More rich person organization is the anti-solution on the right.

Regulation sits somewhere in the middle.

Nah. Rich people don't exist, or at least cannot last long, without a moat, which is an idea from the left. In fact, taken to the extreme, the left outlaws property ownership so that a few rich people gain control of everything.

This is is the least senseful paragraph I’ve read this week.

Congratulations?

You can be libertarian and a capitalist and still be pro-union. At the end of the day, a Collective Bargaining Agreement is just a private contract between two parties. It can be a way to raise wages without government setting a minimum price for labor.

While I'd agree most of its proponents (like myself) also favor other left-wing policies, I'm just saying it doesn't need to be.

Unions are labour cartels for the purpose of extracting above-market wages from the commons, a sort of mafia. They are incompatible with capitalism and libertarianism, especially with libertarianism.

What is rich people collaborating called? You might claim that it is incompatible with capitalism but it’s just a fact of it. It’s easier for a small number of resourceful people (and capital gives them resources) to collaborate than for many people with not much more resources than their house/mortgage. This is what Adam Smith told us anyway.

It is also illegal.

Simply assuming that "every employer does it because theoretically it is easier for then to do so" to help your argument is rather self-serving, considering that labour unions are explicitly legal and exist.

It’s not theoretical.

Cynicism is such a waste of time when you haven't done the thing you're cynical about and have no first-hand experience.

You think you're thinking about reality.

All you're doing is imagining reality. You're living in a fantasy.

Rich people collude all the time. They buy political power with money. It’s so out in the open that I’m not going to post a whole diatribe on it.

It’s news to me that what Adam Smith wrote about in that book was theoretical. Oh well.

Cartels are not at odds with libertarianism. In fact, freedom of association is the fundamental underpinning of libertarianism. Unions are the libertarian solution to labour woes. Other groups normally favour regulation instead.

Libertarians don't have a theoretical problem with cartels because if a cartel tries to push for above-market prices, someone else will swoop in and start doing it for less, taking all the cartel customers with them.

By this logic, every corporation is a cartel to extract below-market wages from the commons. Both sides are bargaining collectively. And so you'd be saying both are incompatible with libertarianism.

There are strands of libertarian thought, I suppose, where government shouldn't be incorporating businesses at all. But it's still legit to say libertarianism is compatible with corporations and with labor unions.

> By this logic, every corporation is a cartel to extract below-market wages from the commons.

This statement makes only sense if you don't know what markets are, how they work and what their purpose is.

Right! Neither statement makes any sense.

Who fucking cares. I would gladly start a mafia to exploit the commons if it meant I got paid more for working less.