John Stossel has quickly become one of my favorite columnists. His recent column, Government: The Real Thug in New York, provides a refreshingly different view about the transit workers' strike in New York last month:

Suppose you want a raise. Your boss offers you less than you think you're worth, so you tell him you won't work unless he makes a better offer. He responds that if you stop working, he'll force you to pay him thousands of dollars -- and maybe he'll send you to prison.

Who's the thug, you or your boss?

The analogy between a union and an individual should not be missed -- unions should have the same rights as individuals, but should also be taking the same risks:

A strike is simply an organized refusal to work for less than the strikers think they're worth. The principle is the same whether one individual or a union walks off the job: It's the principle of self-ownership, the underlying principle of the whole capitalist system, the principle that we are all free individuals dealing voluntarily to mutual advantage...

Of course, just as workers have a right to strike, employers -- morally, at least -- have a right to fire them. Under President Reagan, the federal government dismissed striking air-traffic controllers and let eager new employees take the jobs. That might have been a good response to New York's transit strike.

But, of course, most government unions are prohibited from striking, and most politicians are afraid of doing what Reagan did -- fire them all -- for fear of the political backlash. But if the primary tools of both the employer and the employee are taken out of the equation, what's the point of the union at all?

The New York transit strike illustrated two of the dangers of an overgrown government. When you let government monopolize something, you invite stifling disruption when government fails, and you invite it to try to force people to work -- and call them thugs for acting on their freedom.

Labels: politics