Seems like a pretty meaningless right to me. It doesn't really matter if an employer recognizes a union or not. What matters is if the employees are willing to fight for it. There's no real reason to give employers a choice.

It doesn't really say anything. If the employer isn't interested in negotiating, the union goes on strike or just quits entirely. Employer can't do anything about it.

Sooooo meaningless. Yeah, it's a complete mystery why a party that is ulltra-right wing when it comes to economics decided to specifically write it or any other plank into their party platform. They're totally not trying to rollback gains that working people already fought for in the past. Alex's solution is that if it's so important, then heck those working people can just fight for it all over again. Working people should be free to repeatedly fight the same battles over and over again. Now that is freedom.

I love this post, because you are spot on about so much but then make one little bitty mistake that blows the whole thing up.

You are 100% correct that it would take an enormous amount of money to defend such repugnant preferences. Where would the money come from? Taxpayers are not a potential source, because you guys either insist on talking about some anarchical scenario where there are no taxpayer, or if there *is* a government in place, they would be restricted from funding this sort of institutionalized discrimination (every libertarian ever would agree that even if individuals are free to discriminate the government itself can never be allowed to). This includes racial discrimination as well as anti-union actions.

So we agree there is a ton of money needed. You assume that this money will come from somewhere, ok, WHERE?

Look at the NBA. It was going to cost them a lot of money to leave sterling in place. There was no taxpayer bailout available, so their next option was __________? Why didn't they just raise "rents" via increased ticket price, merchandising license fees, etc and reduce payouts to employees to make up the shortfall? If we believe your worldview this would have been easy and of course all evil property owners have each others' backs (you know they're all smoking cigars together in the secret property owner illuminati clubhouse, right?).

Why did we see the outcome we did instead of the outcome your worldview would have predicted? Who is underestimating the human spirit?

Btw, didn't someone earlier in this thread (not sure how to search threads on my phone and it will be a few days before I get on a real computer again) get all butthurt when someone asked about the Democratic Party platform and said "but liberal != democrat tho"?? But now we're taking it as gospel that Libertarian Party platform = the final word on any and all libertarians?

Some heavy duty nuance right there, guys.

LOL, you really are dumb or completely ignorant of history, or probably both.

Who do you think has the power in the business/employee relationship? For what classes of jobs do you think that holds true?

LMAO "Free Markets to the Rescue!" I'm sure the markets will be much more like the NBA in the future than Ford or the Pinkerton strike busters of old.

LMAO, No True Libertarian, not even the Libertarian Party Platform is Truly Libertarian...

do you understand like, how Venn diagrams work? Group X is a subset of group Y is not a very complex idea but it goes right over your head.

This is like the "but the bible says the earth is 4000 years old!" response to evolution. In the face of direct evidence that challenges your religion, turtle up, go into denial mode and chant the dogma.

It's especially funny that you play the "no true libertarian" card (incorrectly) then post "no true free market" in consecutive posts, without a trace of irony.

You have 1 data point that is removed from every day workers by literally billions of dollars and you think that is going to be the new rule? An equally likely outcome is the lawsuit against Apple, Google, and other high tech companies who conspired to not poach employees effectively capping the earning power of their best employees. Libertarians (if there are any true ones) have it in their parties platform that there would be no laws against that if they had there way.

So the NBA is a free market now? Funny how, when the free market fails, it suddenly doesn't count as a free market anymore, but when Sterling gets forced out it's solid evidence of the triumph of the human spirit.



Have any of you figured out if you support the Civil Rights Act yet?

Your "no true libertarian" attack fails because the claim isn't that the LP party is unlibertarian, it's that it isn't dogmatically revered as sacred by ALL libertarians. It's pretty nuanced, we can understand why you would have trouble there.

You all are unique snow flakes so we wouldn't dare do that. Most LTers ITT have been following rule #1 Never talk about LTism. However, we are discussing LTism with AlexM and he was kind enough to post the following.

Dude, you were the one who imagined I flash-banging infants. I only stipulated that I indeed do that, so that you could go ahead and make the positive argument: "You flash-bang infants ... therefore LTism is better than the status-quo".

But now you are refusing to even make your own stupid argument. Re: LOL @ all things libertarian-type !!!1!

So, you also refuse to clarify... what connection, if any, do all these statements, slurs, Neo-Gorianism, random linkees, and my heinous hobby have with anything Libertarian-type and/or laughing... for any of the lurkers ITT.

Why not explain your believes to the lurkers... they most certainly don't go around flash-banging infants, so you really can't safely ignore them.

Or is this just another Rule#1 problem for LTers, and you are using my completely unrelated heinous hobby (that you imagined up yourself !!!1!) as your "escape pod" out of the conversation? Re: LOL @ all things libertarian-type !!!1!

I understand how Venn Diagrams work. What pvn is saying here is that LPers are a subset of LTers. Therefore any platform that the LPers write, is not a platform that contradicts LTism.

So... legalized JimCrow, which the LPes want to bring back, doesn't contradict LTism. Which is not to say all LTers want to legalize JimCrow of course, because we know that they are all special snowflakes. But it does say that there is nothing about legalizing JimCrow that contradicts LTism.

Legalizing JimCrow is just another issue that LTers can disagree on... and still be 'good' LTers. Just like slavery... that's an issue that 'good' LTers disagree on too. Re: LOL @ all things libertarian-type !!!1!

AlexM really blew it there. This is exactly the mess you get into when you talk about Libertarianism: first he said most LTers support the Civil Rights Act, then he goes and posts a link that contradicts him.

The First Rule of Libertarianism: Don't talk about Libertarianism! Don't tell anyone what it is, how it will work, or what Libertarians believe!

First rule of trollism: grenade babies!

Dude it doesn't matter what you SAY, we KNOW THE TRUTH.

And that truth is a secret... we get it, Rule#1.

This kinda 'Special Hidden Knowledge' coupled with the way you say "we KNOW THE TRUTH" makes Libertarian-type-ism sound really faith-based, IMO. Re: LOL @ all things libertarian-type !!!1!

Yes, it's libertarian-type-ism that I'm making fun of. You're a really sharp one. Then again, the force rejects those with too high an IQ, so you probably had to eat paint to qualify to grenade babies.

Well, the employer does, but only because employees tend to be too meek and risk averse to stand up for themselves. In a vacuum, it should be the employees.

Of course, it could well be that flaws in the LP are part of why most libertarians don't support them. IDK

I know this is an old post but-
I consider myself liberal and work in a liberal city for a young pretty liberal company. I've literally never heard any liberal suggest that religion should be illegal. If there's some liberal movement that I'm unaware that promotes making religion illegal?

Also- didn't I see a post where you said you were a liberal? I find this curious because your definition of a liberal seems like it would come from a freeper as opposed to anyone who actually has any peers who are liberals.

So far-
Liberals think people are so stupid that they need the government
If they're not too stupid to help themselves, they are evil
Liberals want to make religion illegal

Honestly, this sounds like something I'd see in a smear campaign in a red state besmirching liberals as opposed to something said by someone who is a liberal. Seems fishy.