Autonemesis

Melkor, in a libertarian society, what happens if the police go on strike? What is the answer to such a crisis that respects everyone's objective rights and still allows for policing those rights?

I don't think a libertarian can propose a solution to this dilemma that doesn't severely abuse some party's rights in exactly the way they themselves wish not to be abused.

Melkor

If individuals obtain police protection through voluntary means, then alternatives can be available in the free market.

I don't think it would be very wise to have the sole police force being the only possible purveyor of order by contractually obligating such a role (i.e., it wouldn't be wise to enter into a contract with a police force that disallows hiring any other police on any terms in the case of a strike with a particular union). That would be a conflict of interests.

Here's a question for you:

In the society we currently have, what happens when a police force goes on strike? That is not without precedent....

Autonemesis

Or not, since the market doesn't necessarily provide everything that's needed in all regions. Qualified personnel may be in short supply in some areas, giving the police service company an effective monopoly there. Or, in a large urban area sympathy strikes or work slowdowns can affect most or all companies in the city, even though competition is plentiful.

This is kind of a non sequitur since the puzzle was for you. But I suppose you believe a libertarian society would be more respectful of objective rights than our current society is, so for the sake of discussion, use historical precedent to set a lower benchmark. If the libertarian government respects objective rights, its solution would be expected to be more morally satisfactory than what has been done in the past, right?

Melkor

Not necessarily. Just because I advocate libertarianism does not automatically mean I am disdainful of every single aspect of our current system. Our current system had its origins in libertarian concepts, after all, even if it no longer adheres to them.

Autonemesis

I didn't think you were. I'm sure you also realize that even if I disagree with you on some point, it doesn't mean I advocate the status quo, or the opposite of whatever it is you assert. But anyway...

You answer surprises me in that it seems to acknowledge that a functioning society will have a government, even an ideally minimalist government, that must violate somebody's objective rights at some time or another. How can you continue to maintain that these rights are objective after such an admission, when you've reduced their applicability to certain situations or to certain classes of people, and not others, by what you have to admit is a subjective process of debate and compromise?

Here's another puzzle. A property owner's land lies on the boundary of two adjacent municipalities***. He isn't satisified with whatever services his municipality has contracted for on his behalf, so he declares his property belongs to the adjacent municipality. Does he have the right to do this? If he does, then does he have the right to join his property to a non-adjacent municipality he likes even better? If not, then by what principle is it decided that his objective rights to his own property are to be violated?

***(when I say municipality, I mean also whatever functions as government in a much more ideally libertarian society than what we have now - maybe a water district, or a police service area franchise, I don't know - you fill in the blank here)

Melkor

Whose rights are being violated?

Autonemesis

Well if the solution decided upon is to prohibit the police from striking or from forming a union, then their right to peacably assemble and to associate has been violated. If the government doesn't act to ensure police protection, then it has failed to ensure the people their right to be secure in their own persons and on their property, a violation of their objective rights.

I've named a few rights here that I have presumed you would hold in the same lofty regard as the right to property, such as to assemble peacably and to associate freely. You do think they are among the objective rights like the right to property and to free speech, don't you?

Melkor

Boy, but did you read a lot into my post that wasn't there!

I didn't say that I would do anything to infringe on their right to peacably assemble and engage in collective bargaining.

I said it would be unwise to enter into a contract to begin with that demanded exclusivity with a group of law enforcement entities that could potentially strike without leaving legal methods of replacing their role in society. That doesn't prevent them from assembling or forming unions... that just makes their position a bit harder for anyone to voluntarily enter into exclusive agreements with.

People can form unions until they're blue in the face, but if non-union equivalents can still do the job without bizarre, sometimes unrealistic demands or restrictions, then the union counterparts are less likely to be employed. This isn't always the case... oftentimes unionized labor actually ends up being the best bet for both the employer, AND the employed. But that's up to the free market to decide.

And you didn't answer my question: what has happened in recent examples when police forces have gone on strike?

Autonemesis

So the employer will have to implement restrictions on its employees' right to bargain and to associate, if it is to win contracts. You've made my point for me.

Melkor

Not at all. Again, you're making assumptions and reading things into my post that simply aren't there.

Employment is a voluntary relationship for all parties.