NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so I'm a bit of a libertarian myself, but here's something that I've been wondering about.

It makes me feel good to help those that are less advantaged than myself. I enjoy being charitable and helping to right those things that I consider wrong. Are Libertarianism and Objectivism about the right for the gifted to be better off than the poor or the right to be as generous or as selfish as an individual wants?

Basically, can I be a compassionate libertarian, or do these belief systems require me to want to keep all the money I work hard to earn?

Okay, so I'm a bit of a libertarian myself, but here's something that I've been wondering about.

It makes me feel good to help those that are less advantaged than myself. I enjoy being charitable and helping to right those things that I consider wrong. Are Libertarianism and Objectivism about the right for the gifted to be better off than the poor or the right to be as generous or as selfish as an individual wants?

Basically, can I be a compassionate libertarian, or do these belief systems require me to want to keep all the money I work hard to earn?
No, libertarianism just means people shouldn't be forced to give their hard earned money to those who do nothing for them. Charity is still allowed.

Basically, can I be a compassionate libertarian, or do these belief systems require me to want to keep all the money I work hard to earn?
Who gave you the idea you have to be an arsehole to respect other people's choices in life?

Of course you can help whomever you want. There may be a few super-radical Darwinists out there who might think that giving charity dilutes the human genome, but other than that, nobody will criticise you in the least if you give charity.

Libertarians just have a problem if you don't get to choose, but if your money is taken away and redistributed regardless of your opinion about it.

That's what I thought. I got to thinking about it yesterday when an Ayn Rand topic appeared and I remembered that none of the heroes in Atlas Shrugged were overly charitable themselves. I mean, there was that one instance with Hank at the beginnning and another with Dagny once, but for the most part Rand stayed rather mute on the whole subject of charity.

Then again, I didn't particularly like Rand's analysis anyway...

Here's an interesting question..

How do libertarians feel about Robin Hood?

Here's an interesting question..
How do libertarians feel about Robin Hood?
That's actually a difficult question to answer...on one hand the 'steal from the rich and give to the poor' thing is heavily socialist; but on the other hand, he only stole that money because the tyrannical government heavily taxed its citizens.

Here's an interesting question..

How do libertarians feel about Robin Hood?
He returned money to those who had rightfully earned it but were denied it by an oppressive government. He's still a hero.

That's actually a difficult question to answer...
Regardless of the man, the myth is obviously something to be despised. In "Atlas Shrugged" Ragnar says he's fighting one man, and that is Robin Hood.

the myth is obviously something to be despised.
Seriously? Stealing from a tryannical and oppressive ruler to give back to the oppressed masses is to be despised?

Okay, so I'm a bit of a libertarian myself, but here's something that I've been wondering about.

It makes me feel good to help those that are less advantaged than myself. I enjoy being charitable and helping to right those things that I consider wrong. Are Libertarianism and Objectivism about the right for the gifted to be better off than the poor or the right to be as generous or as selfish as an individual wants?

Basically, can I be a compassionate libertarian, or do these belief systems require me to want to keep all the money I work hard to earn?

I don't libertarians oppose private charity, I think they encourage it. The whole point is to let each person decide how where to put their money towards. I've never heard a libertarian say that you have to keep all your money for yourself.

You seem really compassionate Ragbralbur, where are you from and how old are you?

That's actually a difficult question to answer...on one hand the 'steal from the rich and give to the poor' thing is heavily socialist; but on the other hand, he only stole that money because the tyrannical government heavily taxed its citizens.
Ahh...the Paradox: He was taking from the rich to give to the poor(Socialism), but he was stealing from people who got rich off of socialism.

(Head Explodes)

Seriously? Stealing from a tryannical and oppressive ruler to give back to the oppressed masses is to be despised?
Well, the myth normally doesn't specify the details, does it. It's usually simplified to "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor". And that's the sort of thing I don't agree with.

Well, the myth normally doesn't specify the details, does it. It's usually simplified to "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor". And that's the sort of thing I don't agree with.
Well on a base level yes, but even scratching the surface of the fairy tale/legend reveals a sinister despot.

I agree two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but i feel this myth was justified in its inception and explanation.

Well, the myth normally doesn't specify the details, does it. It's usually simplified to "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor". And that's the sort of thing I don't agree with.
However the rich got the money through heavy taxation which is socialism.

However the rich got the money through heavy taxation which is socialism.
No, in that legend the Sheriff got rich from the exploitation of the feudal system and corruption, nothing to do with socialism at heart.

No, in that legend the Sheriff got rich from the exploitation of the feudal system and corruption, nothing to do with socialism at heart.
Socialism in practice is exploitation and corruption.

Socialism in practice is exploitation and corruption.
Well, I'd disagree with you on that. And I wouldn't use a half baked myth to back up that assertion either!

You know, fairy tales actually can make for some very interesting trial material...I think I once argued about Hansel and Grettel for a class, that they were breaking and entering onto private property.:p

You know, fairy tales actually can make for some very interesting trial material...I think I once argued about Hansel and Grettel for a class, that they were breaking and entering onto private property.:p
And then they murdered someone. Little demons.

The right to be as generous or as selfish as an individual wants.

I don't libertarians oppose private charity, I think they encourage it. The whole point is to let each person decide how where to put their money towards. I've never heard a libertarian say that you have to keep all your money for yourself.

You seem really compassionate Ragbralbur, where are you from and how old are you?
I'm 18 and I'm from Canada, but I'm really not all that compassionate. I've been involved with a fair amout of charity work through my church, which is socialist, even though I'm not. I'm actually on the Outreach Committee, which oversees community aid projects. I'll say this about socialists: they are completely wrong, but having been surrounded by them and seeing how much they care about those who suffer, I have no doubt that their hearts are in the right place.

The right to be as generous or as selfish as an individual wants.
Its the right all deserve. Its your money, you should do with it as you please, so long as its legal. I'd encourage one with money to give some of it to charity, but they have the right to do what they want.

How do libertarians feel about Robin Hood?


He should be set gently swinging in the breeze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging) over the public square. Right next to the similarly swinging bodies of the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John, who hang for exactly the same reason.

No, libertarianism just means people shouldn't be forced to give their hard earned money to those who do nothing for them. Charity is still allowed.

what he said..i am also quite charitable,i will stop and help anyone on the side of the road..but i dont want some dickhead in washington telling me to give up my money(while they vote raises to themselves) to cough up my money...f.u.

However the rich got the money through heavy taxation which is socialism.
No, socialism is "to each according to his need". Taxation is what the government does to get enough money to enforce laws, and not totally suck and collapse, resulting in anarchism, resulting in the slaughter of Piggy.

He should be set gently swinging in the breeze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging) over the public square. Right next to the similarly swinging bodies of the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John, who hang for exactly the same reason.
I concur with this assessment.

Both sides in Robin Hood are in oposition to the theories of Libertarianism.

But yea, charity is a go, if you wish. As long is one is not coerced into donating their money to charity (or anything else for that matter), it's fine.

He should be set gently swinging in the breeze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging) over the public square. Right next to the similarly swinging bodies of the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John, who hang for exactly the same reason.


when you kill for money..then you are no better then the whores that came before you..

i wasn't around back then,but i bet some blood was spilled,and innocent blood to boot.
but it was the dark ages for a reason.

robin hood in theory was ok i guess,but rather then stealing,he should have been a revolutionary...or...challenged the sheriff to a debate and then ran for public office..lol..so the beat down serfs could have elected him king of the whole wide world...or sheriff.

monty python again comes to mind..i am your king!
i didnt vote for you!
we are a collective..


those guys kill me.

That's what I thought. I got to thinking about it yesterday when an Ayn Rand topic appeared and I remembered that none of the heroes in Atlas Shrugged were overly charitable themselves. I mean, there was that one instance with Hank at the beginnning and another with Dagny once, but for the most part Rand stayed rather mute on the whole subject of charity.

Then again, I didn't particularly like Rand's analysis anyway...

I can tell you Rand would be opposed to forcing someone not to give charity who wanted to. The thing to remember is objectivism is a philosophy over more then just politics. An objectivist in all forms wouldn't give charity, but he wouldn't ban it.

About Robin Hood, while Ragnar said he was fighting the idea of Robin Hood, in one sence he was playing Robin Hood. He stole from the oppressors and gave to the oppressed, the difference is the oppressed were the rich industrialists, while the oppressors were the government and poor people demanding money. That's the difference between the feudalism of Robin Hood, and the "capitalism" of America. In the Feudalism, the poor were the oppressed, basically slaves, forced into work, and had their goods stolen. In America, the rich are the (more) oppressed, having a higher tax rate, and countless regulations against who and how you can hire/fire people.

I'm 18 and I'm from Canada, but I'm really not all that compassionate. I've been involved with a fair amout of charity work through my church, which is socialist, even though I'm not. I'm actually on the Outreach Committee, which oversees community aid projects. I'll say this about socialists: they are completely wrong, but having been surrounded by them and seeing how much they care about those who suffer, I have no doubt that their hearts are in the right place.
Of course, in the real world, having your heart in the right place and fifty cents will buy you coffee from a vending machine.

Okay, so I'm a bit of a libertarian myself, but here's something that I've been wondering about.

It makes me feel good to help those that are less advantaged than myself. I enjoy being charitable and helping to right those things that I consider wrong. Are Libertarianism and Objectivism about the right for the gifted to be better off than the poor or the right to be as generous or as selfish as an individual wants?

Basically, can I be a compassionate libertarian, or do these belief systems require me to want to keep all the money I work hard to earn?

Libertarianism pretty much states you make your own wealth, you dispose of your own wealth. If you choose to dispose of it through gifts, go for it.

I think objectivism can take a much harsher stance on charity. I know Rand idolized selfishness, but she was a frigid bitch.

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

If you have read any of her books, you would get the idea that only about 5% of the world is worthy of help, and they are already rich.

Regardless of the man, the myth is obviously something to be despised. In "Atlas Shrugged" Ragnar says he's fighting one man, and that is Robin Hood.

which nicely explains how objectivists and libertarians always seem to wind up on the wrong side in class struggles.

siding with the privileged and powerful makes sense only for slaves within hearing distance of the master.

If you have read any of her books, you would get the idea that only about 5% of the world is worthy of help, and they are already rich.
And if they aren't already rich, they're worth hiring before anyone else can get to them.

which nicely explains how objectivists and libertarians always seem to wind up on the wrong side in class struggles
What do you mean by the term "wrong side"?

And if they aren't already rich, they're worth hiring before anyone else can get to them.

No, then they will take your job, then vilify you with 20 minute speeches.

Of course, in the real world, having your heart in the right place and fifty cents will buy you coffee from a vending machine.

tough lesson to learn..but true.


next lesson...money makes everything go round..even evil commies and mullahs want loot,as do american imperialists,euro imperialists...money is the be all and end all,
take a gander around the world...north korea plays it's silly game to gain concessions from the west....what are those concessions?
money.
french industrialists are no different then american industrialists...just differing agendas.

if your young,make as much money as you can...then dissappear..cause human nature will never change...money=power...and everyone wants power,and if not,you best be a good little sheep,cause someone above you will want you to be their sheep.

cynical...yep...true..yep!

if i had my druthers,and was nor burdened(not like people think)with kids..i would either be a money whore or i would be in the woods and being laughed at...

money is everything...argue all you wish..history bears me out.

now where do we go from there...there will always be someone that wants power,and wealth provides that.

i want a super yacht,i want a mercedes,and pretty model girls...but i dont want what goes with it...

No, then they will take your job, then vilify you with 20 minute speeches.
I think you're underestimating the time of the speech there.

I think you're underestimating the time of the speech there.

I did breeze through them once they got repetitive.

Okay, so I'm a bit of a libertarian myself, but here's something that I've been wondering about.

It makes me feel good to help those that are less advantaged than myself. I enjoy being charitable and helping to right those things that I consider wrong. Are Libertarianism and Objectivism about the right for the gifted to be better off than the poor or the right to be as generous or as selfish as an individual wants?

Basically, can I be a compassionate libertarian, or do these belief systems require me to want to keep all the money I work hard to earn?

Libertarians believe they should be allowed to do what they want with their money. Weather that means being charitable or buying 10 Porsches is up to them.

Libertarians just have a problem if you don't get to choose, but if your money is taken away and redistributed regardless of your opinion about it.
thats why libertarians are smart;)

What do you mean by the term "wrong side"?

i mean the knee-jerk support for bosses and corporations, and (even worse) feudalistic landowners wherever they still linger. the way they consistently describe the rich and powerful as if they were exploited and oppressed rather than running the show. and the way non-elites are treated as scum and despised for the crime of not being in the elite.

Libertarians believe they should be allowed to do what they want with their money.

though their theory of what makes money theirs is muddy at best

i mean the knee-jerk support for bosses and corporations, and (even worse) feudalistic landowners wherever they still linger. the way they consistently describe the rich and powerful as if they were exploited and oppressed rather than running the show. and the way non-elites are treated as scum and despised for the crime of not being in the elite.
So, it's what you subjectively declare to be the wrong side.

well ihate to say it,but i see the world as it is,not as i would like it to be.

i wish some beautiful girl loved me...for me..but girls go for money or looks...and that is tgheir predisposition towards the natural need to procreate...survival of the fittest...blah blah.

i just wish every thing was peaches and cream,but it is not.

pretty girls go with assholes cause they are the best physicl specimens,or they are RICH and can provide the best for them...
damn you think i dont wish a pretty girl would just love me for me...lol..the species would never survive..

it sucks,and no one wants to face the truth,,,we are about survival,and women pick men they inately think will helpm them..same with guys,look at bike gangs..the weak are weeded out rather quickly.

aint saying it is right,just the way it works is all.

if i am wrong,let me know please!

i only been around forever,and it is kinda the impression i have.

not to say there aint exceptions....

though their theory of what makes money theirs is muddy at best

The money I work for is mine, period. I don't even pay taxes.

So, it's what you subjectively declare to be the wrong side.

when they side with feudal oligarchs against landless peasants, the right and wrong of it seem fairly clear to me.

Speaking of work and money, I've got to be there tomorrow morning. Goodnight.

To me, economic Libertarianism, as an ideology, is focused on doing what works in macroeconomic policy. We have come to believe that certain economically liberal policies are ineffective in achieving their goal of helping the poor. Minimum wage, for example, causes a rise in unemployment among low wage workers producing a negative effect for a large portion of the lower class.

I tend to separate the issues of regulation and redistribution. Regulations, such as minimum wage, rarely achieve their purpose efficiently. There are only a hand full of legitimate reasons (i.e. negative externalities) to regulate the economy, and those reasons should be applied sparingly. Redistributive policies, such as welfare, in theory, have the capability of achieving their goal of helping the needy. I admitt that welfare in the United States and other western countries is inefficient and clogged with bureaucracy, but in it's essence, if we eliminate as much waste as possible, it works to eliminate poverty.

If you press me on it, I'll admitt that I do find it somewhat unethical to take money from the wealthy to give to the poor. I believe strongly in property rights. The thing is, since my main concern with economic policy is doing what works, I find it difficult to get upset about welfare.

The anti-regulation/pro-welfare position is very different, at its core, from the liberal/socialist economic ideology that we libertarians love to hate. The problem with socialists is that they absurdly place blame on the wealthy for every problem associated with poverty.

-- (Long winded example: In recent years, many western corporations have begun to employ citizens of developing nations. Economic liberals claim that corporations are exploiting these workers. The fact is that, for the most part [with a few sad exceptions], any employment agreement made between these workers and western corporations has been completely voluntary. For them to claim that a voluntary agreement is exploitive, is ridiculous. The argument by which they attempted to justify this claim, however, borders on paranoia. They argue something to the effect of "These poor workers were forced by poverty and a lack of other options into accepting those jobs. They had to choose between feeding their families and working in a difficult low wage job. How can you call this 'agreement' voluntary?!" By making this argument, they imply that the employer is at fault for the state of poverty and the lack of options that existed previous to the agreement, when, in fact, by offering this agreement they have helped to alleviate the very problems that economic liberals claim to result therefrom.) --

The anti-regulation/pro-welfare position is not filled with such irrational jealousies. The idea is simple; hold up the poor without holding back the rich. Of course, any forced redistribution is going to hold back the wealthy at least a little bit, but direct redistribution (as opposed to regulations that allegedly have a redisributive effect) will do so in such a way as to most efficiently achieve the goal of helping the needy.

As to your original question of whether you can be a charitable libertarian, absolutely. I call myself a libertarian, and, as you can see, I am actually somewhat favorable toward welfare. I think that the basic qualification for the label of economic libertarianism is this: Are you reserved and disciplined in making claims that the government should interfere in the free market?

If you have read any of her books, you would get the idea that only about 5% of the world is worthy of help, and they are already rich.

She didn't realize that 95% of the rich in the world today are the beneficiaries of some form of statist largesse.

I live in the western US. The land my house is sitting on was originally stolen from someone. This is actually pretty universal.

Ayn Rand doesn't care if your stuff is stolen goods...
Of course, she's dead so she doesn't care if the communists were to take over the world...

She didn't realize that 95% of the rich in the world today are the beneficiaries of some form of statist largesse.

what's weird about libertarians is that they mostly will quickly accept that this is the case and is wrong and should be abolished, but then will proceed to loudly defend the power and privilege of the current elite anyway. it's as if they just can't fit that data into their thinking, so agreeing to it changes nothing.

what's weird about libertarians is that they mostly will quickly accept that this is the case and is wrong and should be abolished, but then will proceed to loudly defend the power and privilege of the current elite anyway. it's as if they just can't fit that data into their thinking, so agreeing to it changes nothing.
Ex Post Facto.

Laws cannot be made that will apply retroactively, according to the United States Constitution, the Canadian Constitution, and the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as just generally being an accepted legal principle.

They beat the system. It sucks because it was not ethical. It was, however, legal, which is the criterion against which we measure actions. Going forth, it would be great to get rid of these legal loopholes and make it so that there are not state institutions to be taken advantage of, but it is considered the lesser of two evils to let these people keep their ill-gotten gains rather than set up a legal precedent that is potentially dangerous in the hands of the wrong people and sometimes even the right people.

In this case, two wrongs will not make a right.

They beat the system. It sucks because it was not ethical. It was, however, legal, which is the criterion against which we measure actions. Going forth, it would be great to get rid of these legal loopholes and make it so that there are not state institutions to be taken advantage of, but it is considered the lesser of two evils to let these people keep their ill-gotten gains rather than set up a legal precedent that is potentially dangerous in the hands of the wrong people and sometimes even the right people.

In this case, two wrongs will not make a right.

which of course means that such 'libertarians' would have been defacto supporters of the ancien regime had they been around at the time, rather than running around with the liberal revolutionaries.

as i said, consistently on the wrong side because of the knee-jerk support for those already in power.

it's made even more obvious when you look at the contempt 'libertarians' loudly and constantly express for those on welfare or workers who have unionized in order to more effectively bargain with the bosses or whatever. they certainly don't appear to take a "well, they just did what they could under the system that was in place" approach when it comes to non-elites. no, they are scum who must be taken down, agents of oppression that form the principle enemy.

Okay, so I'm a bit of a libertarian myself, but here's something that I've been wondering about.

It makes me feel good to help those that are less advantaged than myself. I enjoy being charitable and helping to right those things that I consider wrong. Are Libertarianism and Objectivism about the right for the gifted to be better off than the poor or the right to be as generous or as selfish as an individual wants?

Basically, can I be a compassionate libertarian, or do these belief systems require me to want to keep all the money I work hard to earn?

You're an altruist, not a libertarian.

it's made even more obvious when you look at the contempt 'libertarians' loudly and constantly express for those on welfare or workers who have unionized in order to more effectively bargain with the bosses or whatever. they certainly don't appear to take a "well, they just did what they could under the system that was in place" approach when it comes to non-elites. no, they are scum who must be taken down, agents of oppression that form the principle enemy.
I'm actually all for unions, as per the fact that they're a unique sort of corporation. Instead of supplying a good, they supply the labor to make a good. Their management structure is what sets them most apart, but I've got no problem with that.

I'm actually all for unions, as per the fact that they're a unique sort of corporation. Instead of supplying a good, they supply the labor to make a good. Their management structure is what sets them most apart, but I've got no problem with that.

excellent

but you do know of the attitude that i'm talking about, yeah?

You're an altruist, not a libertarian.
Except that helping others makes me feel good, so I'm putting myself before them. They just happen to get helped along the way. I also still believe in people's right to decide what they do with their income. The path I choose and what others choose do not have to be the same.

which of course means that such 'libertarians' would have been defacto supporters of the ancien regime had they been around at the time, rather than running around with the liberal revolutionaries.

as i said, consistently on the wrong side because of the knee-jerk support for those already in power.

it's made even more obvious when you look at the contempt 'libertarians' loudly and constantly express for those on welfare or workers who have unionized in order to more effectively bargain with the bosses or whatever. they certainly don't appear to take a "well, they just did what they could under the system that was in place" approach when it comes to non-elites. no, they are scum who must be taken down, agents of oppression that form the principle enemy.
It really depends on what you're calling a liberal revolutionary. It was the libertarian ideal that led to the repeal of the British Corn Laws and began the world's movement away from mercantilism.

In fact, I don't have a problem with the idea of unions at all. Mine happens to be absolutely useless (I work in a closed shop and pay 15 bucks in union dues a week), but I don't believe that all unions have to be that. Besides, in my case it's just as much management's fault for agreeing to such terms.

EDIT: Pretty much what Andaluciae said.

Listen, I've been what would be considered an elite my whole life. My parents are wealthy. I went to a private school. I hope to be going to law school. I don't know how else I can put this:

There is no conspiracy to keep the poor people poor, at least in Canada.

We really just don't care enough to go about making your lives tougher. Maintaining such a system would just make our lives tougher too. Similarly, not all of us "elites" are the same. Some of us are misers who won't let go of a cent of their money. I, on the other hand, was just described as an altruist. Unless the elite forces out there are afraid that my altruistic nature would lead me to betray them and thus do not divulge the important information from the Elitists Annual General Meeting to me, I can tell you on good authority that we're really not out to get you.

That's what I've never understood about populism: how people become so willing to believe that it's the fault of some other civilized human being that they begin to ignore their own failings. It's quite a trick actually.

The ideal of Libertarianism is having everyone throwing their money at things they believe to be worth the wealth, including charities. That's that.

He should be set gently swinging in the breeze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging) over the public square. Right next to the similarly swinging bodies of the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John, who hang for exactly the same reason.
lol, sign me up for libertarian party! :D

I took the political compass test on okcupid! I got on Adam Sandler's mouth and Pete got above Sandler's head, I assume that means were libertarians. (Course I don't trust coporations and believe there should be a cap on buisnesses, but then I was closer to democratic then I was to libertarinsm.)

i wasn't around back then,but i bet some blood was spilled,and innocent blood to boot.
but it was the dark ages for a reason.

The Dark Ages finished a few centuries prior to when Robin Hood was supposed to be around.

robin hood in theory was ok i guess,but rather then stealing,he should have been a revolutionary...or...challenged the sheriff to a debate and then ran for public office..lol..so the beat down serfs could have elected him king of the whole wide world...or sheriff.

Did you do Medieval history?

monty python again comes to mind..i am your king!
i didnt vote for you!
we are a collective..


You get a cookie for that. It's my favourite MP sketch :)

it's made even more obvious when you look at the contempt 'libertarians' loudly and constantly express for those on welfare or workers who have unionized in order to more effectively bargain with the bosses or whatever.

No libertarian should oppose voluntary unionisation. Liberatarians should, however, oppose forced unionisation, where union membership is mandatory.

No libertarian should oppose voluntary unionisation. Liberatarians should, however, oppose forced unionisation, where union membership is mandatory.

on what internally consistent grounds could they possibly oppose a closed shop clause being written into a job contract? as they are so fond of saying, you could always get a job somewhere else if you don't like the terms.

There is no conspiracy to keep the poor people poor

nor does there have to be. just good old fashioned self interest and the natural distribution of power in a class system, which allows the institutionalization of a horrifically tilted 'playing field' and the mass transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

on what internally consistent grounds could they possibly oppose a closed shop clause being written into a job contract? as they are so fond of saying, you could always get a job somewhere else if you don't like the terms.

Freely negotiated closed shops aren't the problem. Some places (like much of Canada) force closed shops upon any unionised workplace. If the workers vote to unionise, everyone automatically must join the union.

While I do in principle disagree with the ability of unions to give away the rights of people who aren't members of the unions, in a freely negotiated closed shop what's really happened is the employer has given away his right to hire non-union workers.

So the position is perfectly consistent.