Skip to main content

View Diary: KY-Sen: Does Rand Paul oppose overtime pay? (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I sense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    harrije

    Rand Paul would say a private person has the right to do what he wants with his time and property regardless of how prejudiced or exploitive that action was short of whips, chains or guns and maybe not the guns.

    But I would almost bet that private persons acting collectively to wrest the best deal from other private persons for their own interests.   I don't think his private rights thinking extends to people who don't own businesses and extensive property holdings.

    •  Why do you think that? (0+ / 0-)

      [Hopefully I interpreted your comment correctly - there seems to be a word or two missing from the first sentence of the second paragraph so I interpolated.]

      I don't know much about Rand Paul, but if he's got strong libertarian leanings as is suggested here (and consistent with what little I do know of him), wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he's consistent with those leanings?

      Of the (L)libertarians I know, not a one of them would discourage private parties from voluntarily (on an individual basis) banding together for their common good (as long as they don't violate the rights of others).

      Libertarians don't, for example, seem to oppose the creation of unions at all. Of course, they also don't think that employers should be restricted from simply firing those workers. The theory is that if those that collectively formed the union are the best workers, the employer will choose to pay them more rather than staff with less qualified and productive workers.

      You may be confusing "conservatives" with "libertarians".

      •  because (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron

        the union would act collectively once formed, meaning that the employer would be faced with the demand that all workers receive the same terms, violating the employer's rights and violating the idea of individual merit and individual initiative.

        Plus the theory being the best workers could form a union and not be fired but the employer presumably would fire all the not best workers, essentially breaking the union.  A union that isn't unified and acting collectively for all persons employed at the workplace isn't really a union.

        •  Certainly a "Union"... (0+ / 0-)

          ...as it is used today in relation to employment in the United States" would not exist in Rand Paul's ideal world. I'm pretty sure he would eliminate the force of government from the process which would change the definition.

          It's an open question if "unions" (using the term eliminating the "force of government" aspect of it) would exist in his world. I'd agree that some would not because for every working member of some unions, there are several non-union workers who would happily take the job for less money or perhaps do a better job (or be more flexible) for the same money. However, I could see that some skilled trade unions might exist - although, obviously, they would have to take a different approach to formation, organizing, and negotiating than they do today.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site