Battle of Wisconsin
by Walter Block: Public
Sector Unions in Wisconsin
I wrote this
article about the brou-ha-ha concerning public sector unions in
Wisconsin. The viewpoint I articulated then was that not one but
both of these institutions, the public sector unions and
the government of Wisconsin, were illegitimate, according the libertarian
non-aggression principle (NAP). I have had literally dozens of letters
mostly in support of my thesis, but quite a few, also, criticizing
me. I would like to share a selection of each of these types of
reactions with you (I only include the polite ones in the latter
category, since I believe in the importance of civil discourse),
along with my responses to them.
Why do I do
this? Why don’t I, instead, respond, only, to each individual letter
writer? If I reacted to each letter, separately, then all such authors
would see, only, my reaction to their one letter. I’d prefer to
keep this public, so that our entire community can listen in on
this dialogue. I do this for several reasons. One, were Murray Rothbard
alive today, it is my expectation that he would have conducted matters
in this manner. He wanted to build a movement, a cadre, and I can
think of no better way to do that than by going public in this manner.
I want to practice inclusiveness: by keeping all interested parties
abreast of the thinking of people in our intellectual community.
I can do no better than to emulate my mentor Murray in this regard.
Second, each of the commentators on my previous analysis would likely
be interested in the thoughts of the others, and my reactions to
all of them.
I oppose all
of organized labor, since it violates the NAP. Unions need not
do so. Instead, they could limit themselves to a mass quit,
which would be entirely compatible with the libertarian philosophy.
But none of them keep a tight rein on themselves in any such manner.
They either themselves beat up those who compete with them for jobs,
or they hide behind labor legislation that compels employers to
deal with them, "fairly," when the firms wish to have
nothing to do with them at all. Businesses are prohibited from hiring
"scabs" instead. Public sector unionism has one additional
flaw over and above their private sector counterparts. The supposed
justification for labor organizations that plague private concerns
was that the capitalist was greedy, and would thus exploit the workers.
The state had to step in to right this power imbalance. But the
government, surely, at least in this left wing perspective, was
the "good guy." How, then, justify striking against it?
In this sixth grade civics course understanding of the economic
world, the state is like the referee in sports. But no one hits
a home run off the umpire for goodness sakes.
As a free market
anarchist libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist, I of course oppose
the state, and for the very same reason. It, too, engages in NAP
violations. In fact, in the view of Rothbard (in For
a New Liberty, p. 49): "if you wish to know how libertarians
regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State
as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically
fall into place." Yes, indeedy do. So, libertarians must oppose
both sides in this Wisconsin labor dispute.
When I first
heard of the labor struggle in Wisconsin, it was clear that the
left supported the unions, and the right was on the side of Governor
Scott Walker. I admit it; I confess; mea culpa: my first thought
was that we libertarians must engage in product differentiation.
If the Democrats are on one side, and the Republicans on the other,
then both of them must be wrong, and, there must be a third side,
the libertarian side. Of course, I don’t make a fetish of this.
There are indeed some issues on which we libertarians support the
conservatives (don’t ask, there must be some), and other
were we take up with the liberals (don’t ask, there must be
some). But, here, in the Wisconsin labor case, happily for product
differentiation, the libertarian may indeed disagree with both,
and set off on our own path. Namely, opposition to both sides.
in my previous writing did I come out in favor of organized labor?
This was purely strategic. I wanted each of them to weaken the other.
But my empirical judgment was that the Wisconsin government as stronger
than the unions arrayed against it. My thought was that if the latter
could somehow be strengthened relatively to the former, the battle
would continue longer, to the detriment of both of these
With this introduction,
I now list, and respond to, II. Positive reactions to my previous
publication on this subject, and then III. negative reactions to
my previous publication on this subject. With but a few exceptions,
all of these rejoinders will be listed anonymously. I have very
slightly copy-edited many of them for ease of exposition. Those
listed with an "A" are letters on this topic; my reactions
are denoted as "B."
you are Mr. Union (in several unfortunate senses). So let’s unionize
all the deadliest parts of the US government: the Army, the CIA,
the NSA, the Drone Corps, the FBI, and all the rest. We, and the
world, need your killer ops gummed up." This one is from Lew
1B. I wish
I had the wit or wisdom of Lew Rockwell. This is a magnificent
extrapolation of my analysis. Yes, unions are the quintessential
gummer-upper of modern society par excellence. Should we, as libertarians,
not wish that the government of Wisconsin be gummed up? To ask this
is to answer it. And what of the (in some cases) mass murdering
elements of the Federal government? To not go along with this would
be, in the words of Murray Rothbard, "monstrous." On the
other hand, what about unionized "gumming up" public libraries,
post offices, schools, streets, welfare offices, the Fed, parks,
museums? This is a ticklish question. I would vote yes for virtually
all of these. But, we have to watch out for the bureaucratic trick
of shutting down the bathrooms, and only the bathrooms, when any
cut is made to their budgets.
what it is worth, as a Rockwell reader, I agree with you. I hope
both sides lose. They both stink."
2B. Yes, indeed,
both are bad guys. A pox on both their houses.
paribus, other things equal, yes, certainly, let’s all get into
the gridlock column. However, as I stated above, this is a complicated
issue. We wouldn’t want, say, someone to shut down the highways,
the bridges, etc., so that innocent people could no longer get around,
unless, of course, this was a necessary step in the direction of
freedom. On this issue, I think, the Catholic Just War theory has
a lot of wisdom to contribute.
for the article on the public unions and their respective state
governments. As always you are good for a fresh take on things.
It does sort of remind me of America taking sides in WWII. When
Hitler and Stalin are killing each other, why pick sides? Just let
them have at it."
4B. And, if
one were slightly stronger than the other, and there were a button
we could push to strengthen the weaker one so that long may battle
reign to the more complete destruction of both, then, yes, we should
push that button. But not because we favor the weaker of
these two; because we want both to hurt the other. That is
because both are vile.
piece! Tweeted to 2300+. You understand tactics and I fear many
of your detractors do not. As I guy who has been small all his life
I thoroughly understand how great it is when two bullies are fighting
each other! When fighting each other they are leaving me alone,
and with any luck may take one another out. Keep kicking butt and
taking names for Liberty! Yours In Truth and Liberty!"
for your support. I, too, was bullied when I was a kid. I grew up
Jewish in a mainly Catholic neighborhood. I’ll say no more about
that. Maybe, in order to see this point clearly, you have to have
been victimized by bullies? Nah.
too have considered the Wisconsin fight nothing more than a squabble
over plunder, but your article has made me think about it a little
more. If the government wins its employee unions will simply rebuild
when and if another 'boom' phase occurs. If the unions win then
the institution of the state government of Wisconsin could be severely
damaged. This will further expose the farce that voting has become.
The politicians were elected to do something about the cost of government
employees. If they fail more people will have the illusion broken.
As the battle goes on and on it becomes clearer to more people that
it's just a bunch of parasites arguing over the spoils of taxation.
But there is one thing that I didn't see covered. When the institution
of government fails, those it employs will be out of work. The government
employee unions may lose even if they win."
6B. It is ever
so with parasites. When they kill the host, they, too, die.
just finished reading your column on Lew Rockwell re Wisconsin vs.
Public Labor Unions. I am only an observer, living up in Ontario,
Canada, but you have swayed me from being in favor of the state
action to having a neutral position on the affair. If the state
gets its way, what’s in it for the common man (taxpayer)? Just because
the government finds a way to squeeze the public unions does that
mean they will return tax dollars back to taxpayers? Will they repeal
laws in order to increase individual freedom? Or will they
start spending tax funds wisely? I think not. The state will continue
to abuse the common man any way it can (as always). The problem
with supporting the Wisconsin government in this kerfuffle is that
it is only looking to exempt itself from the consequences of the
plethora of rules and regulations that private individuals will
still be bound to, regarding labor unions. After all, governments
created the problem in the first place by creating laws that put
union interests ahead of individual (private) interests. The state
has now reaped some of the unintended consequences of their legislation
and wants to change the rules, but only to benefit the state."
7B. I fully
share your suspicions about the government acting in a freedom-oriented
refreshing to see someone so committed to honesty you don't hesitate
to air your dirty laundry so to speak (criticisms). No one else
seemed to address this aspect, so I thought I'd give it a shot and
I sincerely hope you don't feel I'm piling on. Here's where I differ
from your position: I'm not so sure the unions are the underdog
and Scott Walker is the one in control. 99/100 out of times, these
politicians kowtow to the unions, knowing that if they don't the
unions (and the media) will launch such an ugly offensive against
them that they will be lucky not to be considered child molesters
when all is said and done. Most Democrats get elected due to union
support, both with donations and votes. This is one of those rare
moments when a politician is opposing the unions, even though this
stand will undoubtedly hurt him. I personally think we should be
cheering this Scott Walker guy. He's a dead man walking, but it
seems like a courageous David vs. Goliath stand to me, something
a Ron or Rand would do if in a similar position."
you are right: the unions are actually stronger than the government
of the state of Wisconsin. This is an empirical question, not one
of principle, my main concern. However, I still persist in my possibly
erroneous viewpoint. If Scott Walker called out the Wisconsin state
police, it is my expectation that they would obey him, and arrest
the union leaders. I seriously doubt he would order them to shoot
into the protesters crowd, and, that if he somehow did, they would
obey him. So, in that very limited sense, the unions are stronger
than the government. But, nevertheless, in any likely physical confrontation
between the police and the unionist crowds, my bet is that the former
since both government and unions rely on force to get their way,
I don't see one as being any less evil than the other—except unions
rely on the guns of government, instead of having their own guns,
to force employers to deal with them."
there are gradations of guilt in the use of force. Mass murderers
such as Stalin, Hitler, Truman (this last is not a typo)
are certainly more guilty than a rapist, or someone who engages
in assault and battery, yet both "rely on force to get
their way." Of course, neither the government nor the unions
of Wisconsin have engaged in murder. But, still, I think the former
is guilty of a greater reliance on the use of initiatory
violence. The latter does not tax as many people (compulsory union
dues are a type of tax); it does not put people in jail for violating
drug laws; it does not contribute soldiers from its National Guard
who commit war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
admire your writing, agree with pretty much everything you say,
absolutely loved Defending
the Undefendable and Privatization
of Roads and Highways, and think you have one of the sharpest
minds in the anti-state movement. Yet your take on the Wisconsin
situation leaves me uncertain. I have two concerns, related to each
other, that still linger after reading your articles.
isn't the state (though still entirely illegitimate) advocating,
in this particular case, a reduction of its own size, through
a decreased budget and decreased leverage for one of its parasites?
If a gang decides to stop raping people (to only continue to kill,
steal, and cripple), and one of its underbosses rises up in protest
so as to change the mob policy back to including rape, would we
really root for the smaller mob? More pertinently, what if Ron Paul
became President and 434 Rand Pauls filled the rest of Congress,
and they passed a budget that cut off funding to the military-industrial
complex. Now Halliburton and their friends protest outside of Paul's
office, demanding more taxpayer’s money. Do we support Halliburton
because they are the "underdog," (and the state is still illegitimate)?
I think your argument also rests on the premise that a battle between
two illegitimate powers will weaken each, and I am hesitant to agree.
If the unions, who we are supposed to root for, ‘win,’ then they
will receive more money and power. The state will grow as a result
(doesn't an increased budget pretty much epitomize the sort of state
growth that we ought to oppose?). War, an ultimate example of conflict
between illegitimate organizations, does not weaken the state; it
is the health of the state. I would expect a more powerful state
to emerge from this conflict, especially if the unions ‘win.’"
for your kind compliments. You offer serious challenges to my thesis,
and it is pleasure and an honor to try to defend my views against
them. Yes, you are quite right. In this particular case,
the state of Wisconsin is on the side of the libertarian angels.
But, let us stipulate that it is much worse, overall, than the unions
against which it contends. Suppose that the Blood and the Crips
are two illegitimate organizations, in that they violate the NAP,
but that the former are 10 times bigger than the latter, and 100
times as bad in terms of the severity of their rights violations.
However, in this one particular altercation between them, the Blood
is relatively in the right, and the Crips are on the wrong side
of the issue. I don’t see why we can’t look at the macro aspects
of the situation, instead of looking at the micro ones, as you are
inclined to do (I think it best to keep in mind all aspects, though).
I think you are looking at one tree, and I am looking at the forest,
and I think that at least in this case we get a better and more
accurate assessment of the situation from my vantage point than
from yours. I simply love your scenario about all those Rand
Pauls running around (It is not so outlandish; Ron has been very
productive not only in politics, and it is my understanding that
others of his libertarian oriented children, and possibly grandchildren,
will soon be seeking elective office; dynasty, here we come.) However,
I cannot see my way clear to interpreting Walker as a Paulian, even
though, as you correctly say, in this one particular instance he
may well be the a relative good guy. Thus, I think your analogy
As to your
second argument, I really don’t want the unions to "win."
I tried to make that clear in my initial publication in this vein,
but evidently I failed. I only want organized labor in Wisconsin
to be stronger, so that it can be a better gummer-upper of the state
apparatus. I have a long paper trail on this. My anti-union credentials,
if I say so myself, are impeccable. I devote almost 100 pages of
to bashing unions. I stand second to none in my hatred of organized
I'm a social sciences education major at the University of Milwaukee,
not exactly a friendly place for a young libertarian. I greatly
respect your work and I think I'm starting to get my head around
your recent controversial article about supporting the public employee
unions. As far as gridlock goes, I'm all for it. But what about
actual liberty increasing actions the State congress and Scott Walker
intend to do? I didn't vote in the recent elections but I was aware
that both possible Republican candidates for governor planned on
passing concealed carry laws (possibly "constitutional carry"?).
Isn't this gridlock detrimental to gun rights or do we have to make
some sacrifice in the bigger scheme in the sense of 'can't have
4B. If Ron
Paul were governor of Wisconsin, I confess, I would have an entirely
different take on this situation. Then, as you imply, we libertarians
should all line up on the side of the state. I know that
Murray is up there, somewhere. I hope and trust his eyesight is
still good, and he doesn’t interpret this last phrase of mine, "we
libertarians should all line up on the side of the state,"
too critically. Somehow, I feel he’ll know exactly where I’m coming
from, and that I haven’t completely lost my mind, or, horrors!,
sold out. Speaking of Murray, he was often condemned, for shame,
even by some libertarians, for the alliances he made. Sometimes
he did so on the side of the left (Progressive Labor, no less),
sometimes on the side of the right (Randians, National Review).
Who knows, he might have erred on occasion for all I know. But,
cooperating with, or rooting for, people who are not 100% libertarians
is always a difficult empirical undertaking. This is not a matter
of principle, or praxeology. Yes, if Governor Walker is also a supporter
of Second Amendment rights, plus a hater of unions, he goes up another
notch or two or three in the libertarian lexicon. But, he is still
no Ron Paul. Nor, even, a Rand Paul, in my admittedly imperfect
assessment of these sorts of things.
been reading the articles in LewRockwell.com
by you, Lew Rockwell and Robert Wenzel on the fight in Wisconsin,
and I have to say I just don't get your argument. I really don't.
Of course, both unions and governments are detestable, and it would
be great if they both weaken each other in a long drawn out battle.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen, and in the
end, one or other is going to win. So which is it? Do you secretly
want the unions to win, or do you want them to lose? I hope they
seems to be that whatever the outcome of this fight, there'll always
be the same amount of looting, so any booty that doesn't go to the
union will go to the governor, and his favored group, instead. Since
the government is bigger, meaner, more evil, and the union is a
thorn in its side, why not root for the union? But I don't see it
that way. If the union were a ‘private’ union, outside the government
itself, I think that argument might hold water. But it's not. It's
part of the government. Therefore, it's one faction of the
government against another. And I think the governor is a reformer,
kind of in the mold of Ron Paul. Well, not nearly as good as Ron
Paul, but at least more like him than many politicians. Of course
I don't naturally sympathize with either Republicans or Democrats,
I dislike them all, through and through, but it seems to me this
governor is at least trying to reduce the overall amount
of looting. Isn't that better than not?
suggests we should support the unions because they'll be troublesome
employees, they'll "gum up the works," as he puts it.
Well, that's certainly true for the private sector, where a company
can be forced out of business when it has a problematic union on
its hands, but not so for the government. To the contrary the government
never goes out of business, it just taxes more. Therefore, troublesome
government employees, particularly those that get their own way,
simply mean more trouble for the honest hard working citizen.
though, this isn't a battle where the union and the government of
Wisconsin both weaken each other. In a dragged out, knockout fight
to the death, if the union wins, the administration isn't going
to go away. No, all that's going to go away is the head of that
institution, the governor. In reality then, it's a fight between
a union and one man. It's not small bad union against big bad government.
Its big bad government union against small bad governor.
And if the union wins, and they get their own guy in there one
who'll increase the mugging and looting so as to give them whatever
they want doesn't that make the government as opposed to the
governor stronger, bigger and more villainous? On the other hand,
if the governor wins, at least you get rid of the union. That by
itself is a good thing, but doesn't that actually weaken the government
in the long run? So this is the way I see it. If the union wins
it means a stronger government union, and bigger government. If
the governor wins, the government union ceases to exist, and you
get weaker government. Yes, a pox on both their houses, but if I
have to root for one over the other, I go for the latter, at least
in this particular fight.
the analogy of a Mafia gang: The governor, of course, is the mob
boss. But he's a slightly better mob boss, one who's saying perhaps
we shouldn't shake down the neighborhood quite as much as we've
been doing. And now all the wise guys that's the union are
raising a stink. Not only would they like to see more thuggery and
more stealing, they'd also very much like to whack the guy and install
a mob boss who's more to their liking, one who'll run a better racket,
at least from their point of view. Of course, we, the citizenry,
all want to see all the mobsters weakened, so if the fight lasts
a good long time, that's all to the good. But in the end, the Mafia
isn't going to disappear sorry but it's not so you might as
well root for the don rather than his wise guys.
(I) secretly want the unions to win, or do (I) want them to lose?
I, too, hope the unions lose, but I also hope the government does
too. "(T)here'll always be the same amount of looting."
That is a recipe for doing absolutely nothing. What is the evidence
for this claim? I think it is demonstrably false. If by looting
you mean government taxation and/or expenditure, then it has been
rising. Well, what goes up can (possibly) come down. There
is nothing inevitable in human action. Moreover, these unions are
not at all "part of the government." Rather, they
are a parasite on the state, gumming it up, making it less efficient.
And, even if it were "one faction of the government against
another," as you say, we could still root for one or the other.
For example, most libertarians are decentralists: they favor the
lower levels of government against the higher ones. In this instance
the Wisconsin governor is on the side of the angels in that he opposes
unions. But he is far from a Ron Paul libertarian on many other
issues. His publicity
page lists these "accomplishments" as county executive:
County Parks won the prestigious 2009 National Gold Medal for
Excellence in the Park and Recreation Management Program
the waiting list for long-term care for older adults through the
Family Care program.
County's Mitchell International Airport received the Transportation
Safety Administration's Partnership Award.
over $199 million in renovations and improvements to General Mitchell
But, why didn’t
he privatize the Parks? Eliminate not the waiting list, but the
Family Care program? Privatize the airport? Ok, ok, maybe he had
no power to do any of this. But why now brag about these
is "at least trying to reduce the overall amount of
looting." That is good, of course. But he is in charge of a
very big criminal organization, compared to the union, in
my view. I agree, probably, at least in our lifetimes, "the
Mafia isn't going to disappear," but as libertarians our job
is to maximize this probability. In my judgment, the best way to
do this is to weaken the strongest part of this gang, and that is
the government, not the union.
is a foregone conclusion we MUST balance our state budget. The money
has to come from somewhere. We can't print fiat fractional reserve
notes forever. If the ‘civil servants’ are not required to
kick in, then the tax payers must make up the difference. That means
increased taxes, at least for those who pay. Not considering the
value of many government actions, any reduction in the number of
workers, and or their level of compensation should be a positive
development for a freedom minded libertarian. Walker is no
libertarian. But he is closer to my beliefs and I have to realistically
consider this is a battle that has to be fought inch by inch. He
is headed in the correct direction."
6B. Yes, certainly,
in his opposition to those public sector unions, the Wisconsin governor
is moving down the right path in trying to weaken them. But, they,
for their part are equally if not more so doing the Lord’s
work in effectively gumming up an illicit institution. Why is it
that my libertarian critics see the first point so clearly, and
balk at the second one, which is also true?
read your article with great interest but concluded that a significant
argument was overlooked... Not all tapeworms are equal. Some are
much harder to dislodge! Both government and unions have monopolistic
power, however, with elections, an informed and active electorate
has the ability to ‘throw the bums out.’ But public sector unions
are much more entrenched because they have gamed the system and
conspired with the politicians to make up the rules. Union rules
that coerce and confiscate dues from wages and require membership
for gainful employment are how the tapeworm gets securely attached
and becomes difficult to remove. Right to work states combat this
via legislation which requires action by those elected to office.
So removing the union tapeworm is a two-step process while removing
the government tapeworm only requires one step. My Grandpa told
me that when he was a boy he had a pot belly and skinny arms. An
old timer told him, ‘Boy, you got tapeworms.’ Then he gave him some
chewing tobacco and told him to swallow just a little. My Grandpa
said it made him sick as a dog but it did the job. As libertarians
we need to hand out some chewing tobacco to rid our country of these
tapeworms to minimize government and maximize individual freedom.
7B. Your Grand
dad was a wise man. We do indeed need to get rid of (coercive) union
tapeworms. But, if we want to attain liberty, we must also decrease
the power of the government, right down to zero, ideally. Just because
something can be done in "one step" does not necessarily
mean that it is easier to do than something that takes two steps.
Direct exchange takes only "one step." But, due to the
double coincidence of wants obstacle studied by economists, the
two-step process of indirect exchange is actually far more efficient.
found your article very interesting, but I believe many are missing
the key point of this battle. In my opinion the Governor
is correct in pushing to limit the unions’ collective bargaining
capability to ‘salary only.’ It is the ‘other benefits’ that are
killing the ability to balance the budget this year and in future
years. Citizens need to pay for the government services as they
use them. This is best done through salary. Negotiate the salary
and pay for it out of the current budget. Do not negotiate
a ‘lesser’ salary and ‘sweeten the pot’ with promises that future
budgets must bear the burden (for example medical costs or pensions).
In my opinion, that is what Gov. Walker is trying to accomplish. If
the citizens of Wisconsin want more teachers or to increase
the standard of living of the current teachers, they must accept
a tax increase or reduce other budgetary items. Do not ‘kick
the can’ to future budgets for today's services."
8B. In the
private market, it would be a matter of indifference to pay workers
in the form of salary now, or deferred pensions, later. In the political
sphere, you are quite correct; politicians sweep generous payouts
under the rug in the form of spending that comes later, when a new
administration must deal with them. But you and I draw different
lessons from these facts. You, pay more now and less later. Me,
end this entire vicious system root and brand, as soon as possible.
Well, not that quickly. Keep it in power for a while, if it is undermining
even more problematic actions of government. If not, then of course
draw it to a close, and now.
read your article on Public Sector unions and was actually dismayed.
Under libertarian law, one has the right of free association and
also to refuse to sell one’s labor. I reject union’s violence
against ‘scabs’ and their use of government to empower themselves
at the expense of their competitors. If we had a situation where
there was neither pro-union nor anti-union legislation, and a union
was successfully able to negotiate a closed shop contract, while
I would feel that they are being ultimately self destructive I would
also have no grounds to object as a third party to their mutually
agreed upon contract. People have a right to hurt themselves.
That is part of the libertarian support of drug relegalization.
It also applies when they make stupid economic decisions."
9B. I am dismayed
at your dismay, since I agree with every word you write.
articles on the public employee unions have been engaging.
Thank you for weighing in on the subject. Personally, I come at
this from a slightly different perspective. I think it should be
made as difficult, annoying, enraging, and insufferable as it can
be to be a public employee. If that means banning bureaucrats
from joining unions, so be it. If it means closing all employee
bathrooms on public property, fine. If it means they are to
be required to hang upside down from a tree branch while they do
their job, perfect. Perhaps then the rapacious and unproductive
thief sector will finally decide that government work just ain't
worth it. Government employee unions should be broken and broken
permanently, and with extreme prejudice. I wish all those Tea Party
people would get on the stick and start protesting the government
thug rallies in Wisconsin and elsewhere. These ‘protests’
are pure, unmitigated, evil covetousness on display and these people
should be fired with no chance of ever getting on the public-sector
gravy train ever again."
10B. I’m all
with you when it comes to dealing harshly with snakes. But, not
when they are biting really bad animals, those of even more danger
to decent people.
letter was not addressed to me, but I was copied on it) "I
like the analogy of two thugs in the park, but the problem is both
Scott and the unions usually fight together to loot the most money
they can from the victim us. 99.9% of the time, the Scotts of the
world (Obama) are more than happy to team up with the unions and
extract more money. The unions, in turn, give donations back to
the government creeps usually. However, in this
case, Scott has decided that instead of mugging you, taking lots
of money from you and splitting it 50/50, he wants to reduce the
amount they loot from you. Scott is similar to a Ron Paul or a Rand
Paul someone who miraculously got into government and is trying
to right some wrongs.
Scott is not the stronger of the two. His position is much more
precarious than the unions. The unions have their jobs guaranteed,
and currently they have their unions protected by the government.
Meanwhile, poor little Scott can be slandered, demonized and booted
out at the next election. Scott is David and the unions are Goliath.
In fact, the union monster is more like an army against one man,
which includes the media, union members, and leftists in general
all over the state. I think the breakdown is roughly 33% for and
66% against from the polls the media has been feeding us.
is an interesting exercise by Walter Block, and I'm curious to see
how this debate will resolve itself in libertarian circles, but
I'm far from convinced we should be giving support to the unions.
I haven't seen any truly good arguments to convince me that we as
libertarians would benefit more by supporting the unions. When all
is said and done, I think Scott is taking us more in the direction
little Scott" can call out the police. He has already attempted
to arrest the recalcitrant Democratic state senators. The union
does not have anything like that power. Has the "libertarian"
Governor of Wisconsin come out against foreign imperialism? Against
the Fed? Against the drug laws? I find no evidence of any of this.
Thus, I don’t see him as similar to Congressman Ron Paul, the next
president of these here United States (sorry, I just couldn’t resist
saying that). Yes, Scott can be voted out at the next election,
but the unionists can be jailed right now. Again, I’m only "pro
union" in the sense that I welcome their gumming up an even
more powerful and evil institution.
just got through listening to your "Defending the Undefendable."
What a great book. Your discussion about the WI labor unions as
being the lesser of two evils reminded me of your argument for the
counterfeiters as heroes, since they are merely counterfeiting already
counterfeited money. The labor unions are merely stealing back money
that was stolen for themselves. Maybe it would be better to root
for them. (:-) I was hoping the government would win in this case,
however. I would like to see public labor unions smashed as a step
in the right direction of landing fewer people in the public trough.
But I must admit, you have really given me pause. Thanks for your
contributions to Austrian Economics in general. I'm a recent convert
and am listening and reading everything I can get my hands on. I
hope this beats out mainstream economics some day soon. It deserves
for your kind remarks. I am not rooting for unions per se. Perish
the thought. I only favor them in their role of undermining an even
more dangerous institution.
Let me take
one last swipe at this. Suppose the Governor Walker announced that
he was cutting welfare payments by 50%. Would I support him on this?
Yes. But, posit that as a result of his welfare reduction announcement,
masses of welfare recipients picketed the state house, had sit ins
at the various bureaus, made it all but impossible for the bureaucrats
to do their job of ruining the economy. Would I support the outraged
welfare recipients? You’re darn tootin’ I would. Would I root for
them? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Does this mean I favor the
welfare system? Of course not.
In my view,
the quality of the responses, both those that support my analysis
and especially, in some cases, those that oppose it, are of very
high quality. If this is indicative of the talent of the people
who tune in to LewRockwell.com, we as an Austro-libertarian movement
are in very good shape indeed.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior
fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending
the Undefendable and Labor
Economics From A Free Market Perspective. His latest book
Privatization of Roads and Highways.
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Walter Block