Well, idiot, let’s take what you said and look at it point for point.
"unions don’t ruin the free market." If unions existed in the free market, and people merely banded together to collectively bargain, I would have no problem with that. But unconstitutionally unions have been given the ability to not only bargain but prevent employers from doing the very thing the free market would allow them to do, which is fire them all and get new workers. If they can’t get new workers for that cost the free market suggests they will have to go back to the union employees, or if they choose that they need skilled, experience employee they will work something out with the unions. That would be the free market, but the unions lobbied for and have viciously defended, unjust, unconstitutional, anti-free market benefits that allow the an unequal playing field. By definition this means the unions (and the laws they pushed for) ruined the free market. And you may want to discuss what unions could be without those legal protections, but the fact of the matter is that here in reality everything after the Wagner Act means that unions are nothing but corrupt organizations that have no ethical reason for existing.
"humanity has shown that it will supplant others for its own gain" You mean like all union leadership does when it endlessly exploits their members as they have done time and time and time again…but the members have no recourse as they have to belong to the union if they want a job and they can’t get rid of leadership because of the laws that defend entrenched management. Please, tell me more about how unions prevent people from being exploited.
"unions have stopped work abuse," by causing even more.
"have enacted child labor laws," Okay first, legislatures enact laws, not unions. Two child labor did not end because of unions it ended because technology improved to the point where we no longer needed to employ children.
"the 40 hour work week" again this is a benefit from advanced in productivity. The historically extreme Luddite nature of unions does not get to oppose technology and take credit for the benefits of technology.
"minimum wage" and the fact that you’re praising minimum wage shows that you knowledge of economics is about as deep as you knowledge of the history of unions, that is…you know nothing. Minimum wages were started as a racist move to prevent competition for white workers (racism, just another thing brought to you by unions) and have become one of the worst economic drags of all time.
"they have made sure that workers are not abused or taken advantage of." Again they have done everything they possibly could to abuse and take advantage of their own workers. Not to mention unions have traditionally been a laundering front for organized crime, have been the single greatest detriment for education in existence, have prevented cheap goods from getting to consumers, have wasted resources, have stunted the growth of the middle class in this nation and around the world. Do you like to defend child molesters too? (oh wait that is literally what the teachers unions do on a nearly weekly basis, way to go unions).
"they have done way more harm than good." perhaps in an alternate universe.
"clearly you believe in anarchy" Uh-huh. Are you on drugs or just new here? Labeled against me that are particularly dumb comment…but it’s also a non-sequitur as my original (and clearly half facetious) point was that that legal force should be used against the ignorant thuggery of union..so your argument is that since I wish to stop the unethical use of force against the free market (which is a system that requires law) I endorse anarchy…and the only people who don’t endorse anarchy are those who support giving legal protection to thugs who would bully others to get their own way. Again, are you on drugs? …Or is it that you forgot to take your pills this morning?
"in which there is only death." And to top off your non-sequitur you add a statement that isn’t even remotely hyperbolic to the point of you showing you’re not very stable. I’m not a fan of anarchy and would usually agree it would lead to the total destruction of civilization when adopted on a large scale…but in the context of this topic, your statement is rather out of place.
