9:29:56 PM PST by FFforFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Marxbites
I will check out the links. I'm somewhat familiar with the Cato Institute, I was pretty much a Libertarian at one time. I've still got a pretty strong libertarian streak in me, but I come back to my opinion that there is a certain amount of human nature that they don't take into account (the communists make the same mistake, in a different direction). You make very good arguments, but my textbooks are just books in general, all the way from Solzenytzen to, oh...I dunno..., Zell Miller. Along with observations from just living life. I'm already aware that classic liberalism has been usurped by what is actually much closer to communism. I still stay there is a "pendulum" analogy between libertarianism and communism, with both sides missing the boat on human nature (of course, communism misses by a LOT further margin).

As I've gotten older, I think my viewpoint is closer to what used to be called a very conservative Democrat. In other words, it doesn't hurt to throw the average "working Joe" a bone now and then, it doesn't hurt to help poor people get a leg up, and sometimes a limited government can be the best way to accomplish these things. I'm pretty sure that you will disagree with me on that, and at one time I would have as well. That's okay, people change, opinions change. I come back to human nature, and the fact that ALL people will never be achievers, bad things do happen to good people sometimes, they WILL need help from someone. Unfortunately, history also shows that religious institutions, capitalism, and all of the other entities out there just won't step up to the plate to do the job. A prime example is slavery and the institutional racism that followed. It took government (truly following the Constitution), to step in and accomplish what capitalism wouldn't. Human nature at work again. I know that "promoting the general welfare" has been vastly abused by those in power, but the fact remains that the founders DID put that in the Constitution, and they probably knew there would be a lot of disagreement at some point as to it's limitations.

I'll be honest with you, I think that if everyone in this nation were a Christian, you could strip the government down to just defense and basic law enforcement, and I for one would be thrilled to live in a libertarian Utopia. Since that's not the case, I can see a role for government now and then to step in and do what it can to help people and alleviate suffering and unfairness.

Anyway, I've probably strayed away from the subject of unions, but I do agree that unions have outlived their usefulness to a great extent. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree about whether they were ever necessary or not. You seen to want to roll back the current "unholy alliance" of government and corporations, and I'm with you 100% on that! Best of luck to you.

51 posted on 12/23/2005 10:51:51 AM PST by badbass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: badbass
Make that: You seeM to want to roll back the current "unholy alliance" of government and corporations, and I'm with you 100% on that! Best of luck to you.
52 posted on 12/23/2005 12:11:15 PM PST by badbass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: badbass

The bottom line is that the state, or government, is the negation of freedom.

Or, freedom is the negation of Govt to the maximum extent possible, IE, the Founder's vision.

Another old sage said: "Harm no man, then do as you will" as the best form of Govt.

Our own Founders witnessed this among native Americans - no formal Govt, but yet a code of conduct, breakers of which met with the hostitlity of the community.

On another note, prices in free markets are all we need to prosper, each man invisibly helping others by his own industry and self interest. As soon as Govt enters the mix, perverse incentives ensue, Govt grows and crowds out capital from private enterprise and slows economic growth.

The only purpose of Govt was First to ensure our rights and Second to provide security, and very little else, for the Founders understood man's corruptibility as evidenced in the Limited Govt they designed.

The Founders ideas are based on the sovereignty of the individual - anything less values the collective more, and leads to statism, oppression and tyranny.


53 posted on 01/10/2006 12:45:02 PM PST by Marxbites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson