Comments for Work and Natural Rights at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 20:01:08 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/work-and-natural-rights.html#comment-7939 I read this article with great interest - but I have a linguistic comments to offer. Where Louis XVI's minister Turgot, is described as "prime defender of a liberal order", an English reader may get the wrong impression. The author most certainly meant to say prime defender of a “liberal order (liberal in the classical sense) etc… That description comes probably from a French source, and if so, but it begs for clarification. In French, the term liberal is always used in the sense suggesting liberty (as in freedom of enterprise), without any leftist connotation. Given the general sense of the text, it's fair to assume that Turgot was on such character, fighting statist dictate (that sounds familiar). Because “Liberals” tend to embrace bureaucratic / legal solutions, statism, I think that Turgot is a classical liberal, not a liberal. - Arnaud Thu, 01 Sep 2011 09:43:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/work-and-natural-rights.html#comment-7925 Would someone please send a copy of this excellent article to the NLRB? - Deacon Jim Stagg Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:48:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/work-and-natural-rights.html#comment-7922 To elaborate on Smitty's comment, Milton Friedman many years ago distinguished between state licensure and private certification. While licensure uses the power of the state to restrict supply and raise prices, certification by private groups provides information to consumers while allowing the excluded to provide the service. The right to judge qualifications is left in the hands of consumers. The situation at all levels of education is best solved by either a voucher system or simply abolishing any govt role in education. It is the power of the state that is the problem in both cases - given human nature, it is inevitable that people will exploit govt power in their own interests. - Duke Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:20:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/work-and-natural-rights.html#comment-7917 I thank Mr. Smitty for writing, for he was elaborating the point I was alluding to when I mentioned schemes of "licensing" and the action of "guilds." It may be one thing to establish tests of competence. But we find tests for admission to different professions and vocations, with the tests made harder for the sake of limiting the supply of practitioners and keeping up the incomes of those already in the field. And of course we don't know what moral principles can establish for us the right price for a pair of pants--or the right income for beauticians, accountants, optometrists,lawyers. Mr. Smitty was quite right but he was filling the point I didn't have the space to fill out. - Hadley Arkes Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:51:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/work-and-natural-rights.html#comment-7913 Dr. Arkes, You are correct that labor unions sometimes interfere with the right to work as a means of keeping wages artificially high. And you are correct in your insinuation that sometimes labor unions have excluded blacks in the past. But let's be consistent here. This problem you point to is hardly limited to labor unions. If a group of dentists get together to form a group, we call this group a "professional association" rather than a labor union. But if this group then goes to lobby the state government to prevent dental hygienists from cleaning teeth independently of dentists--with the result that dentists block cheaper competition from hygienists for the teeth cleaning market, this has exactly the same effect on the welfare of consumers and hygienists as labor unions do...but critics of unions utter not a peep of protest. (pssst....don't tell anyone but usually dentists are good Republicans!!!) When people are prevented from becoming massage therapists, manicurists, barbers, school teachers, appraisers etc. etc. not because they can't do the basic job functions but because they lack the heavy state mandated occupational requirements--which are designed solely to keep upstart competitors out of the field--this has the same effect as closed shops at unionized plants do...but critics of unions never come around to criticizing the fact that all these professions have obtained these privileges and barriers to entry through the same rent seeking that unions use. Conservatives want to convince themselves that these groups are the "entrepeneurial class." But they play the same game that unions do!!! And College Professors---how many of them through the state run accreditation cartels have protected their tenure and bloated salaries from cheaper grad students who all could perform the basic teaching functions they do at a fraction of the cost to students??? Sorry, but in no open market would it take seven to ten years to train a graduate student to teach liberal arts courses to sophomores. We don't call the academic cartel of the tenured professoriate a "labor union" but it functions exactly the same way as the New York city transit workers or what have you. Low cost workers are kept out the field or made to toil for years at subsistence wages until they get their union card or get the brass ring of tenure. So I don't begrudge you your opinion of labor unions, Dr. Arkes. And I don't even disagree. But let's please be consistent here!!! Our economy is rife with the kind of injustices you pin on unions. - jsmitty Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:53:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/work-and-natural-rights.html#comment-7912 A valuable tutorial Proffesor Arkes. Thank you. And,I might add that prosperity presently seems most evident and most assured in "Right to Work" states. - Ray Hunkins Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:06:56 +0100