Tuesday, March 1, 2011

In Defense of Walter Block's Call of Support for Wisconsin Union Thugs

It would probably be just as correct to title this post Block Made Easier, as I am not attempting a new defense of Professor Block's call for support of union thugs, but simply making an attempt to put the Professor's argument in a form that might be more easily understandable.

Suppose you are walking at night in Boston's beautiful Boston Common. It's late, and this being a public park, there is no protection in the park. As you walk down the park, you see two local thugs Scott and Union. Now Union is smaller than Scott, so he fights a little different than Scott but they are both thugs. Scott  being bigger, meaner and tougher, he usually controls the mugging. You really wouldn't want to run into either one of these guys alone, but together, you are in double bad luck.

As they head towards you, Scott bursts out to Union, hey I'm sick of this 50/50 split. I want 80% because I am bigger and stronger, you can still loot but I am only going to give you 20%. Suddenly, they stop heading towards you. A fight breaks out between them. Do you root for Scott to beat Union instantly to a pulp? Of course not.

Once Scott gets done with Union, his next stop will be you. Since they are both thugs, you keep hoping that they keep slamming at each other. You kinda root for Union to get in a good couple of slams against Scott to keep the fight going. The last thing you want is for either to win because then you are next.

It makes no sense to hope that Scott beats Union because Union is a bad guy. I repeat, once they are through fighting, because of a truce or because just one is left standing, you are next on their radar.

Getting to the real world muggers in Wisconsin, Scott Walker and the government unions, Professor Block's great insight is that the union is the weaker fighter. Though they are instigators, unions  have no power to tax, to set drinking laws, speed limits, permits, fees, launch grandiose projects  etc. As Governor, Scott Walker has that power.  You really want these two to keep on battling so that they don't have time to go after the innocent residents of  Wisconsin. You want Scott Walker taking calls from real and fake Kochs, and spending the entire time discussing nothing but his battle with the unions.

In other words, if you are a resident of Wisconsin, or simply an advocate of liberty living anywhere on this planet, and absolutely hate the teachers union (as you should), you still want them to fight on and strike some blows against the more powerful Scott Walker. Let the union preoccupy Walker so that he can't come after peaceful, innocent residents of Wisconsin.

As Professor Block says, a pox on both their houses. And until that pox comes, a good long battle between the two will have to suffice.

29 comments:

  1. I just don't see it that way. Public employee unions, when they are effective, simply use the power of the State to fill their pockets and the pockets of their members. There is no divergence of interest between them and the State. The State is indifferent to their generous wages and benefits because the State is spending Other People's Money. The State doesn;t care if private schools could educate the children for 40% less, it cares that teachers support the establishment, vote for it etc. Its currency is something different.

    Occasionaly a gov is elected to cut back the state. Christie in NJ and Whitman before him, elected on a platform to cull the State. Then the unions get mauled also because they are beneficiaries of the State.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not only are Scott and Union both thugs but Union's ability to shake people down -- so to speak -- is dependent on Scott having the ability to shake people down. If Scott can no longer hurt you then Union is powerless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said, Munch. The public sector unions and the state are one and the same. They instigate all kinds of things that provide no real benefits to society. Bottom line if you want to dismantle the state than you have to dismantle the public sector unions. For once there is a politician with guts to stand up to them, and some free marketers want the unions to win. Makes no sense. Maybe it's the Koch obsession.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agree wholeheartedly with the above post (munch). This isn't a question of which is the greater evil. Both "evils" exist, and removing one is better than having both.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A good long battle only strengthens the emergent victor that much more. I would prefer a short battle with an un-strengthened status quo to a long battle with an energized victor adopting a bold and even more intrusive agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Wenzel

    I think it's guess work to say that Scott will be a bigger problem after he eliminates Union.

    Your analogy is also incomplete, because in real life Scott depends on Union's votes and supports for his legitimacy.

    In real life, unions defend their leaders' interests more than they do their members'. So, nothing is lost by eliminating them, in my opinion. Other forms of bargaining will arise.

    With the elimination of Union, Scott's own legitimacy is eroded, which is also a good thing.

    Whether those goods are better than any evils that arise out of the elimination of Union, I can't say for sure, without knowing the politics, demographics, and history of the place, as well as the biographies of the main players in the Wisconsin case.

    And you know, I'll bet Walter Block can't either.

    And when you can't tell for sure, non- intervention is the best course of action.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It seems like in Wenzel and Block are implying that a union victory is going to somehow weaken the executive branch in particular or the state government in general.

    Of course, unions have no power to tax, prohibit drinking, etc. So am I to assume that pot will be legal and the income tax will disappear in Wisconsin if the unions win, since the freedom-hating State will have taken a blow?

    No, Scott's losing in this instance is not going to enhance liberty one iota; it will merely continue paying additional confiscated money (directly or indirectly) to the unions.

    I can understand the "pox on both your houses" mentality, but I don't see a compelling case that a union victory weakens the State in any meaningful way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Your analogy is also incomplete, because in real life Scott depends on Union's votes and supports for his legitimacy."

    Scott got elected without union support and his actions since he became governor indicate he does not depend on them at all.

    "In real life, unions defend their leaders' interests more than they do their members'. So, nothing is lost by eliminating them, in my opinion."

    I disagree. It seems that the state government would be weakened while in a power struggle with its offspring (the unions). It's an internal fight.

    "With the elimination of Union, Scott's own legitimacy is eroded, which is also a good thing."

    This doesn't make sense. Scott has no legitimacy to the vast majority of people that want the unions to be victorious in this power struggle. And, after he says he "defeated the evil unions", it seems likely that not only would he be seen as legitimate but he would be elevated to hero status by conservatives and right-conflationist libertarians.

    "And when you can't tell for sure, non- intervention is the best course of action."

    Then you agree with Block and Wenzel since neither has called for "intervention". I don't understand why I keep seeing comments along these lines when both authors keep reiterating that rooting for a drawn-out battle is not the same as taking sides.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Block confuses theory and reality. In theory, both unions and state are bad. In reality, this fight is not about splitting the take of the mugging. It is about stopping the mugging - this time. For those of us interested in seeing something practical accomplished for taxpayers here in Wisconsin, this fight stops a robbery. It is a battle worth fighting. That doesn't mean I'll agree with everything Walker does or may do in the future. I'm sure we will have opportunity to fight Wisconsin government nonsense and depredations in the future. In the mean time, I support getting rid of one mugger while we can.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Anonymous,

    You write:

    "Scott got elected without union support and his actions since he became governor indicate he does not depend on them at all."

    I said I didn't know the specifics of the case.

    "Scott has no legitimacy to the vast majority of people that want the unions to be victorious in this power struggle."

    This was a general proposition. I meant that unions and worker's rights provide a great deal of the moral legitimacy that the state enjoys among ordinary people. They see government as being on the side of the worker. But union workers are a privileged class and once their privileges disappear, the argument could be made, the real antagonism between workers and governments will be evidence (for eg. the inflationary policies pursued by governments at the expense of wage earners). Government fosters an antagonistic relationship between business and worker, IMHO.

    "Then you agree with Block and Wenzel since neither has called for "intervention". I don't understand why I keep seeing comments along these lines when both authors keep reiterating that rooting for a drawn-out battle is not the same as taking side"

    Wenzel's title referred to Block's "call for support" of the unions. Taking sides like that is a kind of "moral" intervention, isn't it?

    Personally, I don't care one way or other.
    Which is why I haven't followed the story or invested one iota of energy in it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. RE: Lila

    Wenzel's title referred to Block's "call for support" of the unions. Taking sides like that is a kind of "moral" intervention, isn't it?

    I guess that's my bad. I have been following this series of posts since Professor Block first started in on the LRC blog and, while I'm usually not one to make assumptions, I guess I assumed other commenters had been following as well.

    RE: Anonymous

    "In theory, both unions and state are bad."

    Assuming you're talking about public unions, of course they're both bad because they're both part of the state. If the state is the mafia, then the unions are the caporegimes (part of the mafia).

    "In reality, this fight is not about splitting the take of the mugging. It is about stopping the mugging - this time. For those of us interested in seeing something practical accomplished for taxpayers here in Wisconsin, this fight stops a robbery."

    Then you don't understand the situation. The battle is over power, not money. Regardless of what happens, nothing "practical will be accomplished" unless Walker has a lot more spending cuts hidden up his sleeve. And, my guess is that if he made the cuts necessary to get something accomplished (at least 10-fold what is being suggested), it wouldn't just be unions taking to the streets. Otherwise they're just fighting over money that doesn't exist.

    "In the mean time, I support getting rid of one mugger while we can."

    No, you want to get rid of one of the beneficiaries of the mugging but whether the unions benefit or not, you will still be mugged in the same manner. The only thing that will weaken the mugger is a protracted, internal battle between the beneficiaries. In this case, there is a bonus because the children of Wisconsin don't have to attend mandatory indoctrination.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "There is no divergence of interest between them and the State. The State is indifferent to their generous wages and benefits because the State is spending Other People's Money."

    Exactly. Block's argument is blockheaded. The State will take what it wants regardless of whether or not a "public employee" (sic) union is around or not. They are both tax feeders.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Lila Rajiva:

    If workers see the government as their antagonist, then there's an opportunity for libertarians. Self-government evolved in the American colonies because the authorities left them no other option. "We must do for ourselves what the government won't do for us."

    I believe this way of thinking, not "the government is out to get us," is the most conducive to liberty. The latter attitude can eaaily turn into "and the government owes us - let's collect on it!"

    Granted this model conjures up a picture of Old Joe out with an asphalt mixer fixing the pothole the government won't, but such are the glimmerings of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Daniel Ryan

    Perhaps I didn't express myself cogently. That was exactly my point.

    It is government that is antagonistic to workers in the long run, not ethical businesses.

    "Supporting" unions as the lesser of two evils may, like a lot of lesser evilism, turn out to be not so lesser after all.

    Beyond that, there are only so many things once can spend energy on. Increasing your own personal liberty is a far better use of your time than wasting energy on Solomonic choices.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree with allowing them to duke it out, but I think it's that poor money-holding taxpayer's position as the potential muggee to throw some rocks from the sidelines to help take them out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is getting embarrassing. It has to be the Koch obsession. I am staying away from here and LRC until this insanity passes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I like your analogy of two thugs in the park, but the problem is both Scott and 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 $500 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.

    Furthermore, 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.

    This 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 of libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Daniel M. Ryan

    --'If workers see the government as their antagonist, then there's an opportunity for libertarians. Self-government evolved in the American colonies because the authorities left them no other option. "We must do for ourselves what the government won't do for us."'

    Then shouldn't we root for Scott Walker to win? Then when the unions can't rely on the government any longer to fight their battles they will see they can do things better themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Lysander

    I tend to agree with your observations of the Koch obsession. One of the brothers ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 for God's sake! Are we really going to find a better billionaire to help support the cause?! This probably has something to do with the nasty blowout Rockwell had with the Libertarian Party after 1988.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Block and Wenzel aren't advocating that the unions win. They are advocating that the unions give it a good long fight and then lose.

    If you're playing Risk with two other opponents, you want the one with 3 armies being attacked by the guy with 15 armies to roll a lot of sixes. That way, in the end, there is only one army on each country. Doesn't matter if they are the same colour or not. They're both weaker.

    -Marty

    ReplyDelete
  21. The entire analogy starts with the false premise that both parties want to mug you for equal amounts. Scott and Union may both be thugs, but Union has been mugging you to a much larger degree than Scott and for a much longer time. While Scott may be in some ways mugging you he is also actually attempting to defend you from continued Union mugging.

    Furthermore, at some point you and the rest of the people who walk through Boston common can band together and disable Scott for good (at the ballot box) so he can never mug you again. On the other hand, if Scott doesn't stop Union from mugging you right now you may never be able to in the future.

    If you are a Wisconsin taxpayer and you're not rooting for Scott to win this battle you are thinking with something other than your financial interests in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The KOCH obsession: everything the Kochs do is unlibertarian, and the things they support are always out of a hidden motive. Lew Rockwell: we at Mises are the high priests of libertarian thought, and anyone who has a different approach is a heretic. Classical liberals are not libertarian, if you believe that GM foods are good for the third world you are a Republican, if you think Alex Jones is an ass you are a sellout, The Chicago School is a front for the banksters, if you don't take our word for it that the Rothschild's have hundreds of trillions of dollars stashed away and pull the strings on all the world's politicians who are merely puppets with no free will YOU are the nut job, etc.,etc.

    Sorry, but I am a BIG TENT libertarian, and while I like a good debate, I believe in respect for everyone in the upper Nolan quadrant until they prove they really, really don't belong-eg Bill Maher.

    ReplyDelete
  23. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. From what I have read, Block and Wenzel don't want the unions to defeat Scott; they want them fight each other indefinitely. In other words, they are cheering for government gridlock not union victory as some have construed here. Let's avoid arguing past each other.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think Dr. Block has fallen for the fallacy of predictable, controllable, political outcomes. He's rooting for one side of the fight because he believes that there is some optimum outcome which can be forseen and supported. If this flawed premise were true, some political faction or other, motivated by high-minded ideals, would have politically herded everyone into the promised land of Utopia long ago.

    Scott and Union are not going to fight it out forever, nor is one going to vanquish the other. They need each other far too much. Rooting for Union merely means that a beaten Scott, dazed and surprised by Union's ferocity, capitulates and says to Union: "All right! All right, that whole 80-20 idea wasn't the best idea! You get your 50 percent! Now, let's get back to work and go roll that rube over there who was rooting for you. We'll tell him we're taking the money to feed your hungry kids."

    ReplyDelete
  25. I too have happened upon this Koch obsession and it is a little strange to me. They fund a lot of groups responsible for educating Americans and getting the message out and there seems to be a desire to purge them out of the libertarian discussion. What impact can anyone expect to have when they think their "truth" is undeniable and even the slightest deviation from it represents an impurity that must be destroyed?

    Walker is giving America a wake up call on the disastrous effects of public unions. Why the rush to dump all over him?

    www.foundinliberty.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  26. @libertree

    Lew routinely publishes people across the spectrum...from liberal-left, with libertarian views on civil liberties but not on economics, to conservative-right, with views that are just the reverse.

    As for conspiracies, I haven't noticed any special attention to the Rothschild business, except from David Kramer, and LRC has mostly run PRO-Wikileaks pieces, thus closing its eyes to what many consider one of the bigger and more sinister conspiracies around.

    As for heresy, I have seen plenty of pieces sympathetic to Rand, to Gatto, to Hess, to Sobran and many other fairly controversial libertarian figures with whom I am sure Lew doesn't completely agree on all things.

    Obviously, Lew has his opinion of the Koch brothers. So does Wenzel. They're surely entitled to them on their own blogs?

    There's a whole big GOP-neocon-conservative tent under which people can sing hosannas to the Kochs until their lungs burst.

    Let Wenzel grouch in peace.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have been a member of the Carpenters Union for 45 years. The Carpenters Union did everything it said it would do for me and many others I know. I have known a lot of union officials and I can say they were honest and good men.
    Every union contractor I worked for was a successful businessman who expected hard work, and wanted to get a job done. They cared about their employees and had no problem with the union. And, I might add, all my employers were multi-millionaires. I don’t know a single carpenter who complained that his employer was successful or rich. The union didn’t set out to bust any of them. There are always, however, the unsatisfied, complainers, whiners, snivelers and blamers.
    Let’s take a look at this union thing and see something that most people aren’t aware of. I can talk about the Carpenters Union because it is something I know about.
    A Carpenters Union negotiates a collective bargaining agreement with many willing contractors. Do they negotiate with each one separately? Not usually. A Carpenters Union usually negotiates with an employer association or a group of employer associations like AGC (Associated General Contractors) or one of the other many associations.
    Now, what is an employer association? It’s a group of industry specific employers who join together for some kind of advantage. Sounds kind of like a union of employers to me. Isn’t that interesting, a union of employers? But why aren’t these employer associations under similar attack, like employee unions. Are employer associations somehow more virtuous than labor associations?
    Every specific industry in the country has an association. There are hundreds of them. Why do our masters get a free pass to unify for their own benefit and privilege and not us, the working middle class?
    What about influence? There are about 66 international unions that make up the AFL – CIO. There are 500 fortune 500 corporations on the S&P. That’s a ratio of more than 8 to 1. Umm. Add the entire New York Stock Exchange and the ratio gets even bigger. Who gets the million dollar salaries and million dollar bonuses? Not labor union guys. Who is kidding who?
    The Labor Department says unions represent about 12% of the working class. That means 88% of workers are non-union. I, personally, don’t know a single union carpenter who ever gave a political donation to any candidate. Not even me. And, according to MSM sources even union members don’t like their unions. And we are expected to believe unions control government and are destroying the economy. Spare me! Also, according to MSM sources, there are 40,000 registered lobbyists in Washington. Wow. Labor unions and people are outnumbered.
    Ever notice, the talking faces on TV, the high priest of Wall Street:
    Wall Street good—people bad;
    Profits good—wages bad;
    Capital good—labor bad;
    Corporation’s good—unions bad. How about that, anything for the good of people is bad.
    Ever wonder if these high priests have it backwards. Maybe instead of their trickle down nonsense of: if it’s good for business it’s good for Americans; if it’s good for business it’s good for country.
    What if, in reality, it is—if it’s good for Americans, it’s good for business; if it’s good for the country, it’s good for business. I think the high priest of Wall Street have it backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon said "If you are a Wisconsin taxpayer and you're not rooting for Scott to win this battle you are thinking with something other than your financial interests in mind. "

    Remember: Scott = Government. They have been pillaging you a lot longer than unions have.

    Rooting for Scott is rooting for the short term. Rooting for the unions is rooting for the long term.

    Neither is right or wrong.

    It's easy for us non-Wisconsonite's to pick the long term.

    Hazlitt would remind us that an individual's time preference is a subjective valuation.

    Peace.

    -Marty

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Carpenters union member

    Any association that is voluntary and not given special privileges by government is fine. For example, this association of builders is fine because all the members decided to join voluntarily and there is nothing there the government needs to do to make it happen. If, however, you form a union and then the big powerful government says you can't fire these people if they strike, and you have to let them on the property, and you have to negotiate with them, etc.. Then that's a problem. It is no longer voluntary.

    ReplyDelete