Trade and labor laws all tamper with the natural Law of Survival Of      the Fittest (SOF).  
            Somewhere along the way of Civilization, the unfit and their      champions gained enough political power to create laws protecting      the unfit from the exploitation of the fit, in a manner of      speaking.  But they characteristically failed to remember put into      those laws a means of retaining the benefits of SOF.  To do that      they must first look at the history of SOF and determine its      benefits.        
      One can easily see that SOF provides the main benefit of ridding      rids the planet of the segment of the unfit that presents the most      challenge and direct threat to the fit.  That means, of course, that      the absolutely LEAST fit often manage to thrive in remote enclaves      because they slither under rocks when the shooting starts and stay      their till after the combat ends and the fit go on enjoying their      fitness undisturbed.        
      Clearly, society tampers with SOF because it seems so gruesome and      unpleasant to see the fit slaughter (as in the case of the white man      versus Americian Aborigines) and enslave (as in the case of the      white man versus African tribes people imported into the Americas)      the less. But how shall laws retain the benefits of SOF without      fully reinstating SOF?      
      I believe answering and implementing the answers to that question      constitutes such an onerous task that the SOF reformers say "to hell      with it" and simply mess with SOF, having no regard for the unsavory      consequence of a burgeoning population of the unfit, or terrifying      penalties of tampering with SOF.      
      We can see the lack of wisdom in laws protecting the unfit down      through American history.  But for some reason (like the presence of      many delusional and possibly unfit people in government who refuse      to heed SOF's lessons) they seldom seem savvy enough to fix the laws      so as to retain the benefits of SOF.  Few examples of this neglect      become more clearly evident than the grand schemes of liberating      slaves without preparing them for citizenship, allowing labor unions      to have a monopoly over labor negotiations, or child labor laws that      teach sloth to children.  Philosophers have observed that people who      don't work go crazy, and crazy people don't work.       
      All of this tampering with SOF has caused the unfit to proliferate      because parents see no problem with procreating hordes of unfit      children.  Now government will care for them, and if the offspring      want to, they can become even more criminally wealthy by venturing      forth in the neighborhood to engage in criminal activities like drug      dealing, mugging people, carjacking, and burgling homes.       
      All of this tampering with SOF has imposed profound and monumental      burdens upon the American population without providing much benefit      for those who must pay the tab.      
      Now, let's take a look at three examples of such tampering:  minimun      wage laws, labor union laws, and right-to-work laws.  Government      imposes a lower limit on the wages employers may pay certain kinds      of workers.  Government requires corporations to negotiate with      unions for wage scales, benefits, and conditions for workers under      penalty of shutting the business down with a strike.  And of course      union members then intimidate all who hate the unions and their      thuggishness into joining or staying away from the workplace.   All      of that causes a dramatic increase in the cost of goods and services      provided by unionized labor, and it helps to drive factories      offshore where workers cost the corporation less.  That deprives      American laborers of jobs, and many go on the welfare rolls or get      unemployment which increases the tax burden of the entire taxpayer      population.       
      Advocates of such laws say people need minimum wage laws in order to      live, and without such laws, low-wage workers will have to depend      upon public welfare for subsistence.  For some reason they never      manage to see low-wage workers in a class of people known as      "dependents," but they should.  And ALL such dependent people should      either live on whatever wages they can earn, OR find a family to      take them in for domestic labor in exchange for room and board, OR      find a corporation willing to provide gainful employment in exchange      for room and board (such as in a FEMA camp). And after all, minimum      wage laws don't, in actual practice, keep people off the welfare      rolls.      
      To counteract the negative impact of unions on people who hate them      and don't want to join them, states enact right-to-work laws that      prohibit employers from restricting employment to union members.       THAT regulation requires policing, of course, and it costs taxpayers      even more, and further increases prices of the goods and services.       Of course, the non-union workers try to demand the same wages and      benefits that union workers get, and that makes union members      generally hate scabs.      
      I think government should eliminate laws requiring companies to      negotiate with unions, and prohibit unions from destroying companies      who don't want to pay exorbitant wages (pay more than the value of      the work).  And laws should impose severe penalties on union members      who intimidate scabs.  People can always relocate or choose other      employment, or become entrepreneurs.      
      And those who lack the intelligence to compete can become domestic      servants in exchange for room and board with affluent families.  Or      they might opt to live in a labor (FEMA) camp, do piece work in its      free trade zones, and enjoy the close supervision they deserve.       Those who don't like this can implement laws restricting procreation      privileges to those intelligent enough to take care of themselves in      modern society.      
      See?  I have solved the whole dilemma of protectionism - let those      enjoying the protection pay the cost.  But you might enjoy someone      else's perspectives.  How about this one?                        
 
        July 18, 2014        
            The Problem with Right-to-Work Laws      by Logan Albright on July 18, 2014      
 One area where many otherwise-correct free-market thinkers and        libertarians stumble is in the area of right-to-work laws, now        gaining considerable popularity across the nation. These laws come        in a variety of forms, but in most cases a state that adopts        right-to-work laws makes it illegal for employers to require union        membership as a condition of employment. So far, twenty-four        states have adopted these laws and the state legislature in        Missouri has plans to make that state a right-to-work        state sometime early next year.      
       Right-to-work laws are attractive to some because they help        undercut the monopoly powers granted to labor unions by        government. They also appeal to the        more pragmatic minded because of the distinct improvements in        economic growth. A recent study by the National Institute of        Labor Relations Research found that, over a ten year period,        states with right-to-work laws experience significant growth in        manufacturing output and GDP compared to non-right-to-work states.        This is, of course, the result we would expect from diminishing        the power of government-created monopolies such as those granted        to labor unions.      
       But utilitarian concerns aside, free-market advocates must ask        whether these laws are the right way to reduce government power,        and whether they satisfy the moral and ethical criteria at the        root of free-market and libertarian thought. Is it right to        restrict the freedom to contract in order to counteract existing        restrictions on that same freedom?      
      Read more here:      
http://mises.org/daily/6813/The-Problem-with-RighttoWork-Laws            Logan Albright is Director of Fiscal Research at Capital Policy      Analytics, Research Analyst for FreedomWorks, and a contributing      editor for Mises Canada. He lives in Washington, DC. See Logan      Albright's 
article        archives.