Why government should always have more power than private business.

[Todd]

Look, it's nice to live in this fantasy world where government is always bad and private businessmen somehow incorruptible, but the truth is that businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery? A worker isn't free, after all, and just like a slave, you have to pay for the basics: food, shelter, health, etc.)


Thoughts?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a fantasy where the private is somehow incorruptible. I think what you miss is that that the private is less likely to have the monopoly of force on others when they do become corrupt.

I will choose the problem of finding a solution for the private tyranny over the public tyranny anyday

[Len Larson]

RE: Marx debunked, one can hardly do better than Mises.
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
by Ludwig von Mises

This masterwork is much more than a refutation of the economics of socialism (although on that front, nothing else compares). It is also a critique of the entire intellectual apparatus that accompanies the socialist idea, including the implicit religious doctrines behind Western socialist thinking, a cultural critique of socialist teaching on sex and marriage, an refutation of syndicalism and corporatism, an examination of the implications of radical human inequality, an attack on war socialism, and refutation of collectivist methodology.

In short, Mises set out to refute socialism, and instead pulled up the socialist mentality from its very roots. For that reason, Socialism led dozens of famous intellectuals, including a young F.A. Hayek, into a crisis of faith and a realist/libertarian political orientation. All the collectivist literature combined cannot equal the intellectual achievement of this one volume.

[DanConway]

Hi,

So let's say I'm a worker for a business. At this business, as it goes in a typical capitalist society, I am in a subordinate position to the boss, who is the representative of the ultimate owners (i.e., the investors who own the business.)

As a worker, I am unable to participate in any decisions regarding the operations of this business: not over sales, not over pay, not over hours, not anything. Maybe the boss gives me a little say, but, for the most part, the boss holds the power. This business is structured as an authoritarian hierarchy, in which power only flows from the top down, and not the bottom up. The workers below are dependent on the owners above for salary, and thus for their food, shelter, health, education, everything needed to live.

As a worker, I cannot go anywhere else: unemployment is very high, and I, lacking any way to provide for myself otherwise (I don't own a factory, or land, or have any access to money), must sell my labor to the business owner or else my children will starve. Fundamentally, I work on their terms only.

Now let's say that this business begins to take in record profits for the investors. (My co-workers and I are the ones doing all of the useful labor, but remember: we have no say how the profits are split.)

Now let's say that this business says to my co-workers and me, "We want to increase profits even more. This is a business, right? All workers must take a 50% pay cut. Oh, and we are cutting health benefits too. The workload will be the same, but we, the owners and investors, want an even bigger share of the profit pie. Actually, we'd like you to work 10 hours a day instead of 8. If you don't like it, go starve in the streets."

You see now that we have a situation in which power is (vastly) asymmetrically distributed between the workers and the owners. Andthe investors, clearly, in this case, are abusing the workers.

(From this situation, things get even worse for the overall economy: The workers are underpaid and, as a class, are unable to match their production value with their purchasing power (if every business owner pays theirs workers 1 "unit of value" (UOV) to produce 2 UOV's, we approach a situation of over-production and then all kinds of messes ensue (the owners can only spend so much of their money on luxury goods and re-investment. Sometimes, they even promote foreign wars to open new markets for all the over-produced goods. This is a component of imperialism. But for the most part, the investor class has been hoarding money in off-shore accounts, somewhere between $21 and $32 trillion, actually, on a global scale.)

Anyway, back to the workers.

So what are we supposed to do? We could:

1) Start a union, in which case we all get fired immediately
2) Go on strike, in which case we all get fired immediately. The owners will turn armed guards on us if they need to (this has happened thousands of times in history.)
3) We could encourage a consumer boycott, which is not going to work.
4) We could smash and sabotage the workplace, in which case we all go to jail.

OR

5) We could appeal to a higher authority, that is, the government, the ultimate voice of the community.

___

Look, it's nice to live in this fantasy world where government is always bad and private businessmen somehow incorruptible, but the truth is that businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery? A worker isn't free, after all, and just like a slave, you have to pay for the basics: food, shelter, health, etc.)

This is why we need a stronger government: it is the sphere of democracy, in which (theoretically) all citizens can participate as equals, unlike in a private business, where workers are subordinated to the interests of the investors/owners/bosses. In this case, the government can step in to prevent the workers from abuse, if they are unable to do so themselves.

Thoughts?

[Also, by the way, this dispute is happening right now with Caterpillar. In fact, it happens with mosts businesses. The best way to raise profits for yourself is to pay your workers less and work them longer, harder hours, and the business owners have been doing that to working people for decades now.)

Take this Communist 101 garbage somewhere else. No one's buying it here.

Besides, you think a single worker's power in a business (which they have the right to leave at any time) is negligible, but a single voter's power in a dumbocracy is worth mentioning? (Though you did tag it with the communist-promoting cliche "in theory", which really just means "if you don't think about it too carefully".) That shows you have nothing important to say.

[heavenlyboy34]

RE: Marx debunked, one can hardly do better than Mises.
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
by Ludwig von Mises

On this subject, Requiem For Marx is pretty good too.

[idiom]

Look up Geonomics. No Income or Property Taxes. A big movement. Just for you.

Just 6 Trillion per year in taxes on anything productive (anything productive uses land and resources). As long as you don't actually produce anything no tax for you! A disincentive that big on production will work out really well...

If you are a giant financial bank and only use a small amount of office space in the middle of nowhere then almost no tax for you either. Oh yes, most of Wall street has left wall street to avoid the land taxes. Mega banks can operate wherever it is cheapest for them, like in Hong Kong.

[idiom]

Its a bit ad hominem, but Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He came from a wealthy family but still managed to reduce himself to poverty. He lived with his family in poverty leeching off his friends and writing about how the world owed him something.

He had seven children but only three survived to adulthood because he couldn't get off his arse long enough to work a job despite being very well educated.

This is not a person to be looked up to.

[MelissaWV]

Ok, so, it seems to me that most of the evidence supplied in these posts is severely flawed. You cannot say "well I have a good job so..." or "these few people were poor but now they are rich so..." Also, I'm talking about analyzing society as it is, not as we would want it to be. And the truth is that working people are NOT in positions to leisurely pick and choose employers as many of you seem to suggest (this is a luxury enjoyed by the upper classes, which, perhaps, maybe most of the members here belong to.)

Overall, though, I find it interesting that in whereas in government, you get one equal vote and community discussion/input, and in a business, where you take orders from a boss all day and have half your paycheck stolen to the investor's profit, somehow it's the government that "enslaves" you. Only in America...!

Two things here...

1. Actually we CAN say that we have a good job, and there were people who were poor and are now rich. That's the point. Those people who are becoming legacy poor are building their own economy based purely on the most efficient ways to milk the Government for dollars and freebies. It has become possible because of the inefficient, bloated Government versions of what used to be private charities. This goes back to my earlier post about how I'd rather keep more of my paycheck so I can help your hypothetical single mommy working at 3am at WalMart, rather than have the Government swipe my money via taxes and then get far less actual assistance to her than I could personally render.

2. Some of us are, in fact, comfortable. Did it occur to you that it was not always so? I had quite a string of temp jobs. I was homeless for a bit. I was never really well-off from 2000-2008, and there were a series of completely awful things I won't get into that made those years hell. Some of them were utterly unavoidable and random. Even when dirt poor, I did leave a few jobs. One of them fired me. I went out and found another one. When that one ended for whatever reason, I found another one. And another. And another. Sometimes I was in a new place and I had to find a new job there. Sometimes I just wanted to be more ambitious and happy. I worked for myself on the side, and still do. I found another steady job to occupy my days. I learned. I grew. I adapted. I was on EBT for about a month and hated every second of it. It felt so viciously, fundamentally wrong that I quit the program. I ate a lot of pasta and potatoes and chicken after that.

Oh? But I thought that if you were unskilled then nobody would want your labor? There is some inconsistency now.

It is not inconsistent to say she's out of work. She said she is filling out applications. She is seeking someone who wants her labor, and is also likely differentiating her "product" in a number of ways. Volunteer work, side projects, and polishing your resume are all worthwhile ways to pass the time when you are unable to find employment.

Whoa. So you're saying that it's totally ok that 1 out of 4 people in this country looking for work cannot find it? What a waste of human potential!

I pasted this instead of the big long diatribe about more people applying than there are jobs. Are you aware there are a variety of jobs for which almost no one is applying, even though there are openings? Not all of these are jobs that require certifications or diplomas. I am considering going into court transcription as a hobby at some point (okay that one does require a certification/training), simply because it's fairly good money and you can use the same degree to get into closed-captioning. Never heard of it? That may be because people seem to fall into the zombie mentality that they have to be a doctor, nurse, lawyer, or one of ten other basic "respectable" jobs. Your hypothetical 3am single mom at WalMart? Perhaps if she works hard and shows a bit of moxie, she might qualify to move up in the ranks. She might be at a much nicer store next, then finally work as a purchaser or a manager. People will still look down at her, though, because she works "for WalMart" or whatever other store. There are plenty of machinist jobs that go empty. This town is always looking for handymen because, well, no one knows how to do that anymore!

Let's say that I inherit a ton of money. I decide to invest it in a restaurant somewhere, and maybe I've never been there, doesn't even matter. So I give the money to someone who wants to start a restaurant. Well, a restaurant doesn't run itself, right? We need workers. So we hire some desperate people to do boring, monotonous, stressful work (cooking, cleaning, serving, dealing with annoying customers all day, etc.) And so long as they keep working, and so long as customers keep coming, I, the investor, keep making money, whether I am doing any work or not. Part of the value produced by the worker's labor is siphoned off so that I keep making money. I can then invest money all over the place, reaping profits from my investments, and if I don't want to, I never have to work again! Isn't capitalism wonderful? (And I want more money! Cut the workers' wages! And if I hear one peep about a union you're ALL FIRED!)

You don't get to "cut the workers' wages" if you want more money as an investor. Someone who provides initial capital is providing a loan, though, and you don't seem to get that. In fact, it is worse than a loan in most cases, which much less guaranteed return (interest). You are leaving out the MANY instances where you inherit that money, invest it in a restaurant, and the Health Inspector decides that there was a fly in someone's soup that was eating out on the patio, and so the restaurant must be closed. Bam. You lose your money. The restaurant cannot sell beer because its liquor license was refused on a technicality. Uh oh! You lose your money. See where that is going?

Burying your head in the sand will not help.

This is incredibly good advice. Please take it.

[tod evans]

Aw come on man.......Free money sounds so much better than hard work and low pay

Its a bit ad hominem, but Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He came from a wealthy family but still managed to reduce himself to poverty. He lived with his family in poverty leeching off his friends and writing about how the world owed him something.

He had seven children but only three survived to adulthood because he couldn't get off his arse long enough to work a job despite being very well educated.

This is not a person to be looked up to.

[MelissaWV]

Look, it's nice to live in this fantasy world where government is always bad and private businessmen somehow incorruptible, but the truth is that businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery? A worker isn't free, after all, and just like a slave, you have to pay for the basics: food, shelter, health, etc.)

You have to pay for the basics because you do not go get them yourself. You are free to build your own shelter, kill and prepare and cook your own food, look after your health naturally, and dig and maintain a well for water. Oops. Wait. You aren't. The Government says you can't do most of those things anymore

You also might consider that none of us is saying the private sector is incorruptible. It would, however, be more accountable. If you don't like the Government right now, you can plan a violent revolution (good luck), or elect someone else who will usually have been best friends with the person you are ousting.

[Professor8000]

I always enjoy it when Melissa hops on a thread.

[MelissaWV]

I always enjoy it when Melissa hops on a thread.

Yes but then I get bored and wander away

OH! A butterfly!...

[The_Honorable_Doug]

Someone here doesn't have the remotest understanding of economics or the motivations of human interactions. I may provide some bit of enlightenment should that person become open to the idea that they are wrong in their ideas.

A truly free market economy is based on the basic human rights of property and to freely associate and to contract with each other. It is governed by the Non-Aggression Principle. What this means is that a person owns something and that no one else under any circumstances has any right to what that person owns. What that person does with their property is of no one's else's concern. If that person wishes to trade his property for the property of another person, no one other than those two have any right to any part of that association and contract.
The above is the natural state of the most basic building block of economy. There were many native American tribes that practiced a truly free market economy until the white man came and taught them government.


First, lets start with that quote in full context:
Now that we have the full context of the quote, lets see about your response. Private Business requires the VOLUNTARY interaction with the people who desire the things the business is willing to trade them to function. Socialism requires the MANDITORY compliance with arbitrary rules and the forfeiture of the most basic of human rights, the right to property, for it to function. Socialism/Communism is based entirely on the use of force to violate the property rights of everyone by stealing their property, coercing everyone into compliance, and exploiting them by claiming ownership over the fruits of everyone's labors.


(In Yoda's voice)Make an idiot of yourself, you did.



Ah, yes. I do remember learning about all of the tribal wars fought over highly obscene Your Mama Jokes.


In a socialistic society, people can't freely do things or it doesn't work. People who work hard realize that they get just as much as people who don't so the motivation to achieve greatness is gone. Eventually you end up with an economy like the Soviets which imploded in on it's own vast stupidity. If people are free to do as they wish, it's not exactly socialism is it.


I have already lost faith in your ability to do better.

Well, it looks as if you did not seriously address anything I said. I'm starting to think Libertarianism is far less intellectually rigorous than I originally thought (which is why nobody in the "real world" takes it seriously -only here, on the Internet, where nobody has to bother you...)

"A truly free market economy is based on the basic human rights of property and to freely associate and to contract with each other. It is governed by the Non-Aggression Principle. What this means is that a person owns something and that no one else under any circumstances has any right to what that person owns. What that person does with their property is of no one's else's concern. If that person wishes to trade his property for the property of another person, no one other than those two have any right to any part of that association and contract.
The above is the natural state of the most basic building block of economy. There were many native American tribes that practiced a truly free market economy until the white man came and taught them government."

Look, this sure sounds wonderful in theory, but again, if we are talking about society we need to talk about it as it is, not as you would like it to be in some fairy land that doesn't exist.

For one, there's not reason why "property" is a basic human right. For many people, it's believed that the "basic human right" is the right to share the commons, meaning there are some things that nobody should own (like the means of production, the rivers and skies and minerals from the Earth, or even intellectual property...) So to say that something is "basic human right" just because you say so is invalid.

"What that person does with their property is of no one's else's concern."

Now this is just ridiculous. If BP bought the Gulf of Mexico and started dumping oil and toxic chemicals into it, I think it's fair to say that other people have a right to tell them not to. Likewise, it's not fair that three or four people can "own" an entire industry and coerce everyone else into working for low wages in unsafe conditions, just because you inherited the business from family and millions of poor workers did not. There is something wrong about a society in which a few corporate heads can affect the lives of billions of people. Especially, of course, when the workers in the business have no say in how things are run. Or the community has no say.This is fascism. Today's business model is basically Fascist, instead of democratic. You have a few guys on top who own and control everything, and the workers below have no say in how things are run. As a worker, you just take orders all day from above. And it's not your fault that you were born into a poor family, and the other guy was born into a wealthy, powerful family. There is no way to justify our hierarchical, unequal, authoritarian capitalist business structure (unless if you are on top and benefiting from it!)

We are slaves to corporate overlords in this country and you Libertarians just say, "Well, it's ok, my paycheck is enough!" You don't care about how much of your money is siphoned off by investors who don't work but cry foul when the government taxes a little bit to pay for roads, schools, clean water, etc.

"The above is the natural state of the most basic building block of economy. There were many native American tribes that practiced a truly free market economy until the white man came and taught them government."

This is simply not true, and the first claim isn't even supported, and runs counter to the truth that we didn't even have a market society until around the 15th century, which had to be forced onto people. Peasants were literally kicked off their communal lands, the "commons" was closed off and sold to merchants, etc. The introduction of the Market Society was very traumatic, actually. I recommend you look into the history before you make wild, inaccurate claims again. Here is some to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

"Socialism/Communism is based entirely on the use of force to violate the property rights of everyone by stealing their property, coercing everyone into compliance, and exploiting them by claiming ownership over the fruits of everyone's labors."

This is just not true. The fundamental idea behind Socialism is workers' control over the means of production: it means that if you work for a business, you ought to have a say in how things are run, like a co-op, for example. Instead, under Capitalism, the workers slave away to benefit a boss and investors, instead of themselves. In this sense, "property is theft."


---

Look, nobody here has done even remotely a good job at refuting anything I've said. And saying something like, "BUT LOOK HOW AWFUL CHINA IS! COMMUNISM IS TEH EVIL!" is not a valid response, as I never said I supported China, or the USSR, etc (which are all what scholars call "State Capitalist," by the way.)

Next?

[tod evans]

Well, it looks as if you did not seriously address anything I said. I'm starting to think Libertarianism is far less intellectually rigorous than I originally thought

The fundamental idea behind Socialism is workers' control over the means of production: it means that if you work for a business, you ought to have a say in how things are run, like a co-op, for example. Instead, under Capitalism, the workers slave away to benefit a boss and investors, instead of themselves.

Come on dude just go ahead and sue the pants off one of those evil corporate business owners, you know the ones our prez says didn't build their own businesses..

You're entitled by golly!

The rich man in a suit owes you......Go get-em'!


P.S.

(I'm not a libertarian/republican or democrat, neither am I socialist or fascist.)

[TheTexan]

Let this serve as a reminder that we do not just have the neocons to deal with if we are to achieve liberty, but people like Doug as well. Doug is immune to all logic and all reason, and unfortunately, people like him make up a good chunk of the country.

My point is... even in the unlikely but hypothetical scenario that we get most of the Republican party on the side of liberty, we'll still get nothing done through politics because there will still be a $#@!load of idiots like Doug opposing us at every step.

For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction, and if we were to "radicalize" [using that word loosely] the Republican party, the Liberals would similarly rally around their own equal but opposite radical ideals.

Politics isn't the answer. Politics can often be used as a tool for education and organization, but we won't ever get our freedom through a vote of congress. That's just reality, take it for what it's worth. There are (peaceful) alternatives to politics, that actually could work, and historically have worked throughout history.

[Flugel89]

Ok, so, it seems to me that most of the evidence supplied in these posts is severely flawed. You cannot say "well I have a good job so..." or "these few people were poor but now they are rich so..." Also, I'm talking about analyzing society as it is, not as we would want it to be. And the truth is that working people are NOT in positions to leisurely pick and choose employers as many of you seem to suggest (this is a luxury enjoyed by the upper classes, which, perhaps, maybe most of the members here belong to.)

Overall, though, I find it interesting that in whereas in government, you get one equal vote and community discussion/input, and in a business, where you take orders from a boss all day and have half your paycheck stolen to the investor's profit, somehow it's the government that "enslaves" you. Only in America...!

First off. I live paycheck to paycheck working 3 jobs. Am I stuck at any of them? No, I can leave anytime I want and find another job in 2-3 days. I have plenty of options and I've found 3 that work fairly well for me.

Second. None of the companies I work for have stolen a cent from my paycheck. I get the wage I agreed upon before accepting employment. Only the government steals from my paycheck.

You talk about government needing more power than businesses, and then talk about how the large corporations/banks own the government. Well, you demanded the government had the power, and now they sold said power to the corporations. Do you see the problem here?

If the government doesn't have power, they can't sell it.

[WilliamShrugged]

This is just not true. The fundamental idea behind Socialism is workers' control over the means of production: it means that if you work for a business, you ought to have a say in how things are run, like a co-op, for example. Instead, under Capitalism, the workers slave away to benefit a boss and investors, instead of themselves. In this sense, "property is theft."

Such a misguided mindset. So agreeing to work for taco bell under their wages and hrs is slave ownership??? Plus, does that wage not benefit the worker as well? Me making the agreement to work full time for a bank at $10 an hr was not forced upon. Neither was the following of dress code or work they asked for. If i thought that was too asymmetric i could quit whenever i wanted. I decided to work there as long as i did (this week is my last) because i benefited from the benefits and wage. I made all these decision on my own because i own myself.

[WilliamShrugged]

Thought that this needs to be mentioned

[Revolution9]

While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"

I studied on my own dime and time for years and have two separate contracts and am turning others down left and right having this skillset. I have no sympathy for anybody that is not always upgrading their skillset. CRoak and die if you do not adapt and seek the richest bioniche to occupy.

Governments destroy these ecosystems by heavy handed interference. That is why you have unemployment and people like you wanting to shove authority down the business owners throat. You work for me you do what i say or go elsewhere. Tough $#@! if that don't cut it. Never worked for me and I never changed any company by staying and whining. I think the better lesson was to leave immediately and let the waste pile up in their intestine.

Rev9.

[idiom]

This is just not true. The fundamental idea behind Socialism is workers' control over the means of production: it means that if you work for a business, you ought to have a say in how things are run, like a co-op, for example. Instead, under Capitalism, the workers slave away to benefit a boss and investors, instead of themselves. In this sense, "property is theft."

Why don't the workers invest in the business? Or alternatively pool their savings and buy or start a business together. There is no law preventing workers from owning a Taco-Bell Franchise.

The alternative to deciding where you want to work and if you want to save and own your own business or blow your money on booze and flat screen TV and flashy cars is to have the government decide for you. If you don't want market planning then you end up with central planning, where you get assigned a family, a school, where to live, what to learn, where to work. Everybody gets to suffer equally from bad decisions.

Capitalism and free-market allow for communal ownership and employee owned companies. It is the only system that does. What you want is control over someone else's company and capital.

[Revolution9]

Whoa. So you're saying that it's totally ok that 1 out of 4 people in this country looking for work cannot find it? What a waste of human potential!

Offer them a job and they won't show up. They wanna be a movie star with no talents to actually do the job or motivation to get the chops that God didn't bestow them with naturally. That 25% is lazy because they have your attitude. In the past two days i have had 34 separate contract jobs come through my email i could have applied for. These jobs don't get counted in your tally because they are not employee jobs..they are contract work.

Rev9

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Hi,

So let's say I'm a worker for a business. At this business, as it goes in a typical capitalist society, I am in a subordinate position to the boss, who is the representative of the ultimate owners (i.e., the investors who own the business.)

As a worker, I am unable to participate in any decisions regarding the operations of this business: not over sales, not over pay, not over hours, not anything. Maybe the boss gives me a little say, but, for the most part, the boss holds the power. This business is structured as an authoritarian hierarchy, in which power only flows from the top down, and not the bottom up. The workers below are dependent on the owners above for salary, and thus for their food, shelter, health, education, everything needed to live.

As a worker, I cannot go anywhere else: unemployment is very high, and I, lacking any way to provide for myself otherwise (I don't own a factory, or land, or have any access to money), must sell my labor to the business owner or else my children will starve. Fundamentally, I work on their terms only.

Now let's say that this business begins to take in record profits for the investors. (My co-workers and I are the ones doing all of the useful labor, but remember: we have no say how the profits are split.)

Now let's say that this business says to my co-workers and me, "We want to increase profits even more. This is a business, right? All workers must take a 50% pay cut. Oh, and we are cutting health benefits too. The workload will be the same, but we, the owners and investors, want an even bigger share of the profit pie. Actually, we'd like you to work 10 hours a day instead of 8. If you don't like it, go starve in the streets."

You see now that we have a situation in which power is (vastly) asymmetrically distributed between the workers and the owners. Andthe investors, clearly, in this case, are abusing the workers.

(From this situation, things get even worse for the overall economy: The workers are underpaid and, as a class, are unable to match their production value with their purchasing power (if every business owner pays theirs workers 1 "unit of value" (UOV) to produce 2 UOV's, we approach a situation of over-production and then all kinds of messes ensue (the owners can only spend so much of their money on luxury goods and re-investment. Sometimes, they even promote foreign wars to open new markets for all the over-produced goods. This is a component of imperialism. But for the most part, the investor class has been hoarding money in off-shore accounts, somewhere between $21 and $32 trillion, actually, on a global scale.)

Anyway, back to the workers.

So what are we supposed to do? We could:

1) Start a union, in which case we all get fired immediately
2) Go on strike, in which case we all get fired immediately. The owners will turn armed guards on us if they need to (this has happened thousands of times in history.)
3) We could encourage a consumer boycott, which is not going to work.
4) We could smash and sabotage the workplace, in which case we all go to jail.

OR

5) We could appeal to a higher authority, that is, the government, the ultimate voice of the community.

___

Look, it's nice to live in this fantasy world where government is always bad and private businessmen somehow incorruptible, but the truth is that businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery? A worker isn't free, after all, and just like a slave, you have to pay for the basics: food, shelter, health, etc.)

This is why we need a stronger government: it is the sphere of democracy, in which (theoretically) all citizens can participate as equals, unlike in a private business, where workers are subordinated to the interests of the investors/owners/bosses. In this case, the government can step in to prevent the workers from abuse, if they are unable to do so themselves.

Thoughts?

[Also, by the way, this dispute is happening right now with Caterpillar. In fact, it happens with mosts businesses. The best way to raise profits for yourself is to pay your workers less and work them longer, harder hours, and the business owners have been doing that to working people for decades now.)

Your first assumption is not true; "I am unable to participate in decisions regarding the operations of the business." Many times, in fact, innovation in business is created by the worker, the person who does the process over and over. In Wealth of Nations, Smith uses the example of a factory worker who works in a pin factory, doing this process repeatedly he eventually finds ways to make pins faster by creating short cuts in the current system.

Let me also ask: do workers deserve equal power to control a company they have invested zero capital to finance? Would this business practice be effective?

In your second paragraph you compare yourself to a slave, but that's not true either. You could start your own business, you could become a homeless person, you could save capital, you could learn a new skill making yourself more competitive as a laborer. In short, life is full of options, you could do a million different things with your time - that's the beauty of life - the beauty of the free market.

In your fifth paragraph you show a misunderstanding of how "wages" work. To start, forget the word "wage", a wage is merely a price for labor. The price of labor is determined by the productivity of the job's impact on the market. So let's say the factory workers make an average of $20 an hour (this is the fair market value of factory labor) and this employer cuts that in half to $10. He would be underpaying his labor - the best workers would leave and find new employment for a fair price - others may form a union - others may stay but their work performance will be poor.

As you can see, this is not in the employers best interests.

Let me ask some questions about your purchasing power argument; How are we to know when labor does have enough to buy back the product? Or when they have too much?

You can't mean: a factory worker who makes cheap dresses should get enough to buy back cheap dresses; the maker of Ford cars should get enough to buy back Ford cars, similarly should the worker at a Cadillac plant get enough to buy a Cadillac?

You can never understand the Economy - because you have only one focus - workers. If we try to run an economy for the benefit of one group, we will injure the whole economy. This is what governments often do, make regulations that benefit one class or one industry at the detriment of all others within the economy.


I suggest you read "Economics in One Lesson" (Free PDF online) ... or just read the chapter "The Function of Profits". You have a serious misunderstanding of what the economic purpose of profits are.


DEBUNKED

[Revolution9]

Once upon a time I prided myself in destroying idiots on the internet.
(cracks knuckles and pops neck)
I think I can take this one.

OK. Yer in the running for the Annual Rev9 Immolation By Lexicon Award. Awarded for the most outstanding wielding of the English language and it's variants on trolls, reprobates, shills, drooldonkeys and borg consensus mongers. Go to it pal.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Its a bit ad hominem, but Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He came from a wealthy family but still managed to reduce himself to poverty. He lived with his family in poverty leeching off his friends and writing about how the world owed him something.

He had seven children but only three survived to adulthood because he couldn't get off his arse long enough to work a job despite being very well educated.

This is not a person to be looked up to.

Thanks for that bit of scathe I can bandy about at some of these teachers teaching our kids I have caught reading that $#@! and made them defend it.

Rev9

[BuddyRey]

Doug, there was a time (just five years ago), when I was on these same forums voicing the same objections and distrust with a voluntary society as you are now. I know folks on here can be a bit brusque with those who have opinions that run counter to the libertarian ideal, but I do hope you'll stick around for a while. Given plenty of time, and the right people with the patience to address your concerns, you might begin to see our position. Or maybe not. But either way, the friendly disagreements will drive both sides to strengthen their arguments and, if possible, find common ground.

[angelatc]

Whoa. So you're saying that it's totally ok that 1 out of 4 people in this country looking for work cannot find it? What a waste of human potential!

Well, you took that totally of context, but I'll go along. I'm not saying it's totally ok for unemployment to be so high. I'm saying it's totally predictable, because it is government policies that keep people from working.

[EcoWarrier]

Just 6 Trillion per year in taxes on anything productive (anything productive uses land and resources).

LAND & resouces are given by nature. The personal productive side is LABOR. Geonomics does not tax that point, nor CAPITAL. Hence no Income, Sales Taxes or Property Taxes.

Mega banks can operate wherever it is cheapest for them, like in Hong Kong.

Yes, Hong Kong, where Corporation and Income Taxes are low (less taxing on production) because they tax LAND (goven by nature).

[EcoWarrier]

This is incredibly good advice. Please take it.

You are obviously well practiced in head in the sand burying. How does it feel?

[EcoWarrier]

A rebuttal.

"People that argue Marxist theory are therefore usually excluded from being taken seriously."

Pay attention at the back!!!!

Did you read the comments on YouTube on the so called rebuttal. Whoever put it together was an idiot. David Harvey objectively gave how we are in the situation we are in now. It has nothing to do with Marxism. It is how it came about. He said he doesn't have an answer.

[EcoWarrier]

Can't answer a simple, direct question, eh? Hmmm...you aren't exactly the best spokesman for your movement.

The answer is in another direction, which was given. Geonomics.

[EcoWarrier]

I do agree that it will never go away, but it is up to us to be an opposing force.

That is exactly what I was saying.