Harland Harrison wrote: BH> Tony didn't mention (and probably cannot name) any general laws "against organizing unions" in arbitrary industries, but there is a lot of state and federal law that forces employers to recognize labor unions and bargain "in good faith" with them. Tony very clearly implied he wanted to add to those laws when he complained that one can be "fired for trying to organize a union". [...] Heh, let's ask Tony if he (like the LP Platform) wants employers to have complete freedom of association to hire and fire as they see fit. If he agrees with that, I'll donate $100 to the LP in your name. <BH
HH> The man says "I don't want more laws just [repeal] the ones against organizing unions... Again I don't want a bunch of laws favoring either way... just ... a level playing field." You blatantly assert that he "very clearly implies that he wants to add to those laws." I think he means what he says. <HH He went on to say "I want a level playing field meaning they can't fire you for trying to organize [...] Nevada has a right to work law which translated is the right to fire without reason." I was right. You were wrong. The $100 is still in my bank account. BH> Taft-Hartley Act (never mentioned by name in any LP Platform) <BH HH> In fact the current platform of the California LP, of which you are a member, specifically calls for the repeal of Taft-Hartley. <HH This discussion is taking place on the Libertarian Reform Caucus forum. It's a group dedicated to reforming the platform of the national LP. I wasn't talking about state platforms. HH> You claimed that the LP platform would alienate Tony by advocating drug legalization etc. Again I ask why you think so? <HH I didn't merely say "drug legalization etc.". I said "immediate repeal of all drug laws, without regard to kind of drug or age of user." If you can't figure out why such an extreme prostitution is likely to be alienating, then I don't have time to educate you. HH> You can't change the subject by throwing money at it. <HH My bet was precisely on-subject, and I turned out to be right about what Tony advocates. HH> Maybe he just wants the government to leave people alone. <HH Turns out, not. HH> Your analysis of labor markets is technically correct, but only if we read carefully to the very last word. <HH Then that is presumably why I included the very last word. HH> The law of supply and demand absolutely applies to wages. <HH I never said it didn't. I just said it's a "myth that the long-run equilibrium wage level is determined by supply and demand" as opposed to "the marginal productivity of labor". Do you or do you not dispute my assertion that "Economics textbooks tell us that the long-run equilibrium wage level is in fact determined by the marginal productivity of labor"? I cited Harvard professor and leading economics textbook author Greg Mankiw to this effect. Do you disagree with him? HH> In Peru I met engineers sewing clothes and driving taxis because the country did not have the money to employ their skills. <HH Good for you. Does this mean you'll be submitting to Professor Mankiw some kind of correction for his textbook?
