ArturoBandini wrote:Yep. It's a pretty obvious conclusion from the absolute basic principles of libertarian thought.
OK, now let's take that idea and run with it.
RTW laws, on their own, are clearly not in alignment with libertarian principles. (They involve government dictating the terms of private contracts!)
But many libertarians apparently feel that they're a "necessary evil", needed to counteract various other legal and extra-legal factors that distort labor-capital relationships in the opposite direction.
In other words, the existence of one set of non-libertarian rules that benefits the working class justifies enacting another set of non-libertarian rules to benefit the ruling class.
Is that a fair representation? Are you with me so far?
Now, just out of curiosity ... are there cases where you'd use that same principle in the opposite direction? That is, are there any cases where you support "non-libertarian" rules to benefit the working class as a counterbalance to the existence of other legal and extra-legal circumstances that benefit the ruling class?
This isn't intended as a trick question. Maybe there are no cases where the rich use legal and extra-legal tricks to prey on the poor. If no such cases exist, then I could hardly expect you to identify and seek to mitigate them.
I do find this rather interesting. Personally, I think that politics is full of gray areas, places where it's necessary to make messy compromises. But in my experience, libertarians tend to be rather uncomfortable going down that road. It seems to me that if you start out by saying "I reluctantly support allowing the government to force employers to eschew certain types of agreements in their employment contracts, because doing so would weaken unions and I don't like the way unions have amassed their powers"
... well, you could end up justifying all kinds of stuff using that sort of reasoning.