[Wolfman]

That's fine for Axioms. But, we know in Austrian economics then axioms, and we know more in math then axioms. And those things in math outside of axioms have to be proved. And we know those things outside of axioms because mathematical proofs. Besides, your so-called axioms are largely incorrect when you study social psychology anyways.

[lubbockjoe]

It depends on the actions taken by the dissenters. If they keep their actions peaceful, I have no reason to suspect they wouldn't be welcome in society (just as I am welcome in today's society despite rejecting the legitimacy of the governments that most people accept). If they take violent action against other people's property, they would be dealt with like the criminals they would be (just as I would go to jail if I refused to pay income tax today).

Allow me clarify:

If the dissenters opposed the establishment of property rights of libertarians living in a common geographical area and libertarians established them without dissenter approval, your quote below is false.

Libertarianism is the ONLY ideology that rejects the use of force as legitimate means for establishing property rights.

[Nunt]

Are you concerned about equal wage distribution among all segments of society?

I just find the question "does measure A increase income of some people?" really uninteresting because all economic measures increase the income of some people. If you take money from Peter and give it to Paul, then its not so groundbraking if you prove that Paul now has more money.

[lubbockjoe]

I just find the question "does measure A increase income of some people?" really uninteresting

If you find the thread title uninteresting, why participate?

Why not create a thread with subject matter that is more to your liking?

[Nunt]

If you find the thread title uninteresting, why participate?

Why not create a thread with subject matter that is more to your liking?

It is not the title that is uninteresting, it is a certain interpretation of it that is uninteresting. It would be interesting to know if unions raised average or total wages, it is not interesting to know whether unions raise some wages.

[Eran]

If the dissenters opposed the establishment of property rights of libertarians living in a common geographical area and libertarians established them without dissenter approval, your quote below is false.

I don't see why. Perhaps you are confusing "establishing" property rights, from "enforcing our notion" of property rights. The latter is indeed done by force. The former, uniquely in a libertarian society, is not.

Libertarians advocate a particular method of establishing property rights:
1. You get to own resources that are previously unowned by establishing an objective, inter-personally-ascertainable connection to the resource in question. Since the resource is unowned, no force has been used to establish property rights.
2. You get to own your own body. No force is used to establish that.
3. You get to own whatever property other people voluntarily gave you. Again, no force is used.

In the example you gave, the dissenters are using force to violate the libertarian property rights. Consequently, used can legitimately be used against them to protect those rights.

Contrast that with how things work in the presence of the state. Consider, for example, land in the Australian Outback. Who owns that land?
We have two plausible answers.
1. It is unowned. IF it is unowned, any person should be allowed to extract minerals from it. The Australian government, however, would use force to extract tribute ("taxes") from any such operation, thereby initiating force against the miner.
2. It is owned by the Australian government (or the Australian State). In that cases, the taxes can be justified as being akin to rent. Taxation is not an aggression.

But in this case we have to ask - how did Australia establish those property rights? Since the land in question has never been developed (and possibly never even visited) by any person associated with Australia, the only possible answer is that the Australian State established its property rights in that land by virtue of being able to militarily control it. In other words - by force.

[lubbockjoe]

I don't see why.

Libertarianism rejects the use of force as legitimate means for establishing property rights.

If the two statements below are true:

1) Dissenters oppose the establishment of property rights of libertarians living in a common geographical area.
2) Libertarians establish property rights anyway, without dissenter approval, thereby legally binding the dissenters to observe the newly established "libertarian" property rights against dissenter approval.

The binding of the dissenters is legal coercion [force]. Your quote is false.

[Eran]

The binding of the dissenters is legal coercion [force].

The libertarians established their property rights without the use of force. They did it by homesteading previously-unowned resources.

The dissenters, by your description, are the ones that want to use force to acquire property rights. They are aggressors. The libertarians are merely using force to protect their property.

To understand the situation, consider what it is that the dissenters want. By your description, they prefer not to respect the property rights established (peacefully) by libertarians. For example, a libertarian farmer moved to an uninhabited forest, cleared the forest from a peace of land, fenced the land, sawed wheat and tended to it until harvest.

The dissenters oppose the idea that the farmer owns the wheat, and attempt to use force to take the wheat away from him. The farmer (perhaps with the aid of his libertarian neighbours) repels the dissenter attempts to take away his wheat. A libertarian court (private, of course), presented with the facts, acknowledges what was true all along - the farmer is the only person rightly owing the wheat. The dissenters are criminals, against which the use of force is authorized.

Call it legal coercion if you want, but note that in the story above, property rights were established by the libertarian farmer through no use of force. Only protection of those rights required force.

The dissenters' only claim to the wheat produced by the farmer is based on their use of force.

[Stegerwald]

@ all

unions raise wages for union members at the expense of general employment rates and higher production costs. A union is a classic interest group, which means that it should not receive any help from governments (though it unfortunately does).

A union that does not receive government support and arrives at employer concessions through mutually voluntary bargaining is not a bad thing. Once the unions (or the bosses too) start getting politicians on their payroll, everyone suffers)

This is again an interesting thread with many useful comments. They illustrate that simple answers are not very helpful. For instance, there are many types of labour unions. Some are federations, and take into account the common good. Others represent one category of workers, and they try to extort the maximum wage, no matter what the consequences are for the society or even for their own future. Still others are political parties in disguise.

Collective bargaining can be beneficial, if it establishes a uniform wage within a branch. For this prevents competition on wage between firms. Consequently only the most efficient and innovative firms will survive. This may harm the employment within the branch, but these workers can move to other branches, where they can be more productive. This is a desirable development, and thus it is understandable that governments support the coverage of collective agreements.

Note that the most productive firms could also lower their prices. Then the nominal incomes would remain unaltered, but all real incomes would increase. However, apparently this rarely occurs. Moreover, unions prevent wild strikes, which is beneficial for society. Good union educate their members, and integrate them into the firm.

As long as high wages stimulate the foundation of highly productive firms, they are evidently desirable. Here the unions act as a whip, which incites the entrepreneurs to make a maximal effort.

Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to know when the entrepreneurs operate at their top. So many unions keep pushing, even when further productive improvements are impossible. This damages the economic performance. Now the collective bargaining becomes a zero-sum game, or worse.

For instance, firms in export branches can not raise their product price, because he is determined on the global markets. However, many markets are mainly national. In these branches the firms do not have to fear foreign competition, so that they can raise their prices. As a group these firms have a monopoly, which allows them to collude. Unions in such branches are tempted to demand higher wages. For remember that unions install by themselves a monopoly. This kind of labour demands hurt the consumers of their products, because the consumptive purchasing power is degraded. Victims are for instance the workers in export branches, and all types of rentiers, who can not increase their nominal income.

Unfortunately, history has shown that in general labour unions are insufficiently motivated to restrain their wage demands. The union leaders do not know what the optimal wage is. Quite a number of them do not care, and just want to subjugate the management of the firms. Thus the power of the unions must be mitigated, and this is done by means of unemployment.

As you can see, the right to unionize raises wages across the board - just as the suppression of unions lowers them

Indeed it is possible that unions raise productivity. However, in many cases the causality is probably the reverse. That is to say, the firm raises its productivity. Subsequently, the firm is able to raise the wages, and the management will recognize the unions. They have various reasons to do so. Higher wages allow the firm to hire the best workers. Higher wages reduce the number of labour conflicts. Management appreciates this, because it is human, and thus easy-going by nature. Higher wages may stimulate the workers to reciprocate, and work harder. In addition, they fear to lose their magnificent jobs, and will become self-motivated.

Some of my arguments were already advanced by Eran. However, he fails to recognize the positive aspects of unions.

In general, I would argue that higher wages are neither always good nor always bad. It depends from case to case and the total net effect of higher wages is very difficult to determine.

Perhaps my suggestions help?