What Would Libertarians Do About Worker Expliotation

[Ziggy_Encaoua]

Libertarians like to pride themselves on advocating strong human rights yet seem to dismiss the rights of workers. If any any libertarian claims to be a genuine humanitarian what would they do to protect human rights in the workplace & prevent worker expliotation.

Ziggy Encaoua
www.encaoua.net

[AthenaAwakened]

The exploitation of workers by management is a group on group thing. Libertarians don't do group on group things.

[EricK]

The worker is in a freely entered into contract with the employer. If what the employer does is in line with the contract then it is not a problem. If it is not in line with the contract then the worker can sue.

[Stinger]

Libertarians like to pride themselves on advocating strong human rights yet seem to dismiss the rights of workers. If any any libertarian claims to be a genuine humanitarian what would they do to protect human rights in the workplace & prevent worker expliotation.

Ziggy Encaoua
www.encaoua.net One of the basic libertarian beliefs is that people tend to do what's in their best interest first. Therefore, a libertarian would assume that if a worker feels exploited, that they will seek a new job.

By the way, what is expliotation? Most socialists believe that all wage slaves are exploited.

[Cogitate]

The worker is in a freely entered into contract with the employer. If what the employer does is in line with the contract then it is not a problem. If it is not in line with the contract then the worker can sue.

Well, how free is the individual to negotiate a contract?

Can you not envisage exploitative contracts which individuals may be forced to sign for economic reasons?

Cogitate

[Stinger]

The worker is in a freely entered into contract with the employer. If what the employer does is in line with the contract then it is not a problem. If it is not in line with the contract then the worker can sue.

Well, how free is the individual to negotiate a contract?

Can you not envisage exploitative contracts which individuals may be forced to sign for economic reasons?

Cogitate Maybe the UK is different. But in America, an employee can quit his job at any time. Dosn't matter if there is a "contract" in place. The one exception that I can think of is that sometimes workers sign "non-compete" clauses. However, I've seen cases where workers get out of these if there is a financial need.

[Preno]

One of the basic libertarian beliefs is that people tend to do what's in their best interest first. Therefore, a libertarian would assume that if a worker feels exploited, that they will seek a new job.He might, of course. But how does it follow that he is not exploited?

[Pseudo-Deity]

Libertarians like to pride themselves on advocating strong human rights yet seem to dismiss the rights of workers. If any any libertarian claims to be a genuine humanitarian what would they do to protect human rights in the workplace & prevent worker expliotation.

Ziggy Encaoua
www.encaoua.net
Some libertarians would suggest you join/start a union, while most others would suggest you quit your job and find somewhere else to work where you won't feel exploited. Libertarians would only suggest going to the government if you were forced into labor or coerced in anyway by your employer.

[Preno]

In short, libertarians solve problems by defining them away.

[Nitrousoxide]

One of the basic libertarian beliefs is that people tend to do what's in their best interest first. Therefore, a libertarian would assume that if a worker feels exploited, that they will seek a new job.He might, of course. But how does it follow that he is not exploited?

Because the working arrangement was reached upon a unanimious decision without any coercion by one party onto the other.

That's about as far as you can get from exploitation.

[wallflower1996]

One of the basic libertarian beliefs is that people tend to do what's in their best interest first. Therefore, a libertarian would assume that if a worker feels exploited, that they will seek a new job.He might, of course. But how does it follow that he is not exploited?

If follows that he just solved his own problem. In other words, libertarians don't need to "do" anything.

I've quit jobs where I felt exploited; I'm sure you have too.

[perfessor]

One of the basic libertarian beliefs is that people tend to do what's in their best interest first. Therefore, a libertarian would assume that if a worker feels exploited, that they will seek a new job.
This only works in a "seller's market" - when the worker has options about selling his services. In a buyer's market i.e. if there is any significant level of unemployment, the worker is much more vulnerable, since he can't just pick up and go down the street for another job.

By the way, what is expliotation? Most socialists believe that all wage slaves are exploited.
Yes, this needs to be defined. I would suggest that aspects of exploitation would include low pay, low hours, lack of health and social benefits (for example, vast chunks of Wal-Mart's employee pool work less than 40 hours a week, so the company does not have to buy health insurance for them), firing people who try to bring in unions. There are probably others. I don't see that libertarians would do anything about any of these.

[Loren Pechtel]

Worker exploitation is the result of insufficient capital or government attempts to force overpayment of workers.

In a society with enough capital and without government interference in the labor market it won't happen.

[Preno]

Because the working arrangement was reached upon a unanimious decision without any coercion by one party onto the other.What does "without any coercion" mean, other than "anything legal in a capitalist system" (in which case you've just uttered an irrelevant tautology)?
If follows that he just solved his own problem. In other words, libertarians don't need to "do" anything.You're apparently operating under the tacit assumption that it is possible for everyone to switch to a non-exploitative job. How do you justify this?

[Ziggy_Encaoua]

Some libertarians would suggest you join/start a union

Yes but other libertarians detest unions as much as they detest the state

[langseax]

What does "without any coercion" mean, other than "anything legal in a capitalist system" (in which case you've just uttered an irrelevant tautology)?

It's coercion if the other party puts a gun to your head and says "Work here or I'll kill you." or "Work here or I'll steal all your money" or "Work here or I'll ___"

Example, the mob's protection schemes.

However, economic hardship is not considered coercion because even though one party will be subject to hardship, the hardship is inflicted by he enviroment rather than the other party. While this is a shitty situation, it's not coercion. It is also certainly not equivalent to a direct threat.

[wallflower1996]

If follows that he just solved his own problem. In other words, libertarians don't need to "do" anything.You're apparently operating under the tacit assumption that it is possible for everyone to switch to a non-exploitative job. How do you justify this?

The whole thread is operating under the tacit assumption that it's up to someone other than the worker to do something about his/her exploitation. People don't usually challenge that, I think because "exploitation" has more of an emotive than a cognitive meaning. But it really oughtn't be taken for granted that libertarians need to "do" something about it.

[Nitrousoxide]

Because the working arrangement was reached upon a unanimious decision without any coercion by one party onto the other.What does "without any coercion" mean, other than "anything legal in a capitalist system" (in which case you've just uttered an irrelevant tautology)?


The use or threat of force or violence against another (perhaps unwilling) party for the purpose of gaining that other party's complience

[Preno]

It's coercion if the other party puts a gun to your head and says "Work here or I'll kill you." or "Work here or I'll steal all your money" or "Work here or I'll ___"

Example, the mob's protection schemes.

However, economic hardship is not considered coercion because even though one party will be subject to hardship, the hardship is inflicted by he enviroment rather than the other party. While this is a shitty situation, it's not coercion. It is also certainly not equivalent to a direct threat.Being put a gun to your head is worse than being exploited economically, that's obvious. Whether the hardship is "inflicted by the environment" rather than "the other party" is a false dichotomy - the hardship is inflicted primarily by the set of rules under which the society operates. You've simply defined "coercion" as anything that is illegal under a capitalist system and then claimed that capitalism outlaws coercion. Which is an irrelevant tautology.
The whole thread is operating under the tacit assumption that it's up to someone other than the worker to do something about his/her exploitation. People don't usually challenge that, I think because "exploitation" has more of an emotive than a cognitive meaning. But it really oughtn't be taken for granted that libertarians need to "do" something about it.I haven't noticed that this thread is operating under any such assumption, but how did that answer my question of how you justify the claim that it is possible for everyone to switch to a non-exploitative job?

[wallflower1996]

I haven't noticed that this thread is operating under any such assumption, but how did that answer my question of how you justify the claim that it is possible for everyone to switch to a non-exploitative job?

In most cases, the claim is valid. In the small percentage of cases where it is not, the expression "tough titties" comes to mind.

[Preno]

In most cases, the claim is valid. In the small percentage of cases where it is not, the expression "tough titties" comes to mind.Depends on your understanding of exploitation, obviously.

[Stinger]

In most cases, the claim is valid. In the small percentage of cases where it is not, the expression "tough titties" comes to mind.Depends on your understanding of exploitation, obviously. I'll be the first to admit that I'm exploited. I know that my company makes at least two dollars from the fruits of my labor for every dollar that I make in salary. But you know what, I am happy. The wage the I earn is good enough for me. I work 45 hours a week and never think about work at home. I don't want the head aches of ownership. There's more to life than just making money.

[perfessor]

In most cases, the claim is valid. In the small percentage of cases where it is not, the expression "tough titties" comes to mind.
Would you also agree that when the employees get fed up, form a union, demand higher wages and benefits, go on strike to add an element of persuasion, and the company ends up giving in to their demands, thus reducing their profit margin, then the expression "tough titties" comes to mind?

The Golden Rule (of economic theory) states that he who has the gold, makes the rules. If the gold is capital, then the employees suffer. If the gold is the sweat equity of the workers, the capitalists suffer. It just doesn't seem to me that the "free market" sorts this out very well.

Worker exploitation is the result of insufficient capital or government attempts to force overpayment of workers.

In a society with enough capital and without government interference in the labor market it won't happen.bold added
Has this theory ever been tested? Has there ever been a functioning society in which the classic libertarian principles have worked to everyone's benefit? Otherwise, your "it won't happen" is a rather empty assertion.

[Canard DuJour]

Because the working arrangement was reached upon a unanimious decision without any coercion by one party onto the other.

What does "without any coercion" mean, other than "anything legal in a capitalist system" (in which case you've just uttered an irrelevant tautology)?


The use or threat of force or violence against another (perhaps unwilling) party for the purpose of gaining that other party's complience

In that case, blackmail is "a working arrangement reached upon a unanimious decision without any coercion by one party onto the other."

This might be why < 1% of people with jobs in the real world vote Libertarian.

[Nitrousoxide]

Eh? Blackmail uses the threat of force or violence.

[Canard DuJour]

Eh? Blackmail uses the threat of force or violence.

No it doesn't, that's extortion :

blackmail is an offer to refrain from any action which would be legal or normally allowed, and is thus distinguished from extortion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail)

Hence, some Libertarians even argue that blackmail is a service. Otherwise they'd have to acknowledge worker exploitation.

[Nitrousoxide]

Both use intimidation to compel the other party to agree to the contract.

Even if intimidation wasn't covered by my original definition, it isn't too hard to add it in...

The use or threat of force, violence, or intimidation against another (perhaps unwilling) party for the purpose of gaining that other party's compliance.

Are you content with that definition?

[trendkill]

Both use intimidation to compel the other party to agree to the contract.

Even if intimidation wasn't covered by my original definition, it isn't too hard to add it in...

The use or threat of force, violence, or intimidation against another (perhaps unwilling) party for the purpose of gaining that other party's compliance.

Are you content with that definition?
"Intimidation" seems to imply the threat of violence, which is already explicitly mentioned in your definition.

[Canard DuJour]

Both use intimidation to compel the other party to agree to the contract.

Even if intimidation wasn't covered by my original definition, it isn't too hard to add it in...

The use or threat of force, violence, or intimidation against another (perhaps unwilling) party for the purpose of gaining that other party's compliance.

Are you content with that definition?

Not even close. Firstly, a blackmailer need not intimidate. He merely "offers" not to do something which would be legal and normally allowed. Secondly, most libertarians do not recognise any intimidation other than threat of violence. "Work the extra hours or I take away your livelihood," would be fine and dandy in Libertopia but intimidation to everyone else.

[jonatha]

Worker exploitation is the result of insufficient capital or government attempts to force overpayment of workers.

In a society with enough capital and without government interference in the labor market it won't happen.bold added
Has this theory ever been tested? Has there ever been a functioning society in which the classic libertarian principles have worked to everyone's benefit? Otherwise, your "it won't happen" is a rather empty assertion.

If you want to see a functioning libertarian society (or as close a one as you're likely to get), see the United States ca. 1870-1900.

Can't say that the principles worked to everyone's benefit, but Jay Gould and the Rockefellers got rich....

[langseax]

You've simply defined "coercion" as anything that is illegal under a capitalist system and then claimed that capitalism outlaws coercion. Which is an irrelevant tautology.

Huh? When did I say anything about legallity? I defined coercion as a threat of deliberate malicious action. I made no mention of laws.

[Pseudo-Deity]

Some libertarians would suggest you join/start a union

Yes but other libertarians detest unions as much as they detest the state
Hence why I said "some libertarians".

[Metaphor]

The answer, of course, has already been given many times in the thread: they would do nothing. To a libertarian, asking what you would do about 'exploitation' is the equivalent of asking 'what would you do about someone who liked listening to show tunes?'

Now of course, in a libertarian paradise the mentally handicapped can find work at third-world wages in a factory and quadriplegics can work at a call centre and no one is going to be exploited.

I've read libertarian literature that champions pre-conversion Scrooge (from A Christmas Carol) as a hero. This is the libertarian mindset.

[toth8]

Libertarians like to pride themselves on advocating strong human rights yet seem to dismiss the rights of workers. If any any libertarian claims to be a genuine humanitarian what would they do to protect human rights in the workplace & prevent worker expliotation.

Ziggy Encaoua
www.encaoua.net

Libertarians don't care about human rights. We care about rights to person and property which stem from self-ownership.

If you have an abusive employer, then find another job or compete with him.

[toth8]

Some libertarians would suggest you join/start a union

Yes but other libertarians detest unions as much as they detest the state

Which libertarians are these? Unions are fine, provided membership and participation is voluntary.

[perfessor]

If you have an abusive employer, then find another job or compete with him.
This is just hand-waving, as myself and others have pointed out in this thread. You might as well say, "If the employer doesn't want to pay decent wages and benefits, let him find a different company to run."

[toth8]

Why is it "hand waving"? People wouldn't have to work for abusive employers, and the free market would deter it.

[Bonniedundee]

The worker is in a freely entered into contract with the employer. If what the employer does is in line with the contract then it is not a problem. If it is not in line with the contract then the worker can sue.In a free society this true, but in our coercive society this is not true.

The state gives immense power to the employer over the employee, depending on the size of the company, this does exploit the worker who must work or have no income because other alternatives are blocked or made much harder than they would naturally be.

In a free market this is not a problem, but in statism it is.

[toth8]

The answer, of course, has already been given many times in the thread: they would do nothing. To a libertarian, asking what you would do about 'exploitation' is the equivalent of asking 'what would you do about someone who liked listening to show tunes?'

Now of course, in a libertarian paradise the mentally handicapped can find work at third-world wages in a factory and quadriplegics can work at a call centre and no one is going to be exploited.

I've read libertarian literature that champions pre-conversion Scrooge (from A Christmas Carol) as a hero. This is the libertarian mindset.

In a libertarian "paradise" the mentally handicapped can find private charity to support himself. And which libertarian literature?

[Stinger]

The worker is in a freely entered into contract with the employer. If what the employer does is in line with the contract then it is not a problem. If it is not in line with the contract then the worker can sue.In a free society this true, but in our coercive society this is not true.

The state gives immense power to the employer over the employee, depending on the size of the company, this does exploit the worker who must work or have no income because other alternatives are blocked or made much harder than they would naturally be.

In a free market this is not a problem, but in statism it is. What are you talking about? Who is blocking your looking for a new job?

[Bonniedundee]

If you have an abusive employer, then find another job or compete with him.Our economy isn't run on self-ownership for all, it is a statist economy where state intervention is used so some(the rich.) benefit by taking from others(the poor, the masses etc.), always remember this, don't fall into vulgar libertarianism by defending statist organisations and the statist balance of power with free market rhetoric, this is not a free market.

[Bonniedundee]

Who is blocking your looking for a new job?The state blocks choices, anytime the state coerces it does this. It forces people into doing things they may not have done otherwise, this blocks choices, its main function is to do this so as to benefit the rich by taking from the poor.

The state raises interest rates, the state institutes the land and money monopolies, the state regulates to keep down competition from small business, the state finds markets for the over production of goods due to its subsidies and support, the state taxes etc etc

[Stinger]

Who is blocking your looking for a new job?The state blocks choices, anytime the state coerces it does this. What do you do? I would recommend that you move to a new location or country. Is the UK really that bad? Or maybe change professions. I change to a new job about every two years.

[Stinger]

If you have an abusive employer, then find another job or compete with him.Our economy isn't run on self-ownership for all, it is a statist economy where state intervention is used so some(the rich.) benefit by taking from others(the poor, the masses etc.), always remember this, don't fall into vulgar libertarianism by defending statist organisations and the statist balance of power with free market rhetoric, this is not a free market.
Tooth8: I see that you are from the UK. Am I missing something? Is there something in the UK that keeps you guys from moving jobs? Do you have self-employed people there??

[Bonniedundee]

What do you do? I would recommend that you move to a new location or country. Is the UK really that bad? Or maybe change professions. I change to a new job about every two years.

Why should I have to?

The state is breaking my right to control myself, my self-ownership, where does it get this authority from?

Why do some get to own themselves and others and some don't even own themselves? I thought you were an American style libertarian, don't you believe in self-ownership?

[Stinger]

What do you do? I would recommend that you move to a new location or country. Is the UK really that bad? Or maybe change professions. I change to a new job about every two years.

Why should I have to?

The state is breaking my right to control myself, my self-ownership, where does it get this authority from?

Why do some get to own themselves and others and some don't even own themselves? I thought you were an American style libertarian, don't you believe in self-ownership? Take a deep breath. Now, just tell me what the UK does to prevent you from starting your own business. I'm asking for specifics.

[Bonniedundee]

Take a deep breath. Now, just tell me what the UK does to prevent you from starting your own business. I'm asking for specifics.I already did, I edited that post above, read it.

Then have the courtesy to answer my questions.

[Bonniedundee]

Why are there so many vulgar American style libetarians here?

They go on about free markets but when you dare to suggest that we implement free markets in any area that might hurt big business or suggest that big business instead of single mums are a big fuel for statist intervention they go straight into statist mode.

Heaven forbid anypne suggests a completely free market based on legitimate lockean property rights, that absurd, that's not what American style libertarianism is about, is it?

[Stinger]

Who is blocking your looking for a new job?The state blocks choices, anytime the state coerces it does this. It forces people into doing things they may not have done otherwise, this blocks choices, its main function is to do this so as to benefit the rich by taking from the poor.

The state raises interest rates, the state institutes the land and money monopolies, the state regulates to keep down competition from small business, the state finds markets for the over production of goods due to its subsidies and support, the state taxes etc etc I'd like some specific examples of how the "state" restricts your ability to find a new job or start your own business. I've never lived in the UK. I've been a banker for more than 20 years in the US and I've seen many people start their business. As I've stated before, I've started two businesses.

Interest rates have very little to do with starting a new business. Very few businesses start off with bank financing. Even if they did receive financing, the difference between 8% and 10% and not very much. If that amount puts you out of business, you don't deserve to be in business. Very few startups pay taxes. I don't really understand the rest of your post.

So please be specific - why can't you start your own business??

[Stinger]

Why are there so many vulgar American style libetarians here?

They go on about free markets but when you dare to suggest that we implement free markets in any area that might hurt big business or suggest that big business instead of single mums are a big fuel for statist intervention they go straight into statist mode.

Heaven forbid anypne suggests a completely free market based on legitimate lockean property rights, that absurd, that's not what American style libertarianism is about, is it? How am I vulgar?

[Bonniedundee]

How am I vulgar?

First I'll define vulgar libertarianism, using Kevin Carson's definition.

The ideal 'free market' society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society 'reformed' by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.

Economists and organizations sometimes accused of vulgar libertarianism include Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Madsen Pirie, Radley Balko and the Adam Smith Institute. The term is most frequently employed by libertarians and anarchists who favour a free market focus on popular equality, but reject corporate capitalism.

It means you defend corporations and other statist outgrowths using free market rhetoric.

Karl Hess summed up libertarianism best in Rothbard's Libertarian forum.

The truth, of course, is that libertarianism wants to advance principles of property but that it in no way wishes to defend, willy nilly, all property which now is called private.

Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title. All of it is deeply intertwined with an immoral, coercive state system which has condoned, built on, and profited from slavery; has expanded through and exploited a brutal and aggressive imperial and colonial foreign policy, and continues to hold the people in a roughly serf-master relationship to political-economic power concentrations.

Libertarians are concerned, first and foremost, with that most valuable of properties, the life of each individual. That is the property most brutally and constantly abused by state systems whether they are of the right or left. Property rights pertahing to material objects are seen by libertarians as stemming from and as importantly secondary to rfie right to own, direct, and enjoy one's own life and those appurtenances thereto which may be acquired without coercion....

This is a far cry from sharing common ground with those who want to create a society in which super-capitalists are free to amass vast holdings and who say that that is ultimately the most important purpose of freedom. This is proto-heroic nonsense.

Libertarianism is a people's movement and a liberation movement. It seeks the sort of open, non-coercive society in which the people, the living, free, distinct people may voluntarily associate, dis-associate, and, as they see fit, participate in the decisions affecting their lives. This means a truly free market in everything from ideas to idiosyncrasies. It means people free collectively to organize the resources of their immediate community or individualistically to organize them; it means the freedom to have a community-based and supported judiciary where wanted, none where not, or private arbitration services where that is seen as most desirable. The same with police. The same with schools, hospitals, factories, farms, laboratories, parks, and pensions. Liberty means the right to shape your own institutions. It opposes the right of those institutions to shape you simply because of accreted power or gerontological status.

[Metaphor]

The answer, of course, has already been given many times in the thread: they would do nothing. To a libertarian, asking what you would do about 'exploitation' is the equivalent of asking 'what would you do about someone who liked listening to show tunes?'

Now of course, in a libertarian paradise the mentally handicapped can find work at third-world wages in a factory and quadriplegics can work at a call centre and no one is going to be exploited.

I've read libertarian literature that champions pre-conversion Scrooge (from A Christmas Carol) as a hero. This is the libertarian mindset.

In a libertarian "paradise" the mentally handicapped can find private charity to support himself. And which libertarian literature?

In a libertarian paradise, you are recklessly indifferent to what happens to those who cannot support themselves. If they can't find a private charity, or private charity is nowhere near enough - tough titties. (And how is a mentally handicapped person supposed to pick and choose between private charity providers, anyway?).

On another thread, someone posted a link to an online libertarian library that had essays and so forth. I can't remember the URL, because after a while it made my stomach turn to read anymore and did not bookmark the site.

[Bonniedundee]

I'd like some specific examples of how the "state" restricts your ability to find a new job or start your own business. I've never lived in the UK.I'd like you to answer my questions first.

[Loren Pechtel]

Worker exploitation is the result of insufficient capital or government attempts to force overpayment of workers.

In a society with enough capital and without government interference in the labor market it won't happen.bold added
Has this theory ever been tested? Has there ever been a functioning society in which the classic libertarian principles have worked to everyone's benefit? Otherwise, your "it won't happen" is a rather empty assertion.

It hasn't happened and it's very unlikely it will happen. The thing is the masses realize they can vote themselves bread and circuses.


Something to understand about exploitation: It's basically negative income. It's basically impossible to exploit a guy who is truly working for the market wage as you in effect lower his wage below market and he'll go elsewhere.

Exploitation can only occur when either you use force (which is otherwise illegal and can be prosecuted without worker-protection laws) or when the worker is overpaid for some reason.

Note that this means exploitation is likely when you have minimum wage workers.

[Loren Pechtel]

Eh? Blackmail uses the threat of force or violence.

No it doesn't, that's extortion :

blackmail is an offer to refrain from any action which would be legal or normally allowed, and is thus distinguished from extortion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail)

Hence, some Libertarians even argue that blackmail is a service. Otherwise they'd have to acknowledge worker exploitation.

The force is being applied by a third party but it's still the use of the threat of force.

[Loren Pechtel]

Both use intimidation to compel the other party to agree to the contract.

Even if intimidation wasn't covered by my original definition, it isn't too hard to add it in...

The use or threat of force, violence, or intimidation against another (perhaps unwilling) party for the purpose of gaining that other party's compliance.

Are you content with that definition?

Both use intimidation to compel the other party to agree to the contract.

Even if intimidation wasn't covered by my original definition, it isn't too hard to add it in...

The use or threat of force, violence, or intimidation against another (perhaps unwilling) party for the purpose of gaining that other party's compliance.

Are you content with that definition?
"Intimidation" seems to imply the threat of violence, which is already explicitly mentioned in your definition.

That's why he didn't include it the first time.

I think it belongs there to cover a few cases that otherwise slip through the cracks. "Have sex with me or I give your husband copies of the picture I took of you with that guy in the bushes". It's a threat to your reputation, not your body, and thus doesn't qualify as a threat of force.

[Loren Pechtel]

Very few startups pay taxes. I don't really understand the rest of your post.

So please be specific - why can't you start your own business??

They pay some taxes, just not income taxes.

To cope with some nonsense in the way the law works my wife had to set up a "business". She has to pay a business activity tax & a business license fee. There's also going to be a small amount of use tax due on the supplies she uses. The use tax is legit, the rest I regard as basically a ripoff. It's only about $400/yr, though. (Yes, in some cases business licenses make sense. It's quite reasonable to license the business premises. She's sharing office space, though, the additional workload for the state for her being there is zero.)

I do agree there is no reason he can't start a business other than the demonstrated lack of knowledge of how to actually run a business which means nobody's going to provide any money.

[Metaphor]

bold added
Has this theory ever been tested? Has there ever been a functioning society in which the classic libertarian principles have worked to everyone's benefit? Otherwise, your "it won't happen" is a rather empty assertion.

It hasn't happened and it's very unlikely it will happen. The thing is the masses realize they can vote themselves bread and circuses.


Something to understand about exploitation: It's basically negative income. It's basically impossible to exploit a guy who is truly working for the market wage as you in effect lower his wage below market and he'll go elsewhere.

Exploitation can only occur when either you use force (which is otherwise illegal and can be prosecuted without worker-protection laws) or when the worker is overpaid for some reason.

Note that this means exploitation is likely when you have minimum wage workers.

That's a new height of absurdity: workers can't ever be exploited because they'll go elsewhere, but employers could possibly be 'overpaying' someone because they couldn't hire someone else? That's not even defining the problem away, it's a perverse reversal of reality.

[perfessor]

Something to understand about exploitation: It's basically negative income. It's basically impossible to exploit a guy who is truly working for the market wage as you in effect lower his wage below market and he'll go elsewhere.
You left out the part where you add, "provided there are available jobs."

Workers are vulnerable in a tight job market, I thought everyone knew that. This has the effect of reducing the market wage, since you can't simply "go elsewhere." While I agree in principle that the individual must take responsibility for his situation, this doesn't mean that the little guy can rely on the mythical "free market" to save him from unfair employment practices.

Exploitation can only occur when either you use force (which is otherwise illegal and can be prosecuted without worker-protection laws) or when the worker is overpaid for some reason.
Huh? In what way is an overpaid worker being exploited?

Note that this means exploitation is likely when you have minimum wage workers.
And now it's the underpaid worker who's being exploited. Or are you saying that minimum wage workers are overpaid? I'm afraid you've lost me somewhere.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Libertarians like to pride themselves on advocating strong human rights yet seem to dismiss the rights of workers. If any any libertarian claims to be a genuine humanitarian what would they do to protect human rights in the workplace & prevent worker expliotation.
Some Libertarians around would like to get rid of child labor laws. So, does that answer your question?

[Metaphor]

Libertarians like to pride themselves on advocating strong human rights yet seem to dismiss the rights of workers. If any any libertarian claims to be a genuine humanitarian what would they do to protect human rights in the workplace & prevent worker expliotation.
Some Libertarians around would like to get rid of child labor laws. So, does that answer your question?

Of course they would. It's an affront to freedom to net let a ten year old give up school and go out to work to support herself. Who the hell are YOU to say she shouldn't be able to?

[Stinger]

I'd like some specific examples of how the "state" restricts your ability to find a new job or start your own business. I've never lived in the UK.I'd like you to answer my questions first. Why can't you ask specific questions? I'll go to the last question that you asked from post 45:

"Why do some get to own themselves and others and some don't even own themselves? I thought you were an American style libertarian, don't you believe in self-ownership?"

Without examples, I don't really know what the hell you're talking about. What does it mean to own yourself? Do I own myself when I owned my own business? If so, why can't you start your own business?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Has this theory ever been tested? Has there ever been a functioning society in which the classic libertarian principles have worked to everyone's benefit? Otherwise, your "it won't happen" is a rather empty assertion.

I think he was being sarcastic.

[Bonniedundee]

I'd like you to answer my questions first. Why can't you ask specific questions? I'll go to the last question that you asked from post 45:

"Why do some get to own themselves and others and some don't even own themselves? I thought you were an American style libertarian, don't you believe in self-ownership?"

Without examples, I don't really know what the hell you're talking about. What does it mean to own yourself? Do I own myself when I owned my own business? If so, why can't you start your own business?

I thought you were an American style libertarian? Self-ownership is pretty much at the heart of that philosophy, you seriously haven't heard of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

The writers William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson described this condition as being a sovereign individual, in which individuals have supreme authority and sovereignty over their own choices, without the interference of governing powers. This notion is central to mainstream anarchism or libertarian socialism, classical liberalism, individualistic political philosophies such as abolitionism, ethical egoism, libertarianism and objectivism. Those who support self-ownership usually support private property by various arguments, such as if a person owns himself, then he owns his labor and therefore the products thereof. Sovereign individuals hold to the premise that government only has authority and power which is given to it by the individual, with decentralized administrative organizations acting as servants to the individual and never their master.

[toth8]

In a libertarian "paradise" the mentally handicapped can find private charity to support himself. And which libertarian literature?

In a libertarian paradise, you are recklessly indifferent to what happens to those who cannot support themselves. If they can't find a private charity, or private charity is nowhere near enough - tough titties. (And how is a mentally handicapped person supposed to pick and choose between private charity providers, anyway?).



They could easily find a private charity, since they'd be more plentiful than today. And I'd presume a mentally handicapped person has a carer from youth.

[Metaphor]

In a libertarian paradise, you are recklessly indifferent to what happens to those who cannot support themselves. If they can't find a private charity, or private charity is nowhere near enough - tough titties. (And how is a mentally handicapped person supposed to pick and choose between private charity providers, anyway?).



They could easily find a private charity, since they'd be more plentiful than today. And I'd presume a mentally handicapped person has a carer from youth.

I'd be willing to concede that if people were taxed less, charity giving would increase - at first. But it is simply unevidenced assertion that the needy would be provided for by private charity as certainly and ubiquitously as an institution - the government - that is obliged to treat everyone equally.

So please, spare us the charity will be plentiful fantasies, and admit even if private charities were clearly inadequate, you still wouldn't care.

[EricK]

In a libertarian paradise, you are recklessly indifferent to what happens to those who cannot support themselves. If they can't find a private charity, or private charity is nowhere near enough - tough titties. (And how is a mentally handicapped person supposed to pick and choose between private charity providers, anyway?).



They could easily find a private charity, since they'd be more plentiful than today. And I'd presume a mentally handicapped person has a carer from youth.
Why would more people set up private charities? What would be in it for them? And what is preventing them setting them up now?

[toth8]

And government welfare is working? All it does is create dependency and laziness. Why work if you know a welfare cheque is coming? Also governments don't care about the type of support they are giving. Do you think a bureaucrat in the government has THAT much of a bleeding heard?

Private charities would take greater measures to protect themselves against fraudsters since they'd have a finite amount of funds to donate.

[toth8]

They could easily find a private charity, since they'd be more plentiful than today. And I'd presume a mentally handicapped person has a carer from youth.
Why would more people set up private charities? What would be in it for them? And what is preventing them setting them up now?

Because taxation and regulation would be lesser in scope. Hence giving people more money to donate to the poor.

And do you seriously believe the human condition would change THAT drastically, so people would automatically refuse to help others?

[EricK]

Why would more people set up private charities? What would be in it for them? And what is preventing them setting them up now?

Because taxation and regulation would be lesser in scope. Hence giving people more money to donate to the poor.

And do you seriously believe the human condition would change THAT drastically, so people would automatically refuse to help others?

No I believe that basically everybody who currently wants to set up a charity has done so. Also, I have never once heard somebody say that the reason that they want to see lower taxes is so that give more money away to good causes. If people complain about how taxes are making them worse off, the obvious conclusion is that if taxes were lower, they would spend more money on themselves.

[Bonniedundee]

I'd be willing to concede that if people were taxed less, charity giving would increase - at first. But it is simply unevidenced assertion that the needy would be provided for by private charity as certainly and ubiquitously as an institution - the government - that is obliged to treat everyone equally.
Why does the government have to treat everyone equally? Usually they do the opposite, they support the rich and rob the poor, that is there function.

Without the government most people would be far better off to provide for those dear to them in need of charity and also the need for charity itself would likely be reduced.

[toth8]

Because taxation and regulation would be lesser in scope. Hence giving people more money to donate to the poor.

And do you seriously believe the human condition would change THAT drastically, so people would automatically refuse to help others?

No I believe that basically everybody who currently wants to set up a charity has done so.

Is there any evidence to support that assertion?

Also, I have never once heard somebody say that the reason that they want to see lower taxes is so that give more money away to good causes. If people complain about how taxes are making them worse off, the obvious conclusion is that if taxes were lower, they would spend more money on themselves.

But the level of governmental bureaucracy stops people from creating new groups and charities. You also have to account for our current economics which emphasises the creation of "wealth" and consumption of more goods and services. With this in mind, then yes maybe more people would spend money on themselves. In a libertarian society there would be less emphasis on acquiring wealth and goods and services, so people would have more time and effort to donate to charitable purposes.

[Bonniedundee]

But the level of governmental bureaucracy stops people from creating new groups and charities. You also have to account for our current economics which emphasises the creation of "wealth" and consumption of more goods and services. With this in mind, then yes maybe more people would spend money on themselves. In a libertarian society there would be less emphasis on acquiring wealth and goods and services, so people would have more time and effort to donate to charitable purposes.Most importantly people would need to do it less, the average person would be far better off and there would be far less reasons to need charity.

[EricK]

No I believe that basically everybody who currently wants to set up a charity has done so.

Is there any evidence to support that assertion?

No. Just as there is no evidence to support your assertion of the opposite. I have never come across anybody who actually wants to set up a charity, have you? More to the point, have you ever met anybody who genuinely wants to set up a charity but is being hampered by taxation?


Also, I have never once heard somebody say that the reason that they want to see lower taxes is so that give more money away to good causes. If people complain about how taxes are making them worse off, the obvious conclusion is that if taxes were lower, they would spend more money on themselves.
But the level of governmental bureaucracy stops people from creating new groups and charities. You also have to account for our current economics which emphasises the creation of "wealth" and consumption of more goods and services. With this in mind, then yes maybe more people would spend money on themselves. In a libertarian society there would be less emphasis on acquiring wealth and goods and services, so people would have more time and effort to donate to charitable purposes.
Judging from what I have read here, there would be more emphasis on acquiring wealth. Because without sufficient wealth you won't be able to survive in a libertarian society at all, so for the majority of people their whole life will have to be geared around just doing enough to keep afloat with little or no time left for other things.

[Metaphor]

I'd be willing to concede that if people were taxed less, charity giving would increase - at first. But it is simply unevidenced assertion that the needy would be provided for by private charity as certainly and ubiquitously as an institution - the government - that is obliged to treat everyone equally.
Why does the government have to treat everyone equally? Usually they do the opposite, they support the rich and rob the poor, that is there function.

I mean if I am unable to work because I am a quadriplegic, the government can't turn me away if it is already catering to other people unable to work.

Private charities can do whatever they want, and refuse to service whomever they want. As I've stated before on other threads, taking government provided (therefore guaranteed) safety nets and leaving it up to charity is reckless indifference to the suffering of others.

[toth8]

Is there any evidence to support that assertion?

No. Just as there is no evidence to support your assertion of the opposite. I have never come across anybody who actually wants to set up a charity, have you? More to the point, have you ever met anybody who genuinely wants to set up a charity but is being hampered by taxation?


Also, I have never once heard somebody say that the reason that they want to see lower taxes is so that give more money away to good causes. If people complain about how taxes are making them worse off, the obvious conclusion is that if taxes were lower, they would spend more money on themselves.
But the level of governmental bureaucracy stops people from creating new groups and charities. You also have to account for our current economics which emphasises the creation of "wealth" and consumption of more goods and services. With this in mind, then yes maybe more people would spend money on themselves. In a libertarian society there would be less emphasis on acquiring wealth and goods and services, so people would have more time and effort to donate to charitable purposes.
Judging from what I have read here, there would be more emphasis on acquiring wealth. Because without sufficient wealth you won't be able to survive in a libertarian society at all, so for the majority of people their whole life will have to be geared around just doing enough to keep afloat with little or no time left for other things.

I have met such people because I work for a charity. And acquiring wealth is not the raison d'etre of a libertarian society. It's about living life how you want to live it, whilst respecting others' person and property. This naturally includes things which don't increase or enhance wealth.

[Bonniedundee]

I mean if I am unable to work because I am a quadriplegic, the government can't turn me away if it is already catering to other people unable to work.Only because of public feeling, there is nothing in the make up of a state that means it has to do this, in fact states are more inclinded to not do this if they can help it.

Private charities can do whatever they want, and refuse to service whomever they want. As I've stated before on other threads, taking government provided (therefore guaranteed) safety nets and leaving it up to charity is reckless indifference to the suffering of others.But for "safety nets" you need a state and to have a state you cause far more problems than you cure.

[Canard DuJour]

No it doesn't, that's extortion :

blackmail is an offer to refrain from any action which would be legal or normally allowed, and is thus distinguished from extortion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail)

Hence, some Libertarians even argue that blackmail is a service. Otherwise they'd have to acknowledge worker exploitation.

The force is being applied by a third party but it's still the use of the threat of force.

"Use of the threat of force" by a third party has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.

[Nitrousoxide]

Not even close. Firstly, a blackmailer need not intimidate. He merely "offers" not to do something which would be legal and normally allowed. Secondly, most libertarians do not recognise any intimidation other than threat of violence. "Work the extra hours or I take away your livelihood," would be fine and dandy in Libertopia but intimidation to everyone else.

A blackmailer attempts to get the other party to compensate him by threatening mental anguish by means of social ostracization or loss of position.

It's not a mere offer because he's threatening to do harm if the other party does not pay up. It's just not a physical sort of harm.

[Canard DuJour]

Not even close. Firstly, a blackmailer need not intimidate. He merely "offers" not to do something which would be legal and normally allowed. Secondly, most libertarians do not recognise any intimidation other than threat of violence. "Work the extra hours or I take away your livelihood," would be fine and dandy in Libertopia but intimidation to everyone else.

A blackmailer attempts to get the other party to compensate him by threatening mental anguish by means of social ostracization or loss of position.

It's not a mere offer because he's threatening to do harm if the other party does not pay up. It's just not a physical sort of harm.
Indeed.

And an exploiter attempts to get the other party to do his bidding by threatening mental anguish by means of financial hardship or loss of the roof over her family's head.

It's not "a working arrangement reached upon a unanimious decision without any coercion by one party onto the other," because he's threatening to do harm if the other party does not do his bidding. It's just not a physical sort of harm

That's why Libertarians will not acknowledge any harm other than direct physical invasion or threat thereof. If you're prepared to admit that coercion is a broader concept than that, congratulations and welcome to the real world.

[Nitrousoxide]

There are several points which differentiate the two instances. In the case of black mail, the black mailing party is actively bringing about the demise of the other party (if they don't pay up).

In the case of employment, the employer does not actively bring about the demise of the other party. Through a lack of action, the other party might come to harm, but that sort of situation is not generally regarded as making the inactive party out to be an evil party.

For instance, in general, we don't think that bystanders are doing evil by not stepping in and stopping an in progress mugging, or we don't think that people starving in Africa makes people in the UAE guilty of murder.

Now, if after having signed a contract with an employee that employer starts making those threats, I'd admit that he's probably doing something wrong there. At least, so long as he's threatening the employee with a firing if he doesn't go beyond the stipulations of his contract.

[Ziggy_Encaoua]

Yes but other libertarians detest unions as much as they detest the state

Which libertarians are these? Unions are fine, provided membership and participation is voluntary.

The libertarians who bleat on about the tyranny of the majority

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a new height of absurdity: workers can't ever be exploited because they'll go elsewhere, but employers could possibly be 'overpaying' someone because they couldn't hire someone else? That's not even defining the problem away, it's a perverse reversal of reality.

Worker overpayment occurs when outside forces mandate a wage higher than the market wage for the position--minimum wage laws & prevailing wage laws.

[Loren Pechtel]

Something to understand about exploitation: It's basically negative income. It's basically impossible to exploit a guy who is truly working for the market wage as you in effect lower his wage below market and he'll go elsewhere.
You left out the part where you add, "provided there are available jobs."

Workers are vulnerable in a tight job market, I thought everyone knew that. This has the effect of reducing the market wage, since you can't simply "go elsewhere." While I agree in principle that the individual must take responsibility for his situation, this doesn't mean that the little guy can rely on the mythical "free market" to save him from unfair employment practices.

Another example of worker overpayment--wages rarely fall when the market rate for the position goes down.

Huh? In what way is an overpaid worker being exploited?

No, I said they are likely to be exploited, not that it is inherent. The company is paying more than it's worth, they can add negative income (exploitation) to the pay without driving the wage below market rate and thus driving off the workers.

Note that this means exploitation is likely when you have minimum wage workers.
And now it's the underpaid worker who's being exploited. Or are you saying that minimum wage workers are overpaid? I'm afraid you've lost me somewhere.

Minimum wage workers are likely to be overpaid compared to the market rate for the position.

[Loren Pechtel]

They could easily find a private charity, since they'd be more plentiful than today. And I'd presume a mentally handicapped person has a carer from youth.

No. This is a reason the radical libertarian positions won't work. Charity isn't going to cover the expensive and untreatable problems. That is one of the things we need government for.

[Stinger]

They could easily find a private charity, since they'd be more plentiful than today. And I'd presume a mentally handicapped person has a carer from youth.

No. This is a reason the radical libertarian positions won't work. Charity isn't going to cover the expensive and untreatable problems. That is one of the things we need government for. Agreed. I like to call it capitalism with a safety net.

[Stinger]

Why can't you ask specific questions? I'll go to the last question that you asked from post 45:

"Why do some get to own themselves and others and some don't even own themselves? I thought you were an American style libertarian, don't you believe in self-ownership?"

Without examples, I don't really know what the hell you're talking about. What does it mean to own yourself? Do I own myself when I owned my own business? If so, why can't you start your own business?

I thought you were an American style libertarian? Self-ownership is pretty much at the heart of that philosophy, you seriously haven't heard of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

The writers William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson described this condition as being a sovereign individual, in which individuals have supreme authority and sovereignty over their own choices, without the interference of governing powers. This notion is central to mainstream anarchism or libertarian socialism, classical liberalism, individualistic political philosophies such as abolitionism, ethical egoism, libertarianism and objectivism. Those who support self-ownership usually support private property by various arguments, such as if a person owns himself, then he owns his labor and therefore the products thereof. Sovereign individuals hold to the premise that government only has authority and power which is given to it by the individual, with decentralized administrative organizations acting as servants to the individual and never their master. It's very difficult to get you to answer specific questions. But I'll keep trying! You make it out to seem that it is impossible to start your own business in England and be your own boss. I did a quick google search and found that about 10% of the UK either own their own business or are contractors. It's clear that I'm "vulgar" as I'm a wage slave. However, is a person who owns his own business "self-employed" by your definition?

[Preno]

Huh? When did I say anything about legallity? I defined coercion as a threat of deliberate malicious action. I made no mention of laws.You made no mention of deliberate malicious action in your previous point. But alright, let's assume coercion is deliberate malicious action. That implies that me not wanting to borrow some trifling amount of money to an acquaintance of mine in serious financial trouble simply out of revenge or because I want to see him suffer is coercion. It is deliberate and it is malicious. But I think it is not exactly what you wanted to include under the heading of "coercion".

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They could easily find a private charity, since they'd be more plentiful than today. And I'd presume a mentally handicapped person has a carer from youth.

I'd be willing to concede that if people were taxed less, charity giving would increase - at first. But it is simply unevidenced assertion that the needy would be provided for by private charity as certainly and ubiquitously as an institution - the government - that is obliged to treat everyone equally.
Don't be too quick to concede this point because look at how well it didn't work in the 1800's.

[Nitrousoxide]

That implies that me not wanting to borrow some trifling amount of money to an acquaintance of mine in serious financial trouble simply out of revenge or because I want to see him suffer is coercion.

That's a really confusing sentence there, did you mean to say, "That implies that me not wanting to LEND some trifling amount of money to an acquainance of mine in serious financial trouble simply out of a revenge or because I want to see him suffer is coercion."?

[wallflower1996]

Which libertarians are these? Unions are fine, provided membership and participation is voluntary.

The libertarians who bleat on about the tyranny of the majority

That simply isn't true. Unions are only bad when they are entwined with the state, for instance in the creation of protective tariffs. It may be true that in practice, all unions favor anti-liberty legislation, but that's different than saying libertarians hate unions qua unions.

[Preno]

That's a really confusing sentence there, did you mean to say, "That implies that me not wanting to LEND some trifling amount of money to an acquainance of mine in serious financial trouble simply out of a revenge or because I want to see him suffer is coercion."?Oops, yes, I did. I still get the two mixed up from time to time (I'm not a native speaker).

[Canard DuJour]

There are several points which differentiate the two instances. In the case of black mail, the black mailing party is actively bringing about the demise of the other party (if they don't pay up).

In the case of employment, the employer does not actively bring about the demise of the other party. Through a lack of action, the other party might come to harm, but that sort of situation is not generally regarded as making the inactive party out to be an evil party.

For instance, in general, we don't think that bystanders are doing evil by not stepping in and stopping an in progress mugging, or we don't think that people starving in Africa makes people in the UAE guilty of murder.It seems to me there's only one point here, not several, but I'm not sure what it is. I presume by "demise" you don't mean death (:confused: ). In the case of sacking for non-compliance with whatever, the employer does actively bring about your demise. And, like a blackmailer who disguises the threat as an offer, the employer can disguise it as passive non-renewal of contract.

Whether this is exploitation would depend on what the employee didn't want to comply with. If it's for not doing the job, fair enough. If it's for refusing dangerous or degrading conditions, not fair - exploitation. But Libertarians insist anything is fair so long as no one physically attacks anyone.

Now, if after having signed a contract with an employee that employer starts making those threats, I'd admit that he's probably doing something wrong there. At least, so long as he's threatening the employee with a firing if he doesn't go beyond the stipulations of his contract. That would depend on relative bargaining power at the time of signing. If an employer reserves the right to dictate terms on an ad hoc basis - as some do - it's useless.

[Canard DuJour]

(I'm not a native speaker).
:eek: :eek:

[Stinger]

The libertarians who bleat on about the tyranny of the majority

That simply isn't true. Unions are only bad when they are entwined with the state, for instance in the creation of protective tariffs. It may be true that in practice, all unions favor anti-liberty legislation, but that's different than saying libertarians hate unions qua unions. I'm suprised that someone who is pro-union would be against tarriffs!! So, you'd be okay if China flooded the US market with goods priced below cost even if they competed with your company?

[Nitrousoxide]

I presume by "demise" you don't mean death (:confused: )

Well, not really, it was just supposed to be a flowery way of saying put the worker out of work and without a means to support himeself.


In the case of sacking for non-compliance with whatever, the employer does actively bring about your demise. And, like a blackmailer who disguises the threat as an offer, the employer can disguise it as passive non-renewal of contract.


Like I'll describe next, if the employer is asking for MORE than what is in the contract to prevent that employee from being fired, he's doing something wrong.


Whether this is exploitation would depend on what the employee didn't want to comply with. If it's for not doing the job, fair enough. If it's for refusing dangerous or degrading conditions, not fair - exploitation. But Libertarians insist anything is fair so long as no one physically attacks anyone.

No, a problem arises when the employer is ignoring the terms of the contract and using the threat of firing to try and get the employee to do more than he agreed to for the same price. The employer is doing two things wrong there, he's (1) violating the terms of the contract, and (2) proves himself to have deceived the employee as to the terms and conditions that he needs to meet to work there. This is a case where government does need to get involved so as to enforce the agreement and make the employer uphold his side of the bargain, or come to a satisfactory agreement with the employee in discharging that earlier agreement (IE, paying damages to the employee and dissolving the contract).


That would depend on relative bargaining power at the time of signing. If an employer reserves the right to dictate terms on an ad hoc basis - as some do - it's useless.

The bargaining power is bound to shift as the market, supply, and demand shift. Some times it will be in the employee's favor, giving him a great deal of leeway in deciding what he'll work for. Sometimes it is in the employer’s favor. If employees find that they are unhappy with their bargaining power, they can either change the sort of work they are looking for, or band together in a voluntary union so as to decrease the number of individual agents competing against one and other for someone to sell their work to.

If a individual does agree (with all of those previously mentioned necessary conditions met) to a contract which allows the employer to change the conditions ad hoc, well, honestly, I really don't have a problem with the employer demanding the employee work more and more. Barring some changes the employer might want to make which violate basic human freedoms (for example changing the contract ad hoc to deny the employee the freedom to ever work for another company, making the employee a slave to the employer.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not as far out there in the libertarian ideology as Euro is. I do think there needs to be some government regulation on the sorts of agreements which can be made. For instance, I can see several good reasons for not permitting polygamy. Perhaps the best reason being the complete unworkablity of divorce in such a system. Another example of type of agreement which should just be banned is one which puts one party into slavery which he cannot escape from (by the terms of the agreement). Under Euro's system, there's nothing stopping a foolish fellow who doesn't read his contracts carefully from signing away his freedom. I would say that government would need to get involved and break up such agreements, even if both parties actually do fully meet all of those conditions a laid out earlier for a contract to be valid.

[wallflower1996]

I'm suprised that someone who is pro-union would be against tarriffs!! So, you'd be okay if China flooded the US market with goods priced below cost even if they competed with your company?

I'm neither pro-union or anti-union. I'm simply a libertarian free-marketeer, answering the specific charge that "libertarians hate unions as much as the state."

[Stinger]

I'm suprised that someone who is pro-union would be against tarriffs!! So, you'd be okay if China flooded the US market with goods priced below cost even if they competed with your company?

I'm neither pro-union or anti-union. I'm simply a libertarian free-marketeer, answering the specific charge that "libertarians hate unions as much as the state." Well, I'm a free market person as well and pro-business. However, if the we allowed other countries to "dump" products in the US while we take the highroad, we'd be out of business pretty fast. What if China decided that it wanted to corner the steel industry? What if the government decided to pay half the costs of the Chinese steel industry, thus allowing the Chinese steel businesses to dump steel in America at 50% of cost. Are you okay with that?

[Loren Pechtel]

No. This is a reason the radical libertarian positions won't work. Charity isn't going to cover the expensive and untreatable problems. That is one of the things we need government for. Agreed. I like to call it capitalism with a safety net.

Yeah, that's a good way to put it.

I think society needs a safety net. It should be explicitly called welfare (or whatever name it's given), I do *NOT* like the current system of a million little programs that are welfare under a different name.

For the reasonably able-bodied I think there should be a work requirement to get your benefits--get them used to working. Picking up trash one day a week would be a reasonable example of what I have in mind. Those with disabilities might need other jobs but there should be a job of some kind unless there's nothing useful they can do. (Realistically--if you don't need a caretaker then there's something you can do.)

[Axulus]

I'm neither pro-union or anti-union. I'm simply a libertarian free-marketeer, answering the specific charge that "libertarians hate unions as much as the state." Well, I'm a free market person as well and pro-business. However, if the we allowed other countries to "dump" products in the US while we take the highroad, we'd be out of business pretty fast. What if China decided that it wanted to corner the steel industry? What if the government decided to pay half the costs of the Chinese steel industry, thus allowing the Chinese steel businesses to dump steel in America at 50% of cost. Are you okay with that?

That would be great for American businesses that use steel in their operations (think Ford or GM). China would lose a lot of money on the deal and we would benefit. With the cheaper steel we would easily have enough money left over to create many new jobs for the small number of steel workers that lose their jobs in the U.S. It is extremely doubtful that a single country or company could monopolize the worldwide steel market.

[Stinger]

Well, I'm a free market person as well and pro-business. However, if the we allowed other countries to "dump" products in the US while we take the highroad, we'd be out of business pretty fast. What if China decided that it wanted to corner the steel industry? What if the government decided to pay half the costs of the Chinese steel industry, thus allowing the Chinese steel businesses to dump steel in America at 50% of cost. Are you okay with that?

That would be great for American businesses that use steel in their operations (think Ford or GM). China would lose a lot of money on the deal and we would benefit. With the cheaper steel we would easily have enough money left over to create many new jobs for the small number of steel workers that lose their jobs in the U.S. It is extremely doubtful that a single country or company could monopolize the worldwide steel market. What do you think would happen if all American steel companies went out of business? I'm against most subsidies. Including the subsidies that Bush gave the steel industry a few years ago. However, I think that a government has a very important responsibility to prevent monopolies. When monopolies arise, free markets can't occur.

[Axulus]

That would be great for American businesses that use steel in their operations (think Ford or GM). China would lose a lot of money on the deal and we would benefit. With the cheaper steel we would easily have enough money left over to create many new jobs for the small number of steel workers that lose their jobs in the U.S. It is extremely doubtful that a single country or company could monopolize the worldwide steel market. What do you think would happen if all American steel companies went out of business? I'm against most subsidies. Including the subsidies that Bush gave the steel industry a few years ago. However, I think that a government has a very important responsibility to prevent monopolies. When monopolies arise, free markets can't occur.

Tariffs are not the way to prevent monopolies in my opinion, especially if the monopoly is yet to occur. Once a monopoly occurs, then its time to break up the company into smaller competitors. I couldn't imagine a true worldwide monopoly arising, but if it did, it wouldn't be very hard to convince the host country to break up that monopoly though threat of sanctions. The steel workers in the country would probably be worse off, but there would be net job creation in the country. It is not a good deal to cost consumers and businesses (that purchase steel) $100,000 to save a $50,000 job, for example, which is what tariffs do.

[Bonniedundee]

It's very difficult to get you to answer specific questions. But I'll keep trying! You make it out to seem that it is impossible to start your own business in England and be your own boss. I did a quick google search and found that about 10% of the UK either own their own business or are contractors. It's clear that I'm "vulgar" as I'm a wage slave. However, is a person who owns his own business "self-employed" by your definition?
No vulgar means you hide statism behind free market rhetoric.

I told you that I'd answer your questions when you answer mine as you, Loren and Nitrousoxide the main "free marketeers" who shrink from anything resembling a free market seem not to want to answer my questions on the heart of American libertarianism.

None of you three is really a libertarian or a free marketeer, you don't even seem to know the core principle of libertarianism ie self-ownership.

I mean Loren obviously thought self-ownership meant banning everything but co-ops, what a joke.

[Stinger]

It's very difficult to get you to answer specific questions. But I'll keep trying! You make it out to seem that it is impossible to start your own business in England and be your own boss. I did a quick google search and found that about 10% of the UK either own their own business or are contractors. It's clear that I'm "vulgar" as I'm a wage slave. However, is a person who owns his own business "self-employed" by your definition?
No vulgar means you hide statism behind free market rhetoric.

I told you that I'd answer your questions when you answer mine as you, Loren and Nitrousoxide the main "free marketeers" who shrink from anything resembling a free market seem not to want to answer my questions on the heart of American libertarianism.

None of you three is really a libertarian or a free marketeer, you don't even seem to know the core principle of libertarianism ie self-ownership.

I mean Loren obviously thought self-ownership meant banning everything but co-ops, what a joke. Yea, I'm not an absolute free marketer or absolute libertarian. I'm not an absolute anything. I've found that only the academia types are absolutes. Most of us have to work in the real world. And in the real world, it is usually a combination of things that work the best. You show me an absolute society: and it will either be a dictatorship or chaotic mob. I like a mixed economy. I like to say that I like capitalism with a safety net.

[Loren Pechtel]

No vulgar means you hide statism behind free market rhetoric.

I told you that I'd answer your questions when you answer mine as you, Loren and Nitrousoxide the main "free marketeers" who shrink from anything resembling a free market seem not to want to answer my questions on the heart of American libertarianism.

None of you three is really a libertarian or a free marketeer, you don't even seem to know the core principle of libertarianism ie self-ownership.

I mean Loren obviously thought self-ownership meant banning everything but co-ops, what a joke.

I'm using *YOUR* definition of self-ownership to arrive at that conclusion.

Please explain how a normal business structure can co-exist with your notion of self-ownership.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No vulgar means you hide statism behind free market rhetoric.

I told you that I'd answer your questions when you answer mine as you, Loren and Nitrousoxide the main "free marketeers" who shrink from anything resembling a free market seem not to want to answer my questions on the heart of American libertarianism.

None of you three is really a libertarian or a free marketeer, you don't even seem to know the core principle of libertarianism ie self-ownership.

I mean Loren obviously thought self-ownership meant banning everything but co-ops, what a joke.

I'm using *YOUR* definition of self-ownership to arrive at that conclusion.

Please explain how a normal business structure can co-exist with your notion of self-ownership.
Loren, it looks like Euro-Agnostic gave a definition of self-ownership as a very libertarian definition and one found in Wikipedia. A link was given. I wouldn't call that Euro-Agnostic's "notion of self-ownership" per se, but rather a non-statist ideal. It would appear that a co-op could fit into this definition, but then so could an individual just declaring he has a 'business' outside the purview of the state...same with a group declaring the same.

So, when you ask how a 'normal business structure can co-exist' with that you seem to actually be talking about typically implemented business structures which are structured as corporate personhoods with 'rights' empowered by the state.

[Gamera]

The libertarians who bleat on about the tyranny of the majority

That simply isn't true. Unions are only bad when they are entwined with the state, for instance in the creation of protective tariffs. It may be true that in practice, all unions favor anti-liberty legislation, but that's different than saying libertarians hate unions qua unions.

Explain why it's bad for unions to promote tariffs, while it's OK for owners to work against tariffs. There is nothing natural or free about one or the other. All markets are made up of rules, and it isn't "freer" to have no tariffs from a country that oppresses its workers than it is to have tariffs.

[Bonniedundee]

Loren, it looks like Euro-Agnostic gave a definition of self-ownership as a very libertarian definition and one found in Wikipedia. A link was given. I wouldn't call that Euro-Agnostic's "notion of self-ownership" per se, but rather a non-statist ideal.I know it's bloody hilarious isn't it.

Self-ownership is at the heart of American libertarianism and here is Loren a self proclaimed libertarian attacking me for using the same notion of self-ownership.

[Bonniedundee]

I'm using *YOUR* definition of self-ownership to arrive at that conclusion.My definition. I made it clear I was using the regular American libertarian version, either you have very poor reading comprehension or you don't understand the theory at the core of your beliefs or perhaps you just ignored what I wrote and used your preconceptions of what I believe or used to believe to come up with the definition I was using.

This is the theory I was using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

Self-ownership or sovereignty of the individual or individual sovereignty is the condition where an individual has the exclusive moral right to control his or her own body and life.....

This notion is central to mainstream anarchism or libertarian socialism, classical liberalism, individualistic political philosophies such as abolitionism, ethical egoism, libertarianism and objectivism.

And just in case you didn't understand that here's an article on it from that old commie website Mises.org

http://www.mises.org/story/1895

Libertarianism builds upon the self-ownership axiom.

Pretty clear isn't it.

[Metaphor]

That's a new height of absurdity: workers can't ever be exploited because they'll go elsewhere, but employers could possibly be 'overpaying' someone because they couldn't hire someone else? That's not even defining the problem away, it's a perverse reversal of reality.

Worker overpayment occurs when outside forces mandate a wage higher than the market wage for the position--minimum wage laws & prevailing wage laws.

You're just defining a fair wage as the market wage, and you are acting as if corporations are forced to hire people.

[Bonniedundee]

Worker overpayment occurs when outside forces mandate a wage higher than the market wage for the position--minimum wage laws & prevailing wage laws.What about, as almost always is the case in statism, that they mandate a wage much lower than what a free market wage would be?

[Nitrousoxide]

Worker overpayment occurs when outside forces mandate a wage higher than the market wage for the position--minimum wage laws & prevailing wage laws.What about, as almost always is the case in statism, that they mandate a wage much lower than what a free market wage would be?


Umm... A minimum wage placed below the market equalibrium wage will do nothing to affect the wages people are actually paid. That's economics 101.

And we don't have wage caps in the US, so I don't know how exactly you think these workers are being under paid.

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, it looks like Euro-Agnostic gave a definition of self-ownership as a very libertarian definition and one found in Wikipedia. A link was given. I wouldn't call that Euro-Agnostic's "notion of self-ownership" per se, but rather a non-statist ideal.

I was using "your definition" as in "the definition you presented", whether or not it was an original idea is irrelevant.

It would appear that a co-op could fit into this definition, but then so could an individual just declaring he has a 'business' outside the purview of the state...same with a group declaring the same.

A co-op fits. A sole proprietor fits. That's it.

So, when you ask how a 'normal business structure can co-exist' with that you seem to actually be talking about typically implemented business structures which are structured as corporate personhoods with 'rights' empowered by the state.

The legal structure is irrelevant. I mean the sort of situation where you have people of varying abilities working together to accomplish something. That can't happen under his definition.

That also means that anyone not competent to run a business is unemployed under his system.

[Loren Pechtel]

Worker overpayment occurs when outside forces mandate a wage higher than the market wage for the position--minimum wage laws & prevailing wage laws.

You're just defining a fair wage as the market wage, and you are acting as if corporations are forced to hire people.

I don't think "fair" is a meaningful term when it comes to things like wages.

What I'm saying is that when external forces drive wages above the market value then you get worker exploitation.

Workers will only stay when the true pay of the job is at least market rate.

True pay is wages + benefits - exploitation.

[Loren Pechtel]

Worker overpayment occurs when outside forces mandate a wage higher than the market wage for the position--minimum wage laws & prevailing wage laws.What about, as almost always is the case in statism, that they mandate a wage much lower than what a free market wage would be?

Except the same forces that reduce overpayment also raise underpayment. Just because you think you're not making enough doesn't mean you aren't.

[EricK]

You're just defining a fair wage as the market wage, and you are acting as if corporations are forced to hire people.

I don't think "fair" is a meaningful term when it comes to things like wages.


Couldn't one say that if there were precisely the same number of jobs available as there were qualified candidates then the wage which resulted would be the fair wage? When the number of jobs exceeds the number of qualified candidates a wage above the fair wage would likely get paid and if there were more candidates than jobs a wage below the fair wage would likely be paid.

[Gamera]

[
Workers will only stay when the true pay of the job is at least market rate.
.


Which begs the question: if the "market rate" is the result of a discrepancy of negotiating power (as it usually is) especially if you set up rules to give owners more power than workers (e.g., by establishing complex international treaties to generate outsourcing with countries that have no worker protection), then what choice do workers have but to "stay" in jobs in which they are exploited to profit owners to their detriment.

[Canard DuJour]

I presume by "demise" you don't mean death (:confused: )

Well, not really, it was just supposed to be a flowery way of saying put the worker out of work and without a means to support himeself.



Like I'll describe next, if the employer is asking for MORE than what is in the contract to prevent that employee from being fired, he's doing something wrong.



No, a problem arises when the employer is ignoring the terms of the contract and using the threat of firing to try and get the employee to do more than he agreed to for the same price. The employer is doing two things wrong there, he's (1) violating the terms of the contract, and (2) proves himself to have deceived the employee as to the terms and conditions that he needs to meet to work there. This is a case where government does need to get involved so as to enforce the agreement and make the employer uphold his side of the bargain, or come to a satisfactory agreement with the employee in discharging that earlier agreement (IE, paying damages to the employee and dissolving the contract).Which is nearly useless except in the most standardised jobs because contracts cannot explicitly spell out every activity under every condition. Contracts typically refer to "activities commensurate with," "in accordance with best practice," "as per management/client specification"etc - and necessarily so. Indeed unions used to bring production to a standstill by 'work to rule' i.e. doing only what was absolutely specifically spelled out.

Contracts are necessarily flexible but that leaves room for coercion. It's good that you allow for some degree of contract arbitration but that already puts you squarely outside the Libertarian camp.


That would depend on relative bargaining power at the time of signing. If an employer reserves the right to dictate terms on an ad hoc basis - as some do - it's useless.

The bargaining power is bound to shift as the market, supply, and demand shift. Some times it will be in the employee's favor, giving him a great deal of leeway in deciding what he'll work for. Sometimes it is in the employer’s favor.Not in the societies you and I live in. In all but a tiny minority of cases, what shifts is the extent to which the employer has greater bargaining power. If it were otherwise, employees would typically initiate contact with employers and dictate a set of terms which employers would compete to fulfill. But the opposite is the rule. Employers dictate a set of terms which workers compete to fulfill - often whether they think those terms are fair or not because they must weigh the disutility of shitty conditions against that of losing the roof over their family's head.


If employees find that they are unhappy with their bargaining power, they can either change the sort of work they are looking for, or band together in a voluntary union so as to decrease the number of individual agents competing against one and other for someone to sell their work to.

If a individual does agree (with all of those previously mentioned necessary conditions met) to a contract which allows the employer to change the conditions ad hoc, well, honestly, I really don't have a problem with the employer demanding the employee work more and more. Barring some changes the employer might want to make which violate basic human freedoms (for example changing the contract ad hoc to deny the employee the freedom to ever work for another company, making the employee a slave to the employer.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not as far out there in the libertarian ideology as Euro is. I do think there needs to be some government regulation on the sorts of agreements which can be made. For instance, I can see several good reasons for not permitting polygamy. Perhaps the best reason being the complete unworkablity of divorce in such a system. Another example of type of agreement which should just be banned is one which puts one party into slavery which he cannot escape from (by the terms of the agreement). Under Euro's system, there's nothing stopping a foolish fellow who doesn't read his contracts carefully from signing away his freedom. I would say that government would need to get involved and break up such agreements, even if both parties actually do fully meet all of those conditions a laid out earlier for a contract to be valid.Agreed, but I'd add that there'd be nothing in Libertopia to stop contract slavery of sensible but desperate people either. There's not much that people wont agree to to protect their families. If there's no safety net, property rights are absolute and no contract can be deemed unconscionable.. I shudder to think

[Loren Pechtel]

Which begs the question: if the "market rate" is the result of a discrepancy of negotiating power (as it usually is) especially if you set up rules to give owners more power than workers (e.g., by establishing complex international treaties to generate outsourcing with countries that have no worker protection), then what choice do workers have but to "stay" in jobs in which they are exploited to profit owners to their detriment.

A discrepancy of negotiating power isn't the issue. The workers have lots of negotiating power. It shows up overall as what companies get employees rather than individual negotiations between a prospective hire and the boss.


Outsourcing is a separate issue. The problem is that the dollar isn't adjusting for the balance of trade because countries like China are skewing the exchange rates.

[Gamera]

Which begs the question: if the "market rate" is the result of a discrepancy of negotiating power (as it usually is) especially if you set up rules to give owners more power than workers (e.g., by establishing complex international treaties to generate outsourcing with countries that have no worker protection), then what choice do workers have but to "stay" in jobs in which they are exploited to profit owners to their detriment.

A discrepancy of negotiating power isn't the issue. The workers have lots of negotiating power. It shows up overall as what companies get employees rather than individual negotiations between a prospective hire and the boss.


Outsourcing is a separate issue. The problem is that the dollar isn't adjusting for the balance of trade because countries like China are skewing the exchange rates.

Workers negotiating power (or lack thereof) is directly related to outsourcing. Which is why companies outsource or threaten to outsource. The whole point is to reduce wages and increase profits.

So this particular, complex rule allowing outsourcing (something that we didn't have to do) benefits owners to the detriment of workers.

See how it works?

[Bonniedundee]

I was using "your definition" as in "the definition you presented", whether or not it was an original idea is irrelevant.When did I present this definition, don't make things up.

The only definition I've used is the one used by the likes of Murray Rothbard and the American libertarian movement.

Where ever you got this definition from it wasn't from my posts on self-ownership, either you have very poor reading comprehension, you never ignored the post mostly and are just projecting what you think I mean by self-ownership or you don't understand the American libertarian notion of self-ownership.

Do you understand I never suggested any other definition of self-ownership than that used by Rothbard and the Amercian libertarians you claim to be one of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

Self-ownership or sovereignty of the individual or individual sovereignty is the condition where an individual has the exclusive moral right to control his or her own body and life.....

This notion is central to mainstream anarchism or libertarian socialism, classical liberalism, individualistic political philosophies such as abolitionism, ethical egoism, libertarianism and objectivism. And just in case you didn't understand that here's an article on it from that old commie website Mises.org

http://www.mises.org/story/1895

Libertarianism builds upon the self-ownership axiom.

Pretty clear isn't it.


I love the way you ignored this the first time.

[Bonniedundee]

Umm... A minimum wage placed below the market equalibrium wage will do nothing to affect the wages people are actually paid. That's economics 101.I wasn't talking about minimum wages I was talking about intervention such as the money monopoly that keeps wages down.

[Bonniedundee]

Except the same forces that reduce overpayment also raise underpayment. In a free market yes, but not in a statist market, in our statist economy these forces are interfered with.

[Loren Pechtel]

Workers negotiating power (or lack thereof) is directly related to outsourcing. Which is why companies outsource or threaten to outsource. The whole point is to reduce wages and increase profits.

So this particular, complex rule allowing outsourcing (something that we didn't have to do) benefits owners to the detriment of workers.

See how it works?

Outsourcing lowers the market rate for the position.

I would like to know what this supposed complex rule allowing outsourcing is, though. There is no rule allowing outsourcing. The only issue is rules trying to prevent it but it's not really preventable unles you cut off all imports. The historical result of protectionism like that is always bad.

If you try to prohibit a US company from outsourcing they'll just lose out to a foreign company based in the third world.

[Loren Pechtel]

I was using "your definition" as in "the definition you presented", whether or not it was an original idea is irrelevant.When did I present this definition, don't make things up.

The only definition I've used is the one used by the likes of Murray Rothbard and the American libertarian movement.

Where ever you got this definition from it wasn't from my posts on self-ownership, either you have very poor reading comprehension, you never ignored the post mostly and are just projecting what you think I mean by self-ownership or you don't understand the American libertarian notion of self-ownership.

Why don't you try showing how other business structures could exist in your system?

[Loren Pechtel]

Umm... A minimum wage placed below the market equalibrium wage will do nothing to affect the wages people are actually paid. That's economics 101.I wasn't talking about minimum wages I was talking about intervention such as the money monopoly that keeps wages down.

First you need to show that there is such!

Just because you feel you deserve more doesn't mean there is a massive conspiracy to keep wages down.

[Bonniedundee]

First you need to show that there is such!I have, the gov't keeps interest rates artificially high by the money monopoly, ie by having legal tender laws and having many restrictions on the setting up of banks and currencies.

And then of course there are regulations and subsidies and primitive accumulation and the list goes and on and on.

[Bonniedundee]

Why don't you try showing how other business structures could exist in your system?How about you try and show I advocated, recently, any other system but that advocated by American libertarians and the likes of Rothbard, Mises etc etc.

Do you not understand it is their idea of self-ownership I was talking about, the one at the heart of your supposed ideology.

[ComestibleVenom]

However, economic hardship is not considered coercion...While this is a shitty situation, it's not coercion. It is also certainly not equivalent to a direct threat.

A gun isn't a direct threat. You have to pull the trigger which releases the pin.

Honestly, you're just beating around the bush. Humans have full responsibility for their environment. Moral obligation is not the domain of a dermatologist.

[Gamera]

Workers negotiating power (or lack thereof) is directly related to outsourcing. Which is why companies outsource or threaten to outsource. The whole point is to reduce wages and increase profits.

So this particular, complex rule allowing outsourcing (something that we didn't have to do) benefits owners to the detriment of workers.

See how it works?

Outsourcing lowers the market rate for the position.

I would like to know what this supposed complex rule allowing outsourcing is, though. There is no rule allowing outsourcing. The only issue is rules trying to prevent it but it's not really preventable unles you cut off all imports. The historical result of protectionism like that is always bad.

If you try to prohibit a US company from outsourcing they'll just lose out to a foreign company based in the third world.

1. First, outsourcing cannot occur without international treaties as to currency rates.

2. Second, outsourcing cannot occur without international treaties as to ownership by foreign nationals of property.

3. Third, outsourcing cannot occur without internation treaties as to transfers of capital from one nation to the another.

4. Fouth, outsourcing would not occur is it had adverse tax consequences (in fact under our current tax code it has beneficial tax consequences, the result of the IRC on the matter).

5. Fifth, outsourcing would not occur where workers have all the protections of American workers, and hence demand the same wage levels. Thus, international treaties that allow capital flight have to avoid imposing worker's rights and environmental protection requirements.

Unless these complex international intentional conditions are met, outsourcing doesn't occur.

That's why American companies outsource to India, but not to N. Korea.

See the difference?

[Gamera]

[
If you try to prohibit a US company from outsourcing they'll just lose out to a foreign company based in the third world.

That's what tariffs are for. To make the playing field level.

[Loren Pechtel]

1. First, outsourcing cannot occur without international treaties as to currency rates.

People will trade currency without any treaties. My wife has accepted payment in non-US currency from travellers.

2. Second, outsourcing cannot occur without international treaties as to ownership by foreign nationals of property.

1) This isn't a matter of treaties, just laws.

2) It's the actions of the other companies, not the US. A law saying a US citizen couldn't own property abroad would get laughed out of court.

3. Third, outsourcing cannot occur without internation treaties as to transfers of capital from one nation to the another.

What's your obsession with nonexistent treaties??

4. Fouth, outsourcing would not occur is it had adverse tax consequences (in fact under our current tax code it has beneficial tax consequences, the result of the IRC on the matter).

You would have to pass an explicit tax on outsourcing. More later...

5. Fifth, outsourcing would not occur where workers have all the protections of American workers, and hence demand the same wage levels. Thus, international treaties that allow capital flight have to avoid imposing worker's rights and environmental protection requirements.

You've got it utterly backwards.

It's not worker protections that set wage levels. Rather, it's wage levels that result in the protections--as workers earn more they demand more protections also.

Wage levels are a result of capital and education.

Unless these complex international intentional conditions are met, outsourcing doesn't occur.

That's why American companies outsource to India, but not to N. Korea.

See the difference?

You just shot yourself down here.

There is no outsourcing to North Korea because they don't permit it. Note that they suffer for doing so.


Furthermore, if you prohibit outsourcing you'll just destroy the US companies and replace them with companies formed elsewhere. You'll harm the US even more than the outsourcing does. The only way around this is major protectionism--and that has a perfect track record: It always hurts the nation doing it badly.

[Loren Pechtel]

[
If you try to prohibit a US company from outsourcing they'll just lose out to a foreign company based in the third world.

That's what tariffs are for. To make the playing field level.

No. Tariffs are about protectionism and indirectly about destroying the third world. It's the worst thing we could do.

[premjan]

Tariffs should be for raising money for the government and should not be about playing politics or protecting markets. Well, protecting markets is OK in the short term but has to be avoided in the long term.