I don't agree with what greatscott404 says, but I will defend to the karma-death their right to say it without getting grey'd out.

yours is created 71 days ago.

is this the path we want to take?

Mine was created 2,367 days ago. Do I win a prize?

That just means it's time to replace you with a fresh graduate.

Market-based opposition to unionization is a perfectly reasonable and very common opinion. Looking at how our industry treats people who express this opinion, though, I don't blame the OP for using an alt. Our industry really needs to work on tolerating a wider band of worldviews.

> The only reason labor unions are legal is that certain unions have outsized political clout

That assertion, at least, sits somewhere between tautology ("sufficiently-powerful interest group is the only reason sufficiently-powerful-interest group's interests are advanced!" I mean, yes, that's... true) and blatant trololololing. Perhaps well-expressed "wrong think" would also have been punished, but this ain't that.

In a perfect world labor unions would be illegal is not a market-based opposition.

> In a perfect world labor unions would be illegal is not a market-based opposition.

Why not? It's perfectly reasonable to say in a perfect world, X would be illegal if you think that X is harmful enough for the state to act. I bet there are things you wish the state would ban. You don't have to agree with the OP, but he's not expressing anything wacky or bizarre. He just doesn't see unionization as some kind of unquestionable moral good.

The reaction this guy is getting really highlights how tech has become intellectually intolerant. It seems that everyone is treating what he said as some kind of blasphemy and is personally offended that he's opposed to unionization and wants to use the state to ban the practice, as if you're not allowed to think those thoughts and remain a person in good standing. You, in fact, are allowed to think those thoughts.

Well, you are allowed to think those thoughts. You're allowed to post them. He has in fact done so. No consequenses will come back to him for this.

It's just that we're not obliged to listen, and we're also free to express our opinion with the downvote button.

Your appealing to the big bad state to solve some problem is anything but market-based. If you don't like unions, compete against them with a better idea.

Are you unable to distinguish between making an argument and arguing that making that argument ought to be allowed?

Am I committing thought crimes?

In the West we tend to believe in free association and the right of people to perform political activity without being beaten up by the police, at least most of the time.

Wow. I myself hail for your fabled "west", and I'm not suggesting that free association should be scrapped nor that violence be committed against its practitioners.

You literally started this thread by demanding that a policital association be banned. History tells us what that looks like in practice, and how much violence is involved in having the police break a strike.

"literally"?

> in a perfect world labor unions would be illegal

As in workers can't legally demand higher wages as a group, as in those negotiations won't be legally binding and fines would be imposed on strikers, no need to hit anyone.

Laborers can't collectivize as soon as capital can't collectivize (incorporate). I'm on board this train, let's do it. Ban collective action in the economy, especially that supported and enabled by the government. In all its forms. Where's the petition I can sign?

> fines would be imposed on strikers

.. which won't be paid, and you have to deal with the picket line.

State fines for non-attendance at work? State fines for calling in sick? Seriously, this is how you get Chile. Or Venezuela.

A striking union would be fined, they can figure out the allocation amongst themselves.

.. or not pay it.

And how are fines enforced? Does a libertarian really need to be educated on why their ideology came up with the NAP?

Well, no of course not. But it does seem likely that you're a shill or a sock-puppet.