[Rothbardian]

A major part of left wing ideology is the idea that the problem with private services is the profit motive. Government is the solution because the profit motive is eliminated.

It seems curious to me that left wingers also support public sector unions. Any explanation for this? I can somewhat understand private sector unions as protection from the predations of greedy industrialists/corporatists, but that problem is, supposedly, solved by moving services to the government. So how do liberals justify taking these two positions that seem to directly contradict each other?

[SpaciousBox]

Well the profit motive may be removed, but government is a powerful entity, and where there is power there needs to be protection from that power. It may be a nice, Liberal Democrat government today, but tomorrow it could be a Conservative government bent on cutting wages, jobs, and livelihoods. I think most Liberals are generally uneasy around unions, as they do represent a fairly hefty monopoly on power. In the past this power has been used irresponsibly, but our support for unions is probably far more around a power struggle, than it is in the fact we support worker dominance. For example; if government, unions, and business, are always in competition for power, then we lower the likelihood of one coming out on top and being able to exploit the others. This is also why you'll find many left-liberals wanting a strong public sector, but a limited state. We might feel we can use that power responsibly, but we need precautions in place for whoever may come next.

[othervoice]

Well the profit motive may be removed, but government is a powerful entity, and where there is power there needs to be protection from that power. It may be a nice, Liberal Democrat government today, but tomorrow it could be a Conservative government bent on cutting wages, jobs, and livelihoods. I think most Liberals are generally uneasy around unions, as they do represent a fairly hefty monopoly on power. In the past this power has been used irresponsibly, but our support for unions is probably far more around a power struggle, than it is in the fact we support worker dominance. For example; if government, unions, and business, are always in competition for power, then we lower the likelihood of one coming out on top and being able to exploit the others. This is also why you'll find many left-liberals wanting a strong public sector, but a limited state. We might feel we can use that power responsibly, but we need precautions in place for whoever may come next.

Sometimes conditions, pay, and benefits for government workers are not adequate and the political priorities of the legislative and executive branch do not provide for a constructive remedy so public sector unions give workers a voice to in the decision making process. In the private sector its about profit, but in the public sector its politics.

[Drlee]

A major part of left wing ideology is the idea that the problem with private services is the profit motive. Government is the solution because the profit motive is eliminated.

I think that your premise is wrong. I do not think that the decision to provide public services is that the private sector is too expensive because of prophet motives. Government is the natural provider of some services. For example the police. One can imagine that a privatized police force might be cheaper but that is a far cry from asserting that would be better. It is an experiment most people would probably care not to try.

A second reason for not privatizing is law. Some public functions are enshrined in constitutional law and devilishly hard to change.

As in my example with the police I believe that both liberals and conservatives would be unwilling to trust private industry with certain functions currently provided by government. Read carefully what follows.

What is commonly ignored by corporatist/libertarians is that before the people were to be inclined to turn over control of certain important public functions to the private sector they would want such extensive controls on how a private operator might behave that there would be little difference in practice to leaving the function public.

So I think the notion that "left wing" people are in any way conflicted is an incorrect assumption. I note that classic conservatives might be more likely to put the kibosh on privatization than left wingers would but for a completely different reason/s.

[Rothbardian]

I think that your premise is wrong. I do not think that the decision to provide public services is that the private sector is too expensive because of prophet motives. Government is the natural provider of some services. For example the police. One can imagine that a privatized police force might be cheaper but that is a far cry from asserting that would be better. It is an experiment most people would probably care not to try.

A second reason for not privatizing is law. Some public functions are enshrined in constitutional law and devilishly hard to change.

As in my example with the police I believe that both liberals and conservatives would be unwilling to trust private industry with certain functions currently provided by government. Read carefully what follows.

What is commonly ignored by corporatist/libertarians is that before the people were to be inclined to turn over control of certain important public functions to the private sector they would want such extensive controls on how a private operator might behave that there would be little difference in practice to leaving the function public.

So I think the notion that "left wing" people are in any way conflicted is an incorrect assumption. I note that classic conservatives might be more likely to put the kibosh on privatization than left wingers would but for a completely different reason/s.

I'm sorry, but are you honestly telling me that unions were not formed so people could protect themselves from abuse and neglect at the hands of business owners due to their lust for profit, and that the left would disagree with this as well?

[Rothbardian]

Sometimes conditions, pay, and benefits for government workers are not adequate and the political priorities of the legislative and executive branch do not provide for a constructive remedy so public sector unions give workers a voice to in the decision making process. In the private sector its about profit, but in the public sector its politics.

Do politicians and bureaucrats benefit or profit from politics?

[othervoice]

I think legislators and government administrators beneft in ways that government workers do not.

1. Administrators of government agencies and programs get higher salaries tied to lower overhead and labor costs. Its called efficieny.

2. Legislators get campaign contributions and high paying jobs as probusiness lobbyists and lawyers.

3. Privitization and efforts to run government like a business often mean less pay, higher benefit costs, and poorer working conditions for government workers.

Public sector unions stand up for government employees facing these challenges.

[Drlee]

I'm sorry, but are you honestly telling me that unions were not formed so people could protect themselves from abuse and neglect at the hands of business owners due to their lust for profit, and that the left would disagree with this as well?

Please re-read my post. I said no such thing. I was denying, at least in part, your premise that:

Government is the solution because the profit motive is eliminated.

I think that this is rarely, if ever the reason for government solutions. (With the possible exception of regulatory duties where profit makes self-regulation by a business or industry untrustworthy.)

While wwe are at it I will also mention that I do not believe this is true either:

A major part of left wing ideology is the idea that the problem with private services is the profit motive.

If you are an American you will need to define "left-wing" better. If you mean democrats, there is no run by them to nationalize industry.* Where do you see this happening? Where is there pressure to move functions from private industry to the government?

What we have seen, that is indisputable, is a diminishing of the benefit packages of private sector employees. When I was younger even small employers had retirement packages. Employment was stable. (People stayed at the same company for longer.) Pay allowed for a single income household which is quite rare now outside of the professions and most important the distribution of wealth was much more equal, allowing the middle class to be the true engine of the economy. No longer. We need not go into the reasons but they are far more complex than some internecine warfare between employees and employers.

Assuming that you are confusing American democrats with a "left-wing" ideology (something which would make most Europeans chuckle at you) I think that American democrats receive support from unions and are interested in the union vote. I also think that many Americans, republican (like myself) and democrat are concerned about the destruction of the middle class and see unions reemerging as a balance to far too much power moving to the hands of business and industry. In this general climate, this rising tide is floating the public sector boat.



*We may be one before too long in the health care arena but that is probably simply the inevitable conclusion to run-away costs and a pretty good example of something it would appear that will be intervention as the private sector continues to abjectly fail and costs reach the rediculous. In this case the solution will not be left-wing as much as it will be a simple necessity. One in many countries supported by both the right and the left. See Great Britain.

[Rothbardian]

Please re-read my post. I said no such thing. I was denying, at least in part, your premise that:

I think that this is rarely, if ever the reason for government solutions. (With the possible exception of regulatory duties where profit makes self-regulation by a business or industry untrustworthy.)

While we are at it I will also mention that I do not believe this is true either:

If you are an American you will need to define "left-wing" better. If you mean democrats, there is no run by them to nationalize industry.* Where do you see this happening? Where is there pressure to move functions from private industry to the government?

What we have seen, that is indisputable, is a diminishing of the benefit packages of private sector employees. When I was younger even small employers had retirement packages. Employment was stable. (People stayed at the same company for longer.) Pay allowed for a single income household which is quite rare now outside of the professions and most important the distribution of wealth was much more equal, allowing the middle class to be the true engine of the economy. No longer. We need not go into the reasons but they are far more complex than some internecine warfare between employees and employers.

Assuming that you are confusing American democrats with a "left-wing" ideology (something which would make most Europeans chuckle at you) I think that American democrats receive support from unions and are interested in the union vote. I also think that many Americans, republican (like myself) and democrat are concerned about the destruction of the middle class and see unions reemerging as a balance to far too much power moving to the hands of business and industry. In this general climate, this rising tide is floating the public sector boat.



*We may be one before too long in the health care arena but that is probably simply the inevitable conclusion to run-away costs and a pretty good example of something it would appear that will be intervention as the private sector continues to abjectly fail and costs reach the rediculous. In this case the solution will not be left-wing as much as it will be a simple necessity. One in many countries supported by both the right and the left. See Great Britain.

I should clarify that I'm using the terms 'liberal' and 'left wing' in the American sense, yes. I forget sometimes that the meanings of these words are completely different to Europeans, and I am not sure what nationalities we have here.

That said, quite a few left wing (or whatever you want to call it) thinkers argue in favor of both public sector unions and advocate state control to eliminate the destruction caused by the 'profit motive'. You can find this from Marx all the way to Chomsky. If you feel this is incorrect as I do, then kudos, we are of like mind. It seems contradictory, to me.

Am I to take it that this sub forum is liberalism in the European sense?

[Decky]

Am I to take it that this sub forum is liberalism in the European sense?

Liberalism in the correct use of the word the way that the whole rest of the world uses it yes.

Not the incorrect way that some (undereducated) colonials use it.

[mikema63]

We have to live with the terms of the culture we are born to.

[Someone5]

A major part of left wing ideology is the idea that the problem with private services is the profit motive. Government is the solution because the profit motive is eliminated.

Far left-wing ideology holds that the solution to the profit motive is replacement of the capitalist system with a socialist system... not your notion that the government is the solution. Governments are part and parcel of the capitalist system; capitalism wouldn't exist without them, and the capitalists certainly would never be ones to let the government collapse.

It seems curious to me that left wingers also support public sector unions. Any explanation for this?

Sure; all workers ought to be in charge of their own workplace. That's an essential bedrock value/goal of left-wing ideologies. Note, that excludes government control of a workplace, just like it excludes capitalist control of the workplace.

I can somewhat understand private sector unions as protection from the predations of greedy industrialists/corporatists, but that problem is, supposedly, solved by moving services to the government.

That is a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of left-wing ideologies. There is a reason that the extreme left-wing is known as anarchism. From a leftist perspective, the government is only good in as much as it promotes a leftist agenda--it is good only in as much as it advances the cause of putting workers in charge of their own lives, among other things.

So how do liberals justify taking these two positions that seem to directly contradict each other?

I'm not sure how liberals do that, you were talking about leftists.

[Rothbardian]

Far left-wing ideology holds that the solution to the profit motive is replacement of the capitalist system with a socialist system.

And in this socialist system, is the economy more centralized, or more decentralized than in capitalism?

[Drlee]

It could be either.

[Decky]

We have to live with the terms of the culture we are born to.

No you don't. You have a brain, use it.

You know more than most that liberalism is about a small state, individual rights, the separation of church and state etc. Why use the incorrect definition?

[Someone5]

And in this socialist system, is the economy more centralized, or more decentralized than in capitalism?

Radically decentralized compared to the capitalist system. Even in places where production is by necessity concentrated, the actual control of the facility would be decentralized.

[Stormsmith]

A major part of left wing ideology is the idea that the problem with private services is the profit motive. Government is the solution because the profit motive is eliminated.

It seems curious to me that left wingers also support public sector unions. Any explanation for this? I can somewhat understand private sector unions as protection from the predations of greedy industrialists/corporatists, but that problem is, supposedly, solved by moving services to the government. So how do liberals justify taking these two positions that seem to directly contradict each other?

I take it you're fairly new here, so let me make it clear, I'm Canadian, but I think our two countries have some common ground here.

By tradition the government supplied services that were required by people, but that individuals couldn't afford on their own, ie, security, education, etc. Public sector workers made a little less than private sector workers, because the later were more likely to have employment interuptions whereas public workers had more job security. Unions were necessary for a number of reasons. In the first place, issues such as working conditions, hours and scheduling, wages and benefits couldn't be done on a case by case basis, the number of people was far too large. In the second place, the management (government) had all the power. Look at what's happened in the last few years in places like CA. The government gets itself into debt, sometimes by keeping taxes ridiculously low vs expenses, sometimes through mismanagement etc. When push comes to shove, politicians have no compunction about firing workers to avoid raising taxes. They will through hundreds, perhaps thousands of families under the bus to protect their jobs, their power.

The profit issue is a tricky one. It is cheaper, as a rule, when governments run some things. Business often says they can do the same thing, but for profit suggesting they are more efficient. I'm not saying that's never the case, but sometimes that's because they're cutting corners, and some of those corners get a bit tight.

Health care is a case in point. So is armed forces. Look at Blackwater vs the marines. My car insurance is cheaper than it would be if we reverted to private, and because a portion of the premium is put into education and public service, our roads are a little safer.

[Rothbardian]

Radically decentralized compared to the capitalist system. Even in places where production is by necessity concentrated, the actual control of the facility would be decentralized.

An economy is not a facility

[Rothbardian]

I take it you're fairly new here, so let me make it clear, I'm Canadian, but I think our two countries have some common ground here.

By tradition the government supplied services that were required by people, but that individuals couldn't afford on their own, ie, security, education, etc. Public sector workers made a little less than private sector workers, because the later were more likely to have employment interuptions whereas public workers had more job security. Unions were necessary for a number of reasons. In the first place, issues such as working conditions, hours and scheduling, wages and benefits couldn't be done on a case by case basis, the number of people was far too large. In the second place, the management (government) had all the power. Look at what's happened in the last few years in places like CA. The government gets itself into debt, sometimes by keeping taxes ridiculously low vs expenses, sometimes through mismanagement etc. When push comes to shove, politicians have no compunction about firing workers to avoid raising taxes. They will through hundreds, perhaps thousands of families under the bus to protect their jobs, their power.

The profit issue is a tricky one. It is cheaper, as a rule, when governments run some things. Business often says they can do the same thing, but for profit suggesting they are more efficient. I'm not saying that's never the case, but sometimes that's because they're cutting corners, and some of those corners get a bit tight.

Health care is a case in point. So is armed forces. Look at Blackwater vs the marines. My car insurance is cheaper than it would be if we reverted to private, and because a portion of the premium is put into education and public service, our roads are a little safer.

Health care is case in point?

Since the government passed the HMO act, health care costs have shot through the roof. I am not sure how references to businesses operating with state-granted monopolies shows that government is 'more efficient than business'.

Your own country has a government run system that is far more socialist than even the NHS in the UK and you still have less available healthcare per capita. You've literally got people dieing on waiting lists, and places like Toronto are talking about cutting more doctors because they can't keep up with the cost. That is your case in point? India has the most free market health care as far as I know, would you like to compare costs for the same procedures?

Anyway more to the point, I understand why unions were created. I've got no problem with private unions, which basically don't exist today. Private sector unions are just little state created trolls not unlike corporations.

But you seem to feel that removing the 'profit motive' improves matters. If that is the case, why do public sector employees need unions? Can they not trust their employer?

[Someone5]

An economy is not a facility

Right, it is the sum total of all firms; decentralize the firms, you decentralize the economy.