The following is why I call myself the Armed Socialist instead of the Armed Libertarian. This was shared by a Libertarian who +1ed a response to a Slashdot article on the new proposed maximum wage reg, which I dont agree with, but it brought out standard Libertarian fare. by countach74 (2484150) on Saturday November 23, 2013 @01:57PM (#45502113) +1. Whats interesting to these arguments that say the free imarket does not exist, is that they propose the solution is to move in the exact opposite direction of the free market: ----------------------- No, not always, but we do acknowledge that the Market, a man made construct which by definition makes it unnatural, is easily manipulated, and that inherently left to its own devices will eventually lead to a single monopoly stifling the same competition you say will regulate it naturally. The Market has never, and will never, regulate itself naturally. That same Anarchist belief led to the betrayal of the Russian Communist Revolution and allowed Stalin to manipulate the system until he had wrested control of the entire country under his boot. Its no different than when Microsoft attempted the same by buying up all of the competition, or when the oil companies bought the rights to alternative energy sources in the 70s and 80s to keep Americans dependent on their product. Meanwhile, you have Snowball chanting to the sheep This is okay, this is how its supposed to be so they pick up the same mantra. The Free Market is a lie, but that doesnt mean you have to go in the complete opposite direction towards a state run economy like Soviet Russia. Why did the American forefathers adopt a Constitutional Republic in place of the Confederation and instead of a Democracy? So there would be checks and balances, so no one group or state would have more influence over the others. That was the entire purpose of the creation of the Senate, to guarantee political competition in the National Politics of the Republic. The same principle can be applied to the Market. ---------------------------------------------- a direction in which the ruling class controls and will use to its own advantage. If, on the off chance, something like this ridiculous 12:1 pay cap thing gets passed, you will see one of the three things happen: 1) creative ways to subvert the law, possibly bringing in unforeseen consequences that impact far more than just the CEOs; 2) companies and the wealth that they generate flee to more prosperous regions; 3) a combination of both. ---------------------------------------------- Number 2 is the other great lie of Libertarians, that if we dont bow down to corporate CEOs then theyll just pick up and leave. First off, if we canceled all of our free trade agreements with nations which dont have similar or greater than labor laws to our own you eliminate the draw to leave and off shore their business. Dont think so? You really think theyre going to just leave the largest consumerist country on the planet? Bullshit, and so what if they did? As if there wouldnt be people to replace them who otherwise wouldnt be able to due to a lack of capital? Whats funny is hearing so many Libertarians who fully endorsed the George W Bush plan for the economy and now listening to them talk about it failed because of Crony Capitalism. No, it failed because thats what happens when you have a free market that doesnt have checks and balances to ensure everyones on an even playing field. You get bankers who start gambling on mortgages, CEOs who cut workers despite posting record profits, and a service based economy full of college graduates working at Starbucks. In fact, here is what Adam Smith, the Libertarian Idol and father of the Invisible Hand, had to say on that mentality: In regards to the price of commodities, the rise of wages operates as simple interest does, the rise of profit operates like compound interest. Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.” He goes on to acknowledge that the wealth of a nation is created by the lowest classes because of their sheer numbers of buying power. The more money they have to spend, the more profits generated. He goes onto say: “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.” Does that sound like a Libertarian to you? --------------------------------------------------------- But alas, people think that laws can just magically make everything better and people more equal, by whatever definition they arbitrarily choose. Equality can only ever be objectively defined as equality of opportunity, not equality of distribution. After all, the only way to achieve equality of distribution is via coercively taking from those who have accumulated their wealth via mutually-beneficial exchanges on the free market. -------------------------------------------------------- I whole heartedly agree with this, but what the Libertarian fails to realize is his criticism which he levels at the state can easily be leveled at the same CEOs he defends. The same method of Government Coercion for equal distribution can be used for unequal distribution by Corporate Coercion to deny equality of opportunity. What opportunity does one have to prosper when all of their wealth is tied up in survival due to high cost of living and low wages? Now heres where the Corporate Coercion comes into play, because when you, and most of the nation, are constantly living from pay check to pay check what sort of bargaining power do you have in contract negotiations? You have none. They can in effect treat you and pay you however they feel like because they know if they break you there will be another starving sap to fill your shoes and you will more than likely put up with it due to the high likelihood of significant struggle in your survival. This too is coercion. The government saying Do this or face prison is no different than an employer saying Do this or starve, but to the Libertarian this is okay. Youll notice too that the Libertarian never says how the Free Market provides equal opportunity, unless its equal opportunity to starve and be at the whims of your employer. --------------------------------------------------------------- Forbidding people from signing contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial is wrong and destructive to the economy. -------------------------------------------------------------- Theres the Rub and the way Libertarians justify their position of corporate servitude, the contract. On the surface and basic principle this Libertarian is correct, but the key words there are mutually beneficial, notice he declines to say equally beneficial. If you complain, well hey, you signed a contract. Forget the fact that the other party was holding a gun to your head (starvation) and said Sign this and I wont shoot. Or the opposite, they promise the opportunity to move up the corporate ladder and neglect to mention But well cut you from the organization if the shareholders, which the executives happen to be, decide to raise the wages of the executives and decide your salary would make a great Christmas bonus at the expense of a little efficiency and under the guise of lowering overhead. Oh and dont think you can bring a breach of contract or wrongful termination lawsuit against them, because they have the right to fire as they see fit donchaknow. ------------------------------------------------------------ Contrary to popular belief, the only way this is possible in the long run, is if the executive actually brings that worth to the corporation. ------------------------------------------------------------ Ah yes, the worth of a company. Traditionally, the value of a company was measured in the value of the product it actually produced, this isnt the case anymore. Now value is determined by share holdings and futures (speculation) and not the actual production of goods. This was done so middle man corporations, those being which provide the service of transporting and delivering goods from the producer to the consumer, could play in the stock market. No tangible value has to actually be created, only estimated to be created. Now theyll say Well the corporation wont last long like that, which is true, it wont, but that doesnt stop executives from wracking up the speculative shares and then cashing out before everything goes to hell either. Which is exactly what happened during the Dot Com Bubble Collapse and the Housing Bubble Collapse. This is the business practice of bankers and CEOs, none of whom truly care about the survival of the company, they care just long enough to get stocks high so they can cash out. Its the Lottery mentality. You can either take the lump sum now which will be a fraction of your overall winnings, but still significant, or you can take the 20 year payout and get all of your earnings minus taxes. The 20 year payout is the better deal, but doesnt have the immediate satisfaction of the lump sum. Now for the final big lie in all of this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- These sorts of laws will *not* bring up the wage of the workers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There it is, the concept that law and regulation will not influence wages of workers. The belief that any law or regulation significantly harms labor is based on a warped view of the social concept of individual liberty. Say what? You see, Libertarians also believe in social liberty, as do I, close to that of Anarchy, but differs because the ability to sue or address grievances to receive just reparations is provided by a court and system of law which presumes innocence and issues award and punishment based on the merits of each case. The conceptual basis being that every individual is a sovereign and is born with the natural right to do as he pleases barring that his actions dont encroach on the rights of others eliminating their ability of choice. We are all equal in this sense because we accept a large portion of the responsibility for our own fate. They want to apply this to the Market, except for the part about not encroaching on the rights of others. That part they dont want applied, and thats where the “contract” comes into play. By signing the contract, in their mind, you sign away your rights of redress and your corporate overlord is free to do as he pleases without regard to how his actions will affect you, and you have no right to tell him not to. The reason being for this is simple. If you applied the same philosophy to the market as we do individual liberty, businesses would be democratic. There is no action that a boss can take with his business that doesnt affect every member of his business. From every business deal to production decisions to sales, every decision ands its outcome affects every member of the organization. If you apply the same philosophy of individual liberty to business you would violate the rights of your labor by not consulting them on the business dealing. So what did we do in the early 20th century? We bargained with business owners. Instead of outright democratizing businesses we instead instituted Republics, want to guess how we did that? If you guessed labor unions you were right! Instead of slowing down the efficiency of industry with the slow process of every employee weighing in on every matter of business we created collective bargaining organizations which not only united workers giving them an equal playing field in contractual negotiations, they also gave workers a representative who could speak for them and devote their time to ensuring their interests were being met. Now why do you think Libertarians and Corporations despise labor unions? Because negotiations are no longer one sided and they hold executives accountable for their actions. Instead of there being only one gun at the table theres now two, and the risk of harm is equally shared between the negotiating parties. Theyve spent decades disenfranchizing labor unions and turning people against them by laying the blame for the down turn in the economy at their feet. It wasnt the Executives fault your job was sent overseas after he spent millions of dollars lobbying congress to sign free trade agreements with third world cess pits which allowed them to send your job overseas, no, it was the damn Union that just made your labor too damned expensive. Right.
Posted on: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:23:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015