Sometimes, trawling about the political blogs, one comes across some interesting discussions – or, more precisely, a viewpoint on the current issues du jour worthy of further comment.
Unions
The first that caught my eye was over at Al Jahom’s where he asks John Demetriou (one half of B & D) about his union membership.
Last week, we discovered that:
Up to 270,000 civil servants [PCS members] are to stage a 48-hour strike on 8 and 9 March in a dispute over cuts to public sector redundancy terms.
So, my question is, as you might expect, is John Demetriou coming out on strike?
I asked him in comments on his blog the other day, but he ducked the question.
John replied to the effect that it was a private matter. However, he also made a valid point about union membership – and it is that which prompted me to comment there and again here.
However, the main reason for my continued membership is that the union provides a sort of personal insurance or protection scheme for me, in the event that I am bullied, harassed, victimised or treated unfairly in the workplace. They have many benefits, as well as the downsides.
Quite so. When I joined British Rail I was advised to join the RMT. I did so, despite my general disapproval of unionised behaviour in the political spectrum. I did so for exactly the reasons JD mentions – as a form of personal insurance. The Rail industry, given its safety critical nature, means that a mistake can lead to injury, death and ultimately criminal prosecution. The RMT will provide legal support throughout the process.
I disagree with CF’s comment that membership of a union is incongruous with libertarian principles. A union is a voluntary collective – and therefore entirely in keeping with libertarian principles. I have no beef with collective bargaining providing all parties involved do so voluntarily. I do have a beef with union dues propping up the Labour party – but that’s another issue. I do have a beef with unions holding employers to ransom. But the principle of a union for the benefit of its members – particularly representation in the event of disciplinary action, safety in the workplace and mutual assistance is fine.
JD’s final comment is worth repeating here:
It doesn’t have to be all back and white. Libertarianism needn’t be a purist’s ideology.
Yes, I’ve had that discussion and gave up, frankly…
Lord Ashcroft
Like Jackart, I cannot get worked up about this one. I really don’t care who bankrolls political parties providing that I am not forced to via taxpayer funding. Ashcroft is not doing anything illegal and the idea put forward by Labour MPs that he is buying votes is risible. All political parties pay for leaflets and literature to put forward their policies to the electorate. I’ve delivered enough in my time for the Labour party, so their faux outrage is nothing short of hypocrisy. I suspect that outside the rarified atmosphere of the Westminster village, political blogs and fora, this is very much a non-issue.
From what I can tell, Ashcroft is not evading tax – he is in much the same position as I am (in principle), paying tax where it is earned. So what? He has put millions into the Conservative party. So what? If it is an issue for you, don’t vote for them. However, if it is an issue for you, perhaps you shouldn’t be voting Labour either…
Hence the expression doing the rounds – Libertarian Lite.
.-= My last blog ..Sympathy for MPs =-.
“Libertarianism needn’t be a purist’s ideology.”
Should it be an ideology at all?
I see it more as an assertion. It’s a point of view. In generalisations, it’s clear: less taxation, less government, more individual freedom etc. But we still have to argue over the particulars.
I have a right in law to join a trade union – not always and everywhere the case and one which had to be fought for. Should a libertarian call for this law to be suppressed? I think not.
Free association and voluntary collective action descend from individual liberty, and form the basis of society, with all its benefits in comparison to man in a state of nature, where he is more free, but less comfortable.
The adjectives are of course essential. Where such activity ceases to be free or voluntary, or becomes destructive to the common good (embodied in the Rule of Law, legitimate insofar as it protects our individual freedom) it loses this justification.
.-= My last blog ..Climategate: slo-mo car crash continues =-.
TT if you follow the link to an earlier discussion, you’ll see the purist’s point of view. It isn’t one I can go along with as it amounts to forcing the majority to comply with a viewpoint that they oppose – in other words, no different to what we have now. Those of us who talk of compromise are accused of selling out. I recall the far left of the Labour party saying something similar to moderates back in the eighties.
My views on unions are the same as yours and JD’s.
It seems a sign of immaturity to be a purist of any strain. I have moved through the fallacies of the left and the right, and have no desire to be ensnared in the fallacies of libertarian purism, which can be just as utopian and other-worldly as any other.
I see the political world partly like a game of tug-of-war. We libertarians have to grab hold of our end of the rope and try to pull the knot back in this direction.
.-= My last blog ..Climategate: slo-mo car crash continues =-.