Comment: I find this rather comical.A

(See in situ)


I find this rather comical.A

I find this rather comical.

A friend and I were debating whether or not unions MUST use violence(or threat there of)to sustain themselves.

He suggested that unions can "get together and negotiate as a group" without causing violence.

I submitted that unions function exactly like cartels. There will always be a member of the union/cartel that sees an opportunity to underbid the union/cartel. If the individual members aren't FORCED to join the union/cartel, they will leave, negotiate directly, and reap the profits.

This is also explains why police and fire unions are always excluded from these voluntary membership laws. Imagine if our civil "heros" were to join in the riots!!!

Unionism = legal violence outside of the gov't monopoly

Unions did serve a purpose in the past... and it's the same purpose they still serve: To perpetuate the lie that life as a worker in a factory is worse than living on a farm, praying to god that the crop is bountiful enough to keep you and your family from starving during the winter.

Pure Marxian B.S. that suggests that the worker and the employer are in competition with each other. The undeniable fact is that life as worker is uncomparably better than a life of bare sustenance, and the worker and the employee are on the same friggin team!!!

My boss and I compete against other companies in the same market. We do so by attempting to satisfy customers better than the rest. The customer sets my wages/benefits AND my boss's, and the customer does so by voluntarily exchanging the fruits of his labor for the fruits of mine.

We have never competed against each other. To suggest such a thing is utter illogical, and an obvious lie.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."