A question regarding libertarianism...

[john9blue]

No but my argument is you can culturally evolve past it.

sounds like ditching to me. what's the difference?

[Lootifer]

No but my argument is you can culturally evolve past it.

sounds like ditching to me. what's the difference?

I guess I read ditching as something quick and abrupt. But yeah you're pretty much right.

[john9blue]

No but my argument is you can culturally evolve past it.

sounds like ditching to me. what's the difference?

I guess I read ditching as something quick and abrupt. But yeah you're pretty much right.

most cultural norms are just restraints on the individual's desires for the benefit of society. the reason why what you're saying won't happen is because societies, too, are subject to the laws of darwinism.

[Woodruff]

It was suggested to me today that a better term for Libertarians might be "Proprietarians". It's an intriguing thought to me...what do you guys think?

[BigBallinStalin]

"Proprietarians"?

pro·pri·e·ty
/prəˈprīətē/
Noun

The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
The details or rules of behavior considered correct: "she's a great one for the proprieties".

= Libertarian???

...

[Woodruff]

"Proprietarians"?

pro·pri·e·ty
/prəˈprīətē/
Noun

The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
The details or rules of behavior considered correct: "she's a great one for the proprieties".

= Libertarian???

Proprietarianism is essentially anarcho-capitalism. "I own myself". I'm honestly very surprised that you in particular haven't heard the term.

EDIT: Added a link:
http://prep4liberty.com/2011/01/what-is-proprietarianism/

[Woodruff]

Wait...Libertarians don't believe in contracts now? I don't care if you don't like that there
are public unions, but to say that already-agreed-to contracts shouldn't be fulfilled? These
guys don't really sound like Libertarians to me...

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-says-gov-walker-made-right-first-step

[thegreekdog]

Wait...Libertarians don't believe in contracts now? I don't care if you don't like that there
are public unions, but to say that already-agreed-to contracts shouldn't be fulfilled? These
guys don't really sound like Libertarians to me...

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-says-gov-walker-made-right-first-step

I take it you didn't read the article. The contract you reference should be invalid.

Government employee labor contracts in Wisconsin, like most made between unions and federal, state and local governments in the United States, are inherently illegitimate.

Government employee labor contracts in Wisconsin, like most made between unions and federal, state and local governments in the United States, are inherently illegitimate. Fulfilling their demands, therefore, is not obligatory.

“Governments and unions have an incestuous relationship in this country,” said Libertarian Party Chair Geoffrey J. Neale. “Politicians pass laws forcing millions of government employees to pay union dues while handing out lucrative government employee contracts. The unions pour money into the re-election campaigns of those politicians. Everyday taxpayers and workers are left holding the bag.”

A judge must recuse himself when adjudicating a case where he has a financial interest in one of the parties before him. Libertarians assert that, likewise, a lawmaker who takes campaign donations from contractors, unions or anyone else who profits from taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote for handing out government largesse. Nor should those who profit from government be allowed to donate to political campaigns.

But lawmakers routinely allow this conflict of interest, passing laws to mandate the terms of labor contracts and signing those contracts, rendering them invalid.

A valid contract is one where all interested parties agree to the terms of the contract. When elections can be bought by those who profit from Big Government, the taxpayers have, at best, weak representation. Yet they’re expected to foot the bill.

“To call such contracts ‘non-discretionary’ is a sham. Taxpayers never gave their consent to pay for labor union contracts that dish out high wages, generous benefits, and retirement packages worth two to fives times what private sector workers get for doing the same job,” said Chair Neale. “This keeps taxes high and promotes recklessly high government overspending. It’s also fundamentally unfair.”

The Libertarian Party calls for re-writing these contracts to bring government worker compensation in line with that of comparable private sector workers and to eliminate unnecessary and duplicate jobs that drive up government spending.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Proprietarians"?

pro·pri·e·ty
/prəˈprīətē/
Noun

The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
The details or rules of behavior considered correct: "she's a great one for the proprieties".

= Libertarian???

Proprietarianism is essentially anarcho-capitalism. "I own myself". I'm honestly very surprised that you in particular haven't heard the term.

EDIT: Added a link:
http://prep4liberty.com/2011/01/what-is-proprietarianism/

I'm not sure I can take LadyPhoenix seriously because that place, http://prep4liberty.com/about/, is a blog for her "ideological ramblings," and she lacks credentials.

Furthermore, judging from her own words, I really wouldn't consider her to be an authority on anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism. She's not saying anything new nor better. It seems she coined the term either (1) to boost her popularity, and/or (2) because she doesn't like other terms, so it's more of a marketing 'solution'.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wait...Libertarians don't believe in contracts now? I don't care if you don't like that there
are public unions, but to say that already-agreed-to contracts shouldn't be fulfilled? These
guys don't really sound like Libertarians to me...

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-says-gov-walker-made-right-first-step

The Libertarian Party supports measures taken by Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin to curtail collective bargaining rights of state unions in his bid to cut the state budget deficit. But it’s only a first step.

Why would libertarians be opposed to collective bargaining rights?

Now, by CBR, I don't mean "the ability for groups to bargain for a deal as a group." That's what those "rights" sound like, but they're more than that. So what would the LP be opposed to?

Government employee labor contracts in Wisconsin, like most made between unions and federal, state and local governments in the United States, are inherently illegitimate. Fulfilling their demands, therefore, is not obligatory.

That's another way to argue against that. Simply because the gang of bandits pays the construction workers to fix the streets, it doesn't mean that opposing such a contract discounts you as a libertarian. If anything, it would be the opposite of that. In other words, contracts with an illegitimate organization (e.g. a criminal gang) need not be legitimate simply because it's an agreement between them and some company. It would be legitimate if the citizen living under some state voluntarily agreed to some list of duties which the state would fulfill. Obviously, that's not the case in this scenario.

Libertarians assert that, likewise, a lawmaker who takes campaign donations from contractors, unions or anyone else who profits from taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote for handing out government largesse. Nor should those who profit from government be allowed to donate to political campaigns.

There's more.


Wait, if you read this, then why do you find the LP's reaction odd?

[Woodruff]

Wait...Libertarians don't believe in contracts now? I don't care if you don't like that there
are public unions, but to say that already-agreed-to contracts shouldn't be fulfilled? These
guys don't really sound like Libertarians to me...

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-says-gov-walker-made-right-first-step

I take it you didn't read the article. The contract you reference should be invalid.

I did read it. The statement that a contract is not legitimate doesn't make it illegitimate. This is basically the Libertarians deciding that the contract is not legitimate simply because they don't like public unions. That's not a legitimate justification. Contractually, what is not legitimate about it? Was it not signed correctly?

[Woodruff]

"Proprietarians"?

pro·pri·e·ty
/prəˈprīətē/
Noun

The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
The details or rules of behavior considered correct: "she's a great one for the proprieties".

= Libertarian???

Proprietarianism is essentially anarcho-capitalism. "I own myself". I'm honestly very surprised that you in particular haven't heard the term.

EDIT: Added a link:
http://prep4liberty.com/2011/01/what-is-proprietarianism/

I'm not sure I can take LadyPhoenix seriously because that place, http://prep4liberty.com/about/, is a blog for her "ideological ramblings," and she lacks credentials.

Furthermore, judging from her own words, I really wouldn't consider her to be an authority on anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism. She's not saying anything new nor better. It seems she coined the term either (1) to boost her popularity, and/or (2) because she doesn't like other terms, so it's more of a marketing 'solution'.

Except it's not a matter of just that site. That just happened to be the first one I came across from The Google Machine. I think you've been to Reddit - go to the anarchist subfora and you'll see for yourself.

[Woodruff]

Government employee labor contracts in Wisconsin, like most made between unions and federal, state and local governments in the United States, are inherently illegitimate. Fulfilling their demands, therefore, is not obligatory.

That's another way to argue against that. Simply because the gang of bandits pays the construction workers to fix the streets, it doesn't mean that opposing such a contract discounts you as a libertarian. If anything, it would be the opposite of that. In other words, contracts with an illegitimate organization (e.g. a criminal gang) need not be legitimate simply because it's an agreement between them and some company. It would be legitimate if the citizen living under some state voluntarily agreed to some list of duties which the state would fulfill. Obviously, that's not the case in this scenario.

That sounds to me like there can never be governmental contracts, as each citizen living there would have had to voluntarily agree to that list of duties for the state to fulfill. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Libertarians assert that, likewise, a lawmaker who takes campaign donations from contractors, unions or anyone else who profits from taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote for handing out government largesse. Nor should those who profit from government be allowed to donate to political campaigns.
There's more.
Wait, if you read this, then why do you find the LP's reaction odd?

Because it's stupid. This basically says that since the Libertarians don't like how the contracts came about, they're not legitimate. It's not really their position to make that determination, however...and if the state does void those contracts, then the state is in the wrong.

[Woodruff]

"Proprietarians"?

pro·pri·e·ty
/prəˈprīətē/
Noun

The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
The details or rules of behavior considered correct: "she's a great one for the proprieties".

= Libertarian???

Proprietarianism is essentially anarcho-capitalism. "I own myself". I'm honestly very surprised that you in particular haven't heard the term.

EDIT: Added a link:
http://prep4liberty.com/2011/01/what-is-proprietarianism/

I'm not sure I can take LadyPhoenix seriously because that place, http://prep4liberty.com/about/, is a blog for her "ideological ramblings," and she lacks credentials.

Furthermore, judging from her own words, I really wouldn't consider her to be an authority on anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism. She's not saying anything new nor better. It seems she coined the term either (1) to boost her popularity, and/or (2) because she doesn't like other terms, so it's more of a marketing 'solution'.

I went ahead and asked the question on Reddit, and it looks like both you and I went for the wrong word (propriety instead of proprietary). Here is the best response I got back:

according to the heathian ancap spencer heath maccallum, the terms propriety and property have common roots.

In "The Social Nature of Ownership" (1965), MacCallum considers the relationship between property and society. He notes that "propriety" and "property" were interchangeable terms in 16th- and 17th-century usage, the former having connotations of customary aspects. "Property" comes from the Latin term "proprius," meaning "self" or "one's own," but legal ownership also involves the recognition by others of jurisdiction and hence "is a social phenomenon".

-fred foldvary, public goods and private communities

...so what is the tie-in that I'm overlooking?

pro·pri·e·tar·y adj. 1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors as a group: had proprietary rights; behaved with a proprietary air in his friend's house. 2. Exclusively owned; private: a proprietary hospital. 3. Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent: a proprietary drug.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wait...Libertarians don't believe in contracts now? I don't care if you don't like that there
are public unions, but to say that already-agreed-to contracts shouldn't be fulfilled? These
guys don't really sound like Libertarians to me...

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-says-gov-walker-made-right-first-step

I take it you didn't read the article. The contract you reference should be invalid.

I did read it. The statement that a contract is not legitimate doesn't make it illegitimate. This is basically the Libertarians deciding that the contract is not legitimate simply because they don't like public unions. That's not a legitimate justification. Contractually, what is not legitimate about it? Was it not signed correctly?

They don't like organizations which force others to pay for services that they may not want.

With libertarianism, involuntary exchange is illegitimate in this circumstance.

This is pretty straight forward, right?

[BigBallinStalin]

"Proprietarians"?

pro·pri·e·ty
/prəˈprīətē/
Noun

The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
The details or rules of behavior considered correct: "she's a great one for the proprieties".

= Libertarian???

Proprietarianism is essentially anarcho-capitalism. "I own myself". I'm honestly very surprised that you in particular haven't heard the term.

EDIT: Added a link:
http://prep4liberty.com/2011/01/what-is-proprietarianism/

I'm not sure I can take LadyPhoenix seriously because that place, http://prep4liberty.com/about/, is a blog for her "ideological ramblings," and she lacks credentials.

Furthermore, judging from her own words, I really wouldn't consider her to be an authority on anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism. She's not saying anything new nor better. It seems she coined the term either (1) to boost her popularity, and/or (2) because she doesn't like other terms, so it's more of a marketing 'solution'.

Except it's not a matter of just that site. That just happened to be the first one I came across from The Google Machine. I think you've been to Reddit - go to the anarchist subfora and you'll see for yourself.

How odd.

Oh, hey TW.

I searched "proprietarianism" and got about 7 hits. I'm gonna assume it's not that big.

[Woodruff]

Wait...Libertarians don't believe in contracts now? I don't care if you don't like that there
are public unions, but to say that already-agreed-to contracts shouldn't be fulfilled? These
guys don't really sound like Libertarians to me...

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-says-gov-walker-made-right-first-step

I take it you didn't read the article. The contract you reference should be invalid.

I did read it. The statement that a contract is not legitimate doesn't make it illegitimate. This is basically the Libertarians deciding that the contract is not legitimate simply because they don't like public unions. That's not a legitimate justification. Contractually, what is not legitimate about it? Was it not signed correctly?

They don't like organizations which force others to pay for services that they may not want.

With libertarianism, involuntary exchange is illegitimate in this circumstance.

This is pretty straight forward, right?

Ok, so my point is this...it's one thing to IDEOLOGICALLY say that the contract is not legitimate. It is quite another to BREAK A CONTRACT.

[BigBallinStalin]

Government employee labor contracts in Wisconsin, like most made between unions and federal, state and local governments in the United States, are inherently illegitimate. Fulfilling their demands, therefore, is not obligatory.

That's another way to argue against that. Simply because the gang of bandits pays the construction workers to fix the streets, it doesn't mean that opposing such a contract discounts you as a libertarian. If anything, it would be the opposite of that. In other words, contracts with an illegitimate organization (e.g. a criminal gang) need not be legitimate simply because it's an agreement between them and some company. It would be legitimate if the citizen living under some state voluntarily agreed to some list of duties which the state would fulfill. Obviously, that's not the case in this scenario.

That sounds to me like there can never be governmental contracts, as each citizen living there would have had to voluntarily agree to that list of duties for the state to fulfill. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Correct. Rules would established by the people through their everyday exchanges and agreements on a voluntary basis. If libertarianism is followed consistently, then that's the conclusion, which is why people call it "anarcho capitalism" or "market anarchy"--to more clearly differentiate 'extreme/consistent libertarianism' from libertarianism.

Why doesn't that make sense?

Libertarians assert that, likewise, a lawmaker who takes campaign donations from contractors, unions or anyone else who profits from taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote for handing out government largesse. Nor should those who profit from government be allowed to donate to political campaigns.
There's more.
Wait, if you read this, then why do you find the LP's reaction odd?

Because it's stupid. This basically says that since the Libertarians don't like how the contracts came about, they're not legitimate. It's not really their position to make that determination, however...and if the state does void those contracts, then the state is in the wrong.

Think of government as a robber gang. They steal your money to pay group A to build X. The victims of theft say, "f that, end the contract." The contract is ended, and that conforms with libertarianism. It's voluntary exchange v. involuntary exchange.

[Woodruff]

Government employee labor contracts in Wisconsin, like most made between unions and federal, state and local governments in the United States, are inherently illegitimate. Fulfilling their demands, therefore, is not obligatory.

That's another way to argue against that. Simply because the gang of bandits pays the construction workers to fix the streets, it doesn't mean that opposing such a contract discounts you as a libertarian. If anything, it would be the opposite of that. In other words, contracts with an illegitimate organization (e.g. a criminal gang) need not be legitimate simply because it's an agreement between them and some company. It would be legitimate if the citizen living under some state voluntarily agreed to some list of duties which the state would fulfill. Obviously, that's not the case in this scenario.

That sounds to me like there can never be governmental contracts, as each citizen living there would have had to voluntarily agree to that list of duties for the state to fulfill. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Correct. Rules would established by the people through their everyday exchanges and agreements on a voluntary basis. If libertarianism is followed consistently, then that's the conclusion, which is why people call it "anarcho capitalism" or "market anarchy"--to more clearly differentiate 'extreme/consistent libertarianism' from libertarianism.

Why doesn't that make sense?

Because it's simply not workable, that's why. It's like the idealism of communism.

Libertarians assert that, likewise, a lawmaker who takes campaign donations from contractors, unions or anyone else who profits from taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote for handing out government largesse. Nor should those who profit from government be allowed to donate to political campaigns.
There's more.
Wait, if you read this, then why do you find the LP's reaction odd?

Because it's stupid. This basically says that since the Libertarians don't like how the contracts came about, they're not legitimate. It's not really their position to make that determination, however...and if the state does void those contracts, then the state is in the wrong.

Think of government as a robber gang. They steal your money to pay group A to build X. The victims of theft say, "f that, end the contract." The contract is ended, and that conforms with libertarianism. It's voluntary exchange v. involuntary exchange.

I understand the analogy, but I think it's a terrible stance to take regarding contracts that are already in force. Sure, take that stance on future contracts if you want...that's legitimate. But to void current contracts for such a position is ridiculous.

[BigBallinStalin]

Government employee labor contracts in Wisconsin, like most made between unions and federal, state and local governments in the United States, are inherently illegitimate. Fulfilling their demands, therefore, is not obligatory.

That's another way to argue against that. Simply because the gang of bandits pays the construction workers to fix the streets, it doesn't mean that opposing such a contract discounts you as a libertarian. If anything, it would be the opposite of that. In other words, contracts with an illegitimate organization (e.g. a criminal gang) need not be legitimate simply because it's an agreement between them and some company. It would be legitimate if the citizen living under some state voluntarily agreed to some list of duties which the state would fulfill. Obviously, that's not the case in this scenario.

That sounds to me like there can never be governmental contracts, as each citizen living there would have had to voluntarily agree to that list of duties for the state to fulfill. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Correct. Rules would established by the people through their everyday exchanges and agreements on a voluntary basis. If libertarianism is followed consistently, then that's the conclusion, which is why people call it "anarcho capitalism" or "market anarchy"--to more clearly differentiate 'extreme/consistent libertarianism' from libertarianism.

Why doesn't that make sense?

Because it's simply not workable, that's why. It's like the idealism of communism.

Would you like examples of voluntarily provided services--which are traditionally provided by government?

Hell, go ask in reddit, and they'll fill ya in.

Libertarians assert that, likewise, a lawmaker who takes campaign donations from contractors, unions or anyone else who profits from taxpayer money should not be allowed to vote for handing out government largesse. Nor should those who profit from government be allowed to donate to political campaigns.
There's more.
Wait, if you read this, then why do you find the LP's reaction odd?

Because it's stupid. This basically says that since the Libertarians don't like how the contracts came about, they're not legitimate. It's not really their position to make that determination, however...and if the state does void those contracts, then the state is in the wrong.

Think of government as a robber gang. They steal your money to pay group A to build X. The victims of theft say, "f that, end the contract." The contract is ended, and that conforms with libertarianism. It's voluntary exchange v. involuntary exchange.

I understand the analogy, but I think it's a terrible stance to take regarding contracts that are already in force. Sure, take that stance on future contracts if you want...that's legitimate. But to void current contracts for such a position is ridiculous.

You dislike it because you want the state to maintain such contracts?

[Woodruff]

Think of government as a robber gang. They steal your money to pay group A to build X. The victims of theft say, "f that, end the contract." The contract is ended, and that conforms with libertarianism. It's voluntary exchange v. involuntary exchange.

I understand the analogy, but I think it's a terrible stance to take regarding contracts that are already in force. Sure, take that stance on future contracts if you want...that's legitimate. But to void current contracts for such a position is ridiculous.

You dislike it because you want the state to maintain such contracts?

I dislike it because I don't believe in breaking legal contracts. I thought I made that fairly obvious by referring to "take that stance with future contracts, but not current ones".

[BigBallinStalin]

Think of government as a robber gang. They steal your money to pay group A to build X. The victims of theft say, "f that, end the contract." The contract is ended, and that conforms with libertarianism. It's voluntary exchange v. involuntary exchange.

I understand the analogy, but I think it's a terrible stance to take regarding contracts that are already in force. Sure, take that stance on future contracts if you want...that's legitimate. But to void current contracts for such a position is ridiculous.

You dislike it because you want the state to maintain such contracts?

I dislike it because I don't believe in breaking legal contracts. I thought I made that fairly obvious by referring to "take that stance with future contracts, but not current ones".

So, you'd follow the law in all circumstances?

If not, then obviously you would in some cases break legal contracts...


Even the law as provided by the state (not quite the people) is not based on any agreement--other than some nonsensical social contract myth. The criminal gang which agrees to pay X to whoever is not a legal contract---in accordance with libertarianism. I'm sure you'd agree, but they take it one more step by saying the government is essentially a criminal gang. That's where you balk, right?

[Woodruff]

Think of government as a robber gang. They steal your money to pay group A to build X. The victims of theft say, "f that, end the contract." The contract is ended, and that conforms with libertarianism. It's voluntary exchange v. involuntary exchange.

I understand the analogy, but I think it's a terrible stance to take regarding contracts that are already in force. Sure, take that stance on future contracts if you want...that's legitimate. But to void current contracts for such a position is ridiculous.

You dislike it because you want the state to maintain such contracts?

I dislike it because I don't believe in breaking legal contracts. I thought I made that fairly obvious by referring to "take that stance with future contracts, but not current ones".

So, you'd follow the law in all circumstances?

No. But I certainly would have to have seriously extenuating circumstances not to do so.

If not, then obviously you would in some cases break legal contracts...

I wouldn't have signed the legal contract if I planned to break it, so no. I do not necessarily consider a law to be a legal contract, at least not in the sense that I am talking about here.

Even the law as provided by the state (not quite the people) is not based on any agreement--other than some nonsensical social contract myth. The criminal gang which agrees to pay X to whoever is not a legal contract---in accordance with libertarianism. I'm sure you'd agree, but they take it one more step by saying the government is essentially a criminal gang. That's where you balk, right?

But it IS a LEGAL CONTRACT. It was signed by both parties.

[thegreekdog]

But it IS a LEGAL CONTRACT. It was signed by both parties.

It is technically a legal contract in that the representatives of the government were elected by the interested party (i.e. the people of Wisconsin) to represent* them in such contract negotiations. Otherwise, it would not be a legal contract.

The Libertarian Party's point (and my point) is that the representatives did not represent* the interest party in the way that they should have been represented*. Certain representatives were elected and negotiated with the unions. These representatives should have been acting in the best interest of their constituents. They did not. They acted in the best interest of the unions, who gave them certain benefits associated with acting in the unions' best interest, rather than the constituents. In legal parlance, this would be an invalid contract (except that the representatives in question were elected). I wonder if it's possible to bring a lawsuit to invalidate that contract (and all government contracts) on those grounds.

Completely fake example (that I use to attempt to remove your inherent and understandable bias in favor of teachers and their unions): President Tree was elected by the people of the Untied Staets. His first order of business was to negotiate a contract with a private security firm (let's just call that The Firm). As a representative of the constituents of the Untied Staets, President Tree ostensibly should try to get the best deal possible. But, President Tree's best friend is the head of The Firm and The Firm donated significant campaign dollars to President Tree and other members of his party. So President Tree gives The Firm a good deal, giving tax dollars from the constitutents to The Firm over and above the value that The Firm will provide. Essentially, President Tree is poorly representing his constituents to reward his friends. Wisconsin representatives are poorly representing their constituents to reward their friends. This invalidates the contract, in my opinion; you no longer have to parties that are at odds.

I will take a look, perhaps today, to see if government employees are paid more in states where the majority of representatives are Democratic compared to states where the majority of representatives are Republican.

tl;dr - Wisconsin representatives are not negotiating union contracts in good faith and aren't representing their constituents.

[Woodruff]

But it IS a LEGAL CONTRACT. It was signed by both parties.

It is technically a legal contract in that the representatives of the government were elected by the interested party (i.e. the people of Wisconsin) to represent* them in such contract negotiations. Otherwise, it would not be a legal contract.

The Libertarian Party's point (and my point) is that the representatives did not represent* the interest party in the way that they should have been represented*. Certain representatives were elected and negotiated with the unions. These representatives should have been acting in the best interest of their constituents. They did not. They acted in the best interest of the unions, who gave them certain benefits associated with acting in the unions' best interest, rather than the constituents. In legal parlance, this would be an invalid contract (except that the representatives in question were elected). I wonder if it's possible to bring a lawsuit to invalidate that contract (and all government contracts) on those grounds.

Completely fake example (that I use to attempt to remove your inherent and understandable bias in favor of teachers and their unions): President Tree was elected by the people of the Untied Staets. His first order of business was to negotiate a contract with a private security firm (let's just call that The Firm). As a representative of the constituents of the Untied Staets, President Tree ostensibly should try to get the best deal possible. But, President Tree's best friend is the head of The Firm and The Firm donated significant campaign dollars to President Tree and other members of his party. So President Tree gives The Firm a good deal, giving tax dollars from the constitutents to The Firm over and above the value that The Firm will provide. Essentially, President Tree is poorly representing his constituents to reward his friends. Wisconsin representatives are poorly representing their constituents to reward their friends. This invalidates the contract, in my opinion; you no longer have to parties that are at odds.

I will take a look, perhaps today, to see if government employees are paid more in states where the majority of representatives are Democratic compared to states where the majority of representatives are Republican.

tl;dr - Wisconsin representatives are not negotiating union contracts in good faith and aren't representing their constituents.

The problem with that logic is that anyone who doesn't like a particular governmental contract can then state that "the representatives were not negotiating contracts in good faith and representing their constituents". It's simply a matter of opinion at that point.