On this matter I feel you nailed the situation completely.

Consider me in solidarity with the MLL… in solidarity with the students and workers of France. Whatever that counts for. ;)

What I meant was that everybody here presumably knows (and accepts) the economic arguments regarding the welfare benefits of freedom of contract, so there is no point boring everybody by repeating them! I am sorry if I did not make this clear.

Generally I agree we have taken the debate as far as we can. I was not at any stage debating your strategic ideas (I don’t know enough about them); merely disagreeing with your apparent view that this particular reform is a bad thing.

Regards

Julius

Matthew Claxton

If you’re going to cavalierly dismiss arguments as “reinventing the wheel” and “trite” without actually engaging them, then it’s not clear on what basis we can further discuss this.

Naturally

“That would seem to be a very odd position to take …One could very easily value a relatively strong assurance of job security once emplyment is finally obtained over a reform that is perceived to only slightly improve overall employment prospects inside a framework that will remain thoroughly statist overall.”

An even odder stance for a libertarian to take. This is not the place to re-invent the wheel, but the argument is precisely the same as the general libertarian objection to coercive intervention in freedom of contract. It is trite that those who already have a contract will benefit from the forcible third party imposition of favourable terms, those who do not will obtain a disbenefit; and overall, utility is reduced. It is though you were arguing on libertarian grounds against a reduction in rent control laws. Rothbard’s Power and Market is of course largely devoted to an analysis of the various ways in which coercive interventions in freedom of contract reduce liberty and welfare. Employment law is a paradigm case and any reductions in regulation of it will necessarily innure to the benefit of both would-be employers and would-be employees.

“Seriously, the French have their own domestic political discourse. They’re not unaware of the arguments for anemic market reforms that are blatantly skewed towards the plutocracy. They simply don’t buy them.”

If they do not “buy” them, it is because they do not understand them. Nor are the reforms “skewed towards the plutocracy” (whatever that may mean). They are simply reforms that marginally increase freedom of contract. They may be anemic, but that is not a reason to oppose them.

“If I might draw an analogy — one can throw a ball relatively accurately without literally working one’s way through the ballisitics calculations involved. In much the same manner, I imagine the French have a pretty good idea of how much or how little they will benefit from this legislation as individuals — not very much.”

See above. A failure to understand basic economics is endemic and sadly students are no exception.

“Regardless of that, though, I believe you’re assuming that we’re contaminated with statist misconceptions. That would be incorrect, though. Read the letter carefully. All we’re saying is that if the French find the CPE and their overall circumstances frustrating, they should kill the state”

I have re-read the letter. It does not merely express sympathy for victims of statism in some general sense. It expressly contends that the these particular reforms will not increase liberty:

“state-sponsored market liberalization is a cruel joke. The legislation you protest and rebel against seeks only to increase the latitude given your overseers, while maintaining the overall restrictions on your own liberty”

In this, the letter is simply wrong for the reasons I have set out above.

Julius