I think the real obstacle to a libertarian-left alliance is the labor movement. In the UK that movement has its own party. Here, the Democrats are the nominal representatives of labor. I think for libertarians this will be a major hurdle. I see a Cameron-like Republican party emerging before I see a real reformation of public worker unions.
As I explained in the comments to Erik’s post, I think he’s largely missing what I’m trying to get at with my support for liberaltarianism, which I view as less about electoral coalition building than it is about “asking the question of where libertarianism has gone wrong, reevaluating what libertarianism’s priorities ought to be, what battles are worth fighting, and how those battles ought to be fought.” Indeed, my ideal is not that libertarians be affiliated with the Left or the Right for electoral purposes but rather that libertarians be perennial swing voters generally affiliated with neither side even as we may work on single issues with either side where we find ourselves in agreement.
However, I want to discuss the above quote in a bit more detail, because I’m not sure it holds up to scrutiny, even though it may seem facially self-evident.
To the extent libertarianism is a political philosophy that is primarily concerned with anti-Marxism and “hippy-punching,” rather than being primarily concerned with limited government, I can’t dispute that Erik is absolutely right. Indeed, if that is libertarianism’s primary concern, then it could never cooperate with labor on any issue, almost by definition. But if that is libertarianism’s primary concern, then it is a philosophy with which I want nothing to do: anti-Marxism and limited government are two very different things.
But if libertarianism is actually about limited government and the maximization of individual liberty, then there is little reason that unions should be viewed as inherently so anathema to libertarianism that their mere presence in a coalition is an automatic dealbreaker.
We have to distinguish here between public sector and private sector unions, although I recognize that Erik was emphasizing the influence of public sector unions.
This distinction is particularly important because, when I have spoken with a run of the mill liberal about labor unions, the primary concern is just about always with the decline of the private sector unions; the public sector unions are, for the most part, an afterthought. And, as I have documented before, there are no shortage of government interventions and distortions that have harmed American private sector unions over the years, the repeal of which libertarians ought to be willing to get behind. For instance:
[T]here is a false assumption that labor unions exist virtually entirely because of government intervention and that they are therefore inherently coercive. This assumption does not, however, line up with the facts, which show private sector labor union membership at its lowest level since 1900, and at half of its level from 1935, when the first major pro-union legislation (the NLRA) was passed (and before the massive economic interventionism of FDR). Yes, private sector union membership was at almost 40% by the time Congress realized that the NLRA was too restrictive and passed the Taft-Hartley Act. But the Taft-Hartley Act was itself a government intervention, and the resulting decline in private sector union membership to 1900 levels strongly suggests that Taft Hartley is even more restrictive of unions than a complete absence of federal labor laws.
So there is nothing inherently anti-limited government about private-sector unionism. Lest we forget, unions are ultimately voluntary associations who rely upon the negotiation of private, voluntary contracts with employers. Yes, in practice, there is government-mandated binding arbitration, the NLRB, etc. But favorable regulations, subsidies, and laws haven’t prevented libertarians from collaborating with other private organizations on other issues, and certainly not from finding ourselves under the same political tent. Indeed, are there any private organizations more anathema to libertarianism than the defense industry? Yet the influence of the defense industry over the GOP and the Right more generally has hardly been a stumbling block over the years for libertarians in closing working within a conservative infrastructure.
As for the specific influence of the public sector unions over the Left as a whole, I would argue that influence is greatly exagerrated. For starters, on the state and local level, the public safety unions tend to be almost as likely to align with Republicans as with Democrats, and there are more than a few issues where even on the national level the public safety unions are likely to find the Republicans as or more willing to listen to them as the Democrats. Indeed, it is not unusual to find movement liberals/progressives on the diametrically opposite side of an issue as the police or prison guards’ unions – and specifically on issues where the movement liberals/progressives are firmly on the side of limited government.
Yes, there are still the teachers’ unions and AFSCME. They are certainly problematic to the extent they continue – with the support of many liberals – to push for the expansion of their sectors of government in addition to their more standard pushes for higher wages and pension plans, etc. Indeed, I have a hard time thinking of a single issue of concern to them where they are either diametrically opposed to movement liberals or would take the libertarian side of an issue.
But these are two interest groups with plenty of individual members, each of whom likely has concerns that go far beyond the issues of interest to their unions. There’s no real reason that those two groups should be an absolute bar to a left-libertarian coalition any more than the influence of the defense industry and the Christian Coalition ought to be an absolute bar to a right-libertarian coalition. There is even less reason that AFSCME and the teachers’ unions ought to be a bar to libertarians becoming political free agents, capable of closely coordinating with either the Left or Right on specific isses.
“Indeed, it is not unusual to find movement liberals/progressives on the diametrically opposite side of an issue as the police or prison guards’ unions – and specifically on issues where the movement liberals/progressives are firmly on the side of limited government.”
This.
The U.S. now has a prison-industrial complex that is beginning to approach the power of the military-industrial complex. Both institutions are pernicious threats to freedom and destructive of liberty.
The California Democratic Party is contemptibly in thrall to the prison guards’ union. To wit, the party leadership declined to endorse an initiative legalizing marijuana, despite vocal support from virtually the entire liberal community.Report
Regarding prison unions, the problem for the liberaltarian coalition is not what movement liberals/progressives want. There is a lot of common ground there. The problem is that the road to election for Democrats (the more liberal of the two electable parties) goes through said unions (and often involves distancing themselves from anything that appears to be soft on crime).
The same applies the other way around, too. A whole lot of movement conservatives would really, really prefer a more libertarian economic policy. The problem is that they politically can’t do it due to other segments of the population they need to win and to govern.Report
@Trumwill, this is exactly what I’m trying – so far unsuccessfully – to say. It’s not about what liberal wonks or progressive idealists want – it’s about the electability of Democrats who rely heavily on union support. That – in a nutshell.Report
@E.D. Kain, But the point is that the same applies in the other direction. There’s no reason that unions should prove a bigger hurdle on the Left than any number of core constituencies on the Right.Report
@Mark Thompson, I think both bars are insurmountable and I’m not sure how much it matters as to which is more impossible. It kind of falls into the category of 2×0 and 4×0 both equal 0.Report
Not to be too nihilistic. I left the libertarian fold a long time ago, but I do wish that they had more pull than they do (particularly on criminal justice issues). I just think that the effort needs to be expended to gain more popular support so that they’re harder to ignore. Then they get drafted into whomever needs them more and is willing to risk alienating their opposing group. Or they become a relevant swing bloc.Report
@Trumwill, It seems to me the chances that a group whose ideology demands this level of rigor just to determine what it (rightly) thinks has no chance of ever being a remotely relevant, or indeed even cohesive, political bloc. People vote their interests. Lots of people describe themselves as “libertarian” on certain questions, but by no means will a significant number ever invest this level of intellectual energy trying to figure out the intellectually thorough way to cast their vote as a committed libertarian. Some will, but most even of those who call themselves libertarians will figure out where their interests lie, call that libertarian if they feel they need to, and vote accordingly. At least that’s my experience.Report
Good lord, I get sick and am out of it for a few days and all hell breaks loose here.
I’m delighted, though, to see that hippie punching has entered the league’s lexicon.Report
@North,
I like to punch hippies.Report
@Dave, You just like to punch, period.Report
“Lest we forget, unions are ultimately voluntary associations….”
But only in a right-to-work state. And of course, in the political fights determining whether a state is right-to-work, the unions fight as hard as they can for a closed shop.
Therefore, to whatever extent unions are voluntary association, occurs against the will of the unions.Report
Even in a state without “right to work,” there is no one forcing you to work for an employer with a union contract. Or are you now a subscriber to the “leftist” narrative about “wage slaves”?
Do private organizations have the right to enter into exclusive contracts with other private organizations? How is a closed-shop agreement materially any different from, say, an agreement with a temp agency that you will rely solely on that temp agency for your labor force, with the temp agency providing that labor force at a particular rate?Report
@Mark Thompson, Because in a non-Right to work state, a closed shop is mandated by law, not corporate policy.Report
@MadRocketScientist, I don’t believe that’s accurate. Taft-Hartley explicitly outlawed closed-shop agreements entirely (my reference above to “closed-shop” should really be to “union shop”), and gave the states the right to prohibit union shop agreements. That prohibition on union shop agreements is considered a “right to work” law.Report
@Mark Thompson, Unless I am somehow misreading the rules around here, I have no option but to join the Union at my company. In a non-Right to Work state, a company may not be unionized, but if that company has a Union, and your job falls under the union, you have no choice but to join if you want the job. In a Right-to-Work state, I can join the union, or not, at any given company.
Both situations are technically “voluntary”, but only one is truly voluntary.Report
@MadRocketScientist,
How is that different from any other company policy that requires you to comply with it for a job, like a uniform (which can be a big deal at minimum wage, where your uniform may cost several days’ pay)?Report
@JosephFM,
A uniform requirement is a whole lot different. A uniform does not limit your ability to negotiate with your employer for pay or benefits, a uniform does not negotiate on your behalf (whether you want it to or not), a uniform does not require a monthly payment, a uniform does spend your dues on political actions you may or may not agree with, and, most importantly, a uniform does not require you to walk out on your job and recieve a mere pittance in pay just because the uniform says so (even if you think the uniform is being a colossal dumbass about minor issues).Report
Yikes.
“Even in a state without “right to work,” there is no one forcing you to work for an employer with a union contract.”
Except that the unions would organize that employer if they could.
“Do private organizations have the right to enter into exclusive contracts with other private organizations?”
They should, but that’s not at all the relationship between a unions and management in America. Unions are recognized by the government, not the employers. And when recognition is granted by the government, all work related negotiation must go through the union at the expense of the employees directly.
The larger point is still pretty clear for me. Whatever extent unions are voluntary association, occurs against the will of the unions. Do you disagree?Report
@Koz, corporations are recognized by the government too.Report
No they’re not. At least they weren’t recognized in the same way until the Obama health care bill passed. I’m sure you’d know it (and probably not be very happy) if the Reagan Administration said you have to buy TVs from GE.Report
@Koz, they’re not? Really?
Then what’s all this stuff about corporations registering with the government, and then having the same rights as you or I, even though they’re not human beings but giant piles of cash?
Corporate personhood is one of the most pervasive, powerful and wrongheaded legal doctrines since “separate but equal.”Report
Ok, but that’s a separate issue. Government plainly does not recognize corporations in the same way it recognizes unions. The voluntariness of associations with corporations really is voluntary whereas with unions it’s not.Report
@Koz, One can choose to work for a company with a union or one can choose to work for a company without a union. That’s pretty voluntary to me.
That a union might like to organize that latter company is pretty irrelevant, or at least not much more relevant than the fact that a competitor company might like to attempt a takeover of the employee’s company.Report
It’s relevant just to the extent I mentioned before, no more and no less. Whatever extent unions are voluntary association, occurs against the will of the unions.
To be fair, voluntariness is not the only thing in the world and for the moment private sector unions are not that big a deal. Either they function more or less as value-adding guilds or they bankrupt the host corporation out of business.Report
@Koz,
Corporations would not exist without governments to grant them limited liability. They are, as any anarchist will tell you, “creatures of the state”.Report
Well yes, but like I wrote before that’s a separate issue to the voluntariness thing.Report
@Koz, “Well yes, but like I wrote before that’s a separate issue to the voluntariness thing.”
Tell that to the creditors and others harmed by limited liability.Report
@Koz, or are only the rich and powerful worthy of government recognition?Report