Essay Introduction

In "Two Ways to Stop Strikes," Leonard E. Read addresses a perennial issue in industrial societies: the power of labor disputes to paralyze an economy. Writing in 1953, Read contrasts the "collectivist" method of dealing with strikes—which relies on government compulsion and violence—with the "libertarian" answer: freeing the market. He argues that a strike, in the sense of quitting a job, is a fundamental right, but that "wrong begins when coercion is introduced" to prevent others from taking that job. Read outlines four principles essential to a free market, emphasizing that labor is a form of property and that no person has the moral right to control the productive actions of another. His analysis remains a rigorous defense of voluntary exchange and a critique of the use of force in labor relations.

Two Ways to Stop Strikes

by Leonard E. Read

ANYONE of numerous labor leaders in America today is able to cut off the supply of essential goods and services to millions of people. This can be done by the power and authority of labor leaders to destroy delicate exchange mechanisms and to create mass unemployment by "calling a strike." The authority for the exercise of such power is to be found in our laws which the government is obligated to enforce.

Whether these labor leaders have usurped the powers of government or have received them as a grant is important only in determining where the fault lies. The fact to be reckoned with is that, in effect, they do possess both the power and the authority to force the nation to conform to their wishes.

The question, then, of how strikes can be stopped is one of serious import and calls for well-considered answers. There appear to be two answers—one being the collectivist answer, the other being the libertarian answer.

The collectivist method of stopping strikes is primitive; it is the normal emotional response, the animal solution to the problem. It is the use of violence and compulsion. And compulsion is, of course, the essence of collectivism as we now know it. Practically, in the world of today, this collectivist answer would require that strikers be drafted into the army, or that they be regimented under some other part of an all-powerful government—for example, through nationalization of the railroads or the steel industry. To be effective, this requires an enormous and brutal police force, as in Russia; there were no strikes in Stalin's U.S.S.R.

The Cure That Kills

Mere brute effectiveness in stopping strikes, however, is not the answer sought by men of justice and intelligence, for the cure may be more deadly than the strikes. If strikers can be put under compulsion as to where and how they work, what assurance can other citizens have against the same enslavement? Being enslaved by government has little, if anything, to commend it over being enslaved by strikers.

The libertarian proposal for stopping strikes can be stated in three words: Free the market.

In order to grasp this idea, it must first be recognized that there is nothing ethically or economically wrong with a person's quitting his job. Nor is there necessarily anything wrong if a number of persons quit their jobs in unison—which is to say, there is nothing wrong, per se, with a "strike" in this sense.

Wrong begins when coercion is introduced—that is, when freedom of choice is denied, when violence or intimidation is used either to keep a satisfied employee from remaining on the job or to prevent a nonstriker from taking the job that has been struck. ¹ If there is no coercion, the market is automatically free; for by definition a free market means "a condition of unrestricted competition"—no coercion or violence whatsoever!

Free the market, and the matter of job-quitting will be of no more concern to the general public than is the nonbuying of buggy whips. If one or more workers choose not to remain at their jobs—if they step out of the market at that time and place—the situation is precisely the same as if one or more consumers choose not to buy buggy whips. In the one case, an employer may have to look elsewhere for workers and perhaps offer a higher wage. In the other case, the person who has a stock of buggy whips may have to lower his asking price or perhaps even junk his entire supply. But the general public need not be greatly concerned in either case. Those who really believe in freedom of choice will admit the right of any person to turn down any job opportunity or to reject anything offered for sale. But by the same token, the person who rejects a job opportunity or refuses to buy a product should desire no authority to keep others from accepting the job or from buying the product.

Freeing the market would end strikes which exist by reason of coercion; it would, of course, still permit job-quitting. But the market will not be freed until certain concepts are more generally understood and supported than they now are. These concepts will require a great deal of study to win any general understanding and favor. Freeing the market is impossible unless libertarian principles and concepts be substituted for collectivist concepts enforced by violence or by the threat of violence. Four of these libertarian principles are briefly outlined here.

Principle No. 1

No person has any natural or logical right to control the productive actions of any other person unless the latter consents. This principle was accepted in America with the abolition of slavery. A person does have the right—that is, he has the responsibility—to defend his person and his property against the aggressions of others. Individuals cannot properly delegate to any agency—government or otherwise—rights which they themselves do not first possess as individuals. But since individuals do possess the natural right of self-defense (by force, if necessary), they may transfer it to government if they wish.

Governments limited in authority to the defense of the life and property of all citizens equally—in short, limited to invoking a common justice—must, therefore, acknowledge and defend the right of anyone to produce what he chooses. And, likewise, a just government must acknowledge and defend the right of the producer to use his product—to consume it or to give it away or to offer it for exchange on whatever terms he chooses, so long as he does not infringe on the equal rights of others. This also includes the acknowledgment and defense of a person's right to offer his services for hire as he chooses. Government's function is to defend the freedom of the market, which is to say, freedom of choice. Stated negatively, the government's only function is to help suppress any interference with life or trade or property which involves fraudulent or coercive means.

Under this concept, government would tolerate no interference with the freedom of anyone willing to work at a struck job, and would protect him in his working. Government has no legitimate right to abandon its protective functions by permitting strikers to rule in its stead. ²

Principle No. 2

An individual's services, whether performed with his hands or with his head, are properly his own personal property. His services—his labor—are the extension of his being, his life. They are as much his life as the beat of his heart. Likewise, the fruits of one's labor, be they in the form of oats or manuscripts or pay checks, are one's personal property—merely a further extension of his life. ³

In brief, insofar as the market is concerned, there is no distinction whatsoever between one's services and one's products. Each is for his own use or for exchange as he chooses, and any restraint of choice with respect to either—from whatever source—is an infraction of the free market, an infraction that any person has a moral right to oppose as being a hazard to his own freedom. This moral right to oppose any and every infraction of the free market is part and parcel of the right to defend life itself. For if a person loses freedom of choice and responsibility for his own decisions and actions, life becomes meaningless.

Under this concept, the unsupportable distinctions between services and commodities would disappear. There can be no freeing of the market as long as services are not subject to free market processes—free to be offered at the owner's choice.

Principle No. 3

The value of the fruits of one's labor is determined by what others will willingly exchange for what he has to offer. Argument on this fact would not arise if a person consumed only what he himself produced. The question originates with exchange: What part of the fruits of the labor of others am I to obtain in exchange for the fruits of my own labor? This is another way of asking: What is the value of my labor, be it in the form of services or commodities? Clearly, this question must go beyond my own person for its answer. I must allow others to judge the value to them of what I have to offer, if there is to be free exchange.

But suppose I used government—either in the form of the organized police force (as in NRA or OPS) or in the form of a coercive strike (government in one of its numerous forms)—to force others to give me more in exchange than they would give of their own free will? Then I would have substituted a form of dictatorship for the right of free men to exchange their labors and their products. I would have used violence to destroy the freedom of the market. I would have resorted to compulsion and denied to others that their livelihood is their own—which is to deny, in principle, the very grounds upon which I would defend my own life and liberty.

If a person understood the results of violence in the market place, he would never attempt to force his own subjective opinion of value upon others. The market can exist—and exchange can thrive—only as other persons (the market) decide how much they will offer in exchange for my offering. Under this concept, contracts must be mutually acceptable without any intervention of force whatsoever.

Principle No. 4

Coercive strikes cannot be logically rationalized on the grounds of balancing the low bargaining power of workers with the great economic power of large corporations. In discussing the validity of this principle, let us assume that government is performing its function of exercising collectively the right of all citizens to the defense of their lives and livelihood; let us assume that government is restraining and penalizing all fraud, all violence, all predatory practices; let us assume that government has given to corporations no special privileges in the form of tariffs, subsidies, and the like. Under these assumptions, it follows that no citizen nor any aggregation of citizens could exercise coercion over any other citizen or citizens. Monopoly would have no way of manifesting itself. The market would be free, for anyone could compete if he so desired. The government—the police force—would always be available to prevent skulduggery and the use of violence.

In such a circumstance, the largest corporation could exercise no more economic power over my employment than could the one-man-owner of a grocery store. Either could offer me a job on whatever terms he laid down. I could accept or refuse the offer of either one. And I could bargain with one as easily as with the other.

Persons holding this concept would be rid of the erroneous and damaging theory that employers have economic power or bargaining power not possessed by individuals who have services to offer. We would no longer rationalize and justify the very real coercive power of most present-day unions as a means to offset or balance the presumed power of anyone who has developed an enterprise to the point where he needs more hands than his own.

In summary, it would appear that the citizens of this country have only one real alternative to the present arrangement whereby a labor leader is able, at will, to choke the economy until his demands are met. (The proposal to "cure" the disease by making it general—that is, to use force and continue the trend toward an all-powerful government with serfs instead of citizens, as in Russia—can hardly be called an alternative.) The only reasonable choice is to free the market. This would deny to anyone any special privilege from government. It would permit a tremendous release of human energy and would result in higher production and more goods and more services for all.

The free market is the only system of economic justice known to man.

About the Author

Leonard E. Read, former manager of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and Executive Vice-President of the National Industrial Conference Board, organized the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946 and has been its president since that time. "Two Ways to Stop Strikes" was published by the Foundation in 1953.

Attribution

Read, Leonard E. "Two Ways to Stop Strikes." In Essays on Liberty, Vol. 2, 205-213. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1954.