This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
And when the bottleneck goes the other way companies can push down wages and so on. It's just swings and roundabouts. Each side can use the power they have when they have it. Why should it be any other way? There is no moral requirement for workers to make things easier for companies or indeed vice versa. The adversarial approach sometimes puts out of work a lot of people and sometimes causes companies to sink. and that is entirely ok. It's part of the emergent processes for finding the balance points between capital and labor. At a societal level it works. Each side has their own levers to pull, at different times. Expecting them not to do that is a fundamental error. Your employer is not your friend, and your employee is not your friend. You are engaged in a transactional agreement, nothing more.
When a union refuses to work unless excess pay is provided, men with guns will harm the employer if they seek alternate arrangements with willing third parties.
When an employer refuses to pay enough to employees, nothing happens if the employee seeks alternative arrangements with willing third parties.
This is not an emergent process. It's explicit coercive action by the government to favor one side over the other.
As mentioned elsewhere though government is also an emergent process. Every human society develops it and its coercion. There is nothing unnatural about it. Its a fundamental part of human society.
Markets are protected by men with guns and also coerced by those men with guns. You must take the rough with the smooth.
My mistake, I thought you were attempting to make a statement more substantive than a purely descriptive "workers have lots of power due to threats of violence".
No one disputes that, so I'm not sure why you are devoting so much verbiage to repeating it.
Because people don't seem to realise that is the fundamental underpinning of civilization. If they recognize that then all talk of what markets deserve and unions being government coercion, is simply special pleading.
If the fundamentals of markets also rely on violence then that particular critique of unions specifically is not a good argument.
I'm confused. You seem to be trying to get from "union labor has allies willing to use violence" to "this is good" without advancing any argument why. Instead, you are just repeating truisms that no one disagrees with as if they make your case.
Your last sentence is an odd non-sequitur since free market types don't object to using violence against others who initiate violence.
In this very thread we have arguments that unions are bad because their restrictions are based in law and thus enforced by the threat of government violence whereas in contrast the market does not rely on threats of violence. I am pointing out the underpinning of markets is also supported by the same threat of government violence and therefore this argument is not a strong one.
The violence may be good or bad, that isn't my point, merely that if both sides are reliant on it, it isn't a justification for markets being good, or unions being bad, or indeed vice versa, because it applies to both of them.
I am making a narrow rebuttal to this particular reasoning that is apparent above. If you said capitalism is bad because it relies on government violence to enforce private property laws, and therefore we should pick communism, a rebuttal might be, that communism also relies on threats of government violence and therefore this particular argument is not a good one. It doesn't say whether communism or capitalism is better, merely pointing out the specific justification being used is erroneous.
Again, the distinction they make is initiation of violence, which you seem to be trying hard to ignore.
Perhaps you are not understanding, in each case the government will initiate violence. If companies break anti-union laws or if thieves steal property from a company or whatever. We're talking about the back up of government sanctioned violence via law enforcement here, and how both union and markets rely upon that to exist.
Whether it's enforcing IP laws, private property laws so that companies products cannot simply be taken with no comeback and so on, the government will initiate violence (through law enforcement). Sure it might start with fines and so on, but all government action is ultimately backed by state sanctioned violence.
That is the violence both unions and markets are built upon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link