On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...
> Now, in the post to Kevin you refer to, I once again did not say that particular interventions are warranted. I simply questioned whether a particular position he described would actually be a double-standard.
That is the way I remember it, as well.
And FWIW, I believe that whether an "intervention" counts as an
intervention or not depends on its functional relationship with other
If other interventions are primary and structural (like government
grants of special privilege), and the intervention in question is
ameliorative and secondary (like partial government restrictions on
the abuse of privileges it has granted, in order to reduce their
destabilizing effects), then I believe the intervention in question is
actually a reduction in the net level of statist intervention.
So there would be nothing unlibertarian in principle about supporting
right-to-work laws -- IF, that is, you believed that unions were the
primary beneficiary of more fundamental grants of privilege. I don't
believe they are. I believe the net impact of labor law is to weaken
the bargaining power of labor and make it easier to control. But
whether a RTW law is a net increase in intervention that stacks the
deck further against labor, or a check on powers granted to unions by
the state, is a matter for factual analysis.
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto
Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective