Laissez FaireholmBoard

The new sea territory wrote:

In a voluntary society, they would not be required to be joined unless, for some reason, your employer requires you to.

The employer has a contract with the union. The contract states that all employees must join the union and non-payment of dues is an offense the employer must fire the employee for.

Employers do not like these, but they do happen.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

You think it's a madhouse in here? Check the forums.

I meant my office.

The new sea territory wrote:

Yeah, exactly. Either way....Unions would be very different in a voluntary society.

Yep. I did say that.

page=rmb/postid=7109904

The new sea territory wrote:

Black is seen as opposite of the white flag, which means surrender. It's commonly used by anarchists and libertarians.

White could also mean peace. Black and white, like anarcho-pacifism.

Speaking of Bourbons, how do you guys view the Bourbon Democrats of the late 1800s (before they sold out to Taft and later the New Deal)?

Meridiani Planum wrote:

The Bourbon Democrats were a cool bunch of classical liberals. They were members of the Democratic Party when the Democratic Party actually was rather liberal.

I would have no hesitation voting for the Bourbon Democrat influenced National Democratic Party if it were to reappear today.

Now you can tell all your friends that you'd vote Democrat, with some conditions.

Rofl.

IMO the Bourbons could of done more for civil rights in some regards, they were rather apathetic to social issues and philosophy beyond the utilitarianism they believed laissez faire economics and the gold standard would bring.

Umm, since when did you leave MG? We have talked about the Middle East, smoking weed and tobacco, military in anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, Ayn Rand and libertarian philosophers. That's as far as I remember in the last 7 days.

Milton Friedman doesn't even have a sound business cycle theory, and he's an unashamed Federal Reserve apologist. How the hel is he one vote away from tying Murray Rothbard?

nation=the_new_sea_territory/detail=factbook/id=284722

Thoughts, anyone?

The Bourbon Democrats were not as bad as the populist Democrats (the KKK down-with-big-business types) on blacks - but they were not good either.

Some Republicans (such as the much slandered Warren Harding) were passionately opposed to the lynching and other abuse of blacks - but they found that the Bourbon (i.e. conservative) Democrats, whilst allies on economic issues such as cutting government spending, were indifferent to the issue of how blacks were treated. One would not find Bourbon Democrats in a lynch mob - but they would not (generally - there were some brave exceptions) do much to stop the lynching either.

On philosophy I think it is a mistake to describe conservative Democrats as "utilitarians" - I associate that (and Pragmatism) with Progressives (especially with the Progressive wing of the Republican Party) than with Bourbon Democrats.

By the way - of the list of names above, the only one well known for her philosophical works (rather than for writings on economics or whatever) was Ayn Rand - so she wins by default.

If the question had been which do you regard as the best THINKER (not "philosopher") things might well be different - as "thinker" would include economics and other subjects.

Murray Rothbard was a much better writer on economic theory than Rand - but then that was his profession.

On policy Rand was actually better - as Rothbard could go nuts at times (sometimes taking a basically Soviet view of the world - indeed siding with any enemy of the United States, presumably on the grounds that the Federal government is bad therefore any enemy of it must be good...... a form of "reasoning" that leaves a lot to be desired).

Of course with Ludwig Von Mises one gets the best of both worlds - good writing on economic theory, and no policy nuttiness.

As for the "New Law Territory" article - well, the first major paragraph seemed to be a passionate attack on social conservatives (regardless of whether or not they wished to use the state to enforce social conservatism - or NOT) and a lot of stuff about "neo colonialism" (Marxist Lenin stuff) and the rule of "corporations" (a Hollywood view of the world) - odd at a time when business enterprises are being driven out of the United States by high taxes and endless regulations (which rather hints that business, contrary to the Marxists, does NOT control the government).

Do I support using the government to try and make people more moral? No I do not - like Gladstone I think it is a terrible error to THE STATE for improvements in moral conduct.

Do I think that colonies are good idea? No (like J. Tucker as long ago as the 1700s) I think the arguments for them are stupid - even Disraeli (an ardent Imperialist) admitted, in a rare moment of candour, that the colonies were "wretched millstones" round the neck of Britain economically (ditto the United States when it got colonies after the Spanish American war of 1898).

But do I buy the Marxist "neo-colonial" "exploitation of the third world" and "rule by the corporations" stuff?

No I do not.

Marxist drivel is just that - Marxist drivel. It is not libertarianism.

Wars - I thought that the Iraq war was dumb (a terrible waste of both money and lives), but to suggest (as the left do) that it was fought for "corporate profits" is just nonsense.

James mccosh wrote:

As for the "New Law Territory" article - well, the first major paragraph seemed to be a passionate attack on social conservatives (regardless of whether or not they wished to use the state to enforce social conservatism - or NOT) and a lot of stuff about "neo colonialism" (Marxist Lenin stuff) and the rule of "corporations" (a Hollywood view of the world) - odd at a time when business enterprises are being driven out of the United States by high taxes and endless regulations (which rather hints that business, contrary to the Marxists, does NOT control the government).

Do I support using the government to try and make people more moral? No I do not - like Gladstone I think it is a terrible error to THE STATE for improvements in moral conduct.

Do I think that colonies are good idea? No (like J. Tucker as long ago as the 1700s) I think the arguments for them are stupid - even Disraeli (an ardent Imperialist) admitted, in a rare moment of candour, that the colonies were "wretched millstones" round the neck of Britain economically (ditto the United States when it got colonies after the Spanish American war of 1898).

But do I buy the Marxist "neo-colonial" "exploitation of the third world" and "rule by the corporations" stuff?

No I do not.

Marxist drivel is just that - Marxist drivel. It is not libertarianism.

Wars - I thought that the Iraq war was dumb (a terrible waste of both money and lives), but to suggest (as the left do) that it was fought for "corporate profits" is just nonsense.

The first paragraph was meant to attack the "libertarian" movement within the Republican Party.

Neocolonialism exists. To say it doesn't puts your opinions in line with Neocons. I cite all our involvement in the Middle East and the "Banana Republics" in South America as examples. The entire Cold War was a neocolonial resource battle.

Corporotacracy is the current state of government of America. Russia's model, thugocracy, is very similar :p. Either way, the corporations bribe the state into giving them tax breaks, subsidies and bailouts. They buy politicians. Or, they get the state to invade countries to keep the military-industrial complex running.

James mccosh wrote:

Compulsory union contracts should only be lawful if contracts forbidding union membership are also lawful.

Either both forms of contract must be lawful - or neither form lawful.

In no State in the Union (by Federal law - unconstitutional law, but upheld by the usual court perversions) are so called "Yellow Dog" contracts (forbidding an employee being a member of a union) lawful. Sadly in non "Right To Work" contracts FORCING people to join unions are lawful.

Regardless, the laws of the state are highly arbitrary and inherently authoritarian.