But you say you're in favour of a $2.70 ph wage Tiberius. To me that's slavery.

To you maybe, but it's not by definition, and it certainly wouldn't be to the people who are able to feed their families because of it.

(October 11, 2011 at 6:33 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: In other words, government is dumped in favor of a group of trade unions that work together without coersion for the benefit of all humanity regardless of nationality.

There is a more sensible solution, it's called Georgism, the idea that no natural resources can be owned but one does own the value that they add to natural resources. In such a system society would own all resources, land, minerals etc, yet you could profit by adding value to the system, paying back the value that was not available to others because of your procurement of the goods and taking for yourself that which you contributed.

Say someone takes a section of land, landscapes it and builds a house, they would pay rent to the community which would be equally divided for the resources they are using that are unavailable to others, but they would be able to profit from the work they did when they transfer the lease on resources, the next person would either have to pay increased rent to them for the labour done or buy it outright.

It would be a bit of a nightmare to implement given how deeply engrained ownership of natural resources is, but in theory it's the single most fair and efficient type of "tax" possible, one that makes sure that people who use more natural resources pay a higher price and other people are fairly compensated for missing out.

Given that I believe as a classical liberal that people should be the sole beneficiary of their own productivity Georgism (Geolibertarianism) is a position I've taken great interest in recently.

---

(October 12, 2011 at 3:03 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 11, 2011 at 6:27 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: Surely with the big companies crushing the smaller ones, they then become a monopoly and dictate the markets. The customer becomes less important because they can only get the goods from the company that dominates, creating a non competitive market with potentially a nasty business charging what they want because of no competition(I realize this is an extremity). Also employee rights, would they go out the window with deregulation?

You forget the consumer in all of this. Consumers control the market; the "99%" control the market, they just don't realise it. In a completely consumer based society (which is what right-Libertarians advocate), all corporations must eventually answer to their consumers.

A monopoly could exist, but it would only be strong for as long as it kept it's consumers happy. Imagine, for instance, that there was no Mac OS X, no Linux, no Solaris or UNIX. Imagine there was only Microsoft and their Windows platform. Pretty soon, people would get sick of it, and start to come up with their own ideas; get funding, and start some of the aforementioned products as direct competition. It's already happened to some degree; Microsoft used to be a monopoly, but they are quickly losing a lot of their market share to Apple, and certainly to Red Hat in the business world (if you didn't already know, Red Hat Linux is a Linux distro which charges for licenses / support).

As for employee rights, I assume you mean the whole myth about "corporate slaves". In Libertarianism, the government still exists to enforce the law, and one law I am very much in favour in is against people (or corporations) owning slaves. Just because there would be no government regulation of business, doesn't mean that businesses get to break other non-commercial laws. Social laws are above all other laws; no business can get away with murder, or rape, or slavery. Employees have the right to quit if they want, or organise mass walkouts, or any other social action. Consumers can do the same, because consumers have shown time and time again to care about working conditions of companies they buy from.

Not only that but we should actively encourage consumers councils, unions and buying collectives as an effective countermeasure to private interests, put more pressure on them, make sure that profit is made by adding value to social systems.

Quote:You forget the consumer in all of this. Consumers control the market; the "99%" control the market, they just don't realise it. In a completely consumer based society (which is what right-Libertarians advocate), all corporations must eventually answer to their consumers.

But that isnt the case. Look at east india trading. They started in a mostly consumer based society, then expanded its influence into places where no currently laws could touch them, meaning that they were in that right-libertarian model. Look how quickly, once having that pure "market anarchy" they dominated everything they influenced, even becoming their own form of government in the end. And surely, they only wanted Laisez-faire for themselves, not for their competitors.

Quote:A monopoly could exist, but it would only be strong for as long as it kept it's consumers happy. Imagine, for instance, that there was no Mac OS X, no Linux, no Solaris or UNIX. Imagine there was only Microsoft and their Windows platform. Pretty soon, people would get sick of it, and start to come up with their own ideas; get funding, and start some of the aforementioned products as direct competition. It's already happened to some degree; Microsoft used to be a monopoly, but they are quickly losing a lot of their market share to Apple, and certainly to Red Hat in the business world (if you didn't already know, Red Hat Linux is a Linux distro which charges for licenses / support).

Monopolies do more than "could exist". They "will exist" in laisez-faire. New ideas will come about with or without the right-libertarian economic structure regardless. It's happening right now in our keynesian system here in America. Im not knocking free-market for its freedom. I am knocking it for its potential to abuse of the labor.

Quote:As for employee rights, I assume you mean the whole myth about "corporate slaves". In Libertarianism, the government still exists to enforce the law, and one law I am very much in favour in is against people (or corporations) owning slaves. Just because there would be no government regulation of business, doesn't mean that businesses get to break other non-commercial laws. Social laws are above all other laws; no business can get away with murder, or rape, or slavery. Employees have the right to quit if they want, or organise mass walkouts, or any other social action. Consumers can do the same, because consumers have shown time and time again to care about working conditions of companies they buy from.

"myth"? In america before trade unionism came into popularity, it was common for a corporation to enclose an entire city, or area. The workers had no choice but to buy their food and commodities from the corporation itself. The workers eventually were no longer paid in dollars, but in company credit. Food and commodities were imported by the companie at the cheapest price they could find, and then the prices were artificially inflated when sold to the lower worker. workers who complained were beaten, or punished by not being allowed into the company store for a few days. company credit was always given to them at a lower percentage of the dollar amount on paydays, if paydays even came on time. Sure, many were allowed to leave (which was their excuse for saying "see, you arent slaves"), but their names were blacklisted as a "trouble maker" or as a "communist" and then shared with many other companies so that you could no longer find work in the immediate area.

(October 12, 2011 at 4:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: To you maybe, but it's not by definition, and it certainly wouldn't be to the people who are able to feed their families because of it.

Depends on the context doesn't it. In a free market/ sans regulation an employer only wants to line his own pocket. The less he can get away with paying his employees the less he will. Market driven = people want to pay less = the temptation to pay an unfair wage to achieve that price. And of course that follows on into the manufacturing process. BP took horrendous risks with safety in the Mexican Gulf, why? > to save money on the end product.

If you have money you can make money easily. The rich can get obscenely more rich whilst the people actually doing the work and making the business run get none of that profit. Some rich people have a conscience and try to redistribute the wealth. Most though feather their own beds with it.

Hence regulation is not an option, but a necessity. People are greedy, and it shouldn't be acceptable in a civilized society to reward greed.

(October 12, 2011 at 7:57 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: "myth"? In america before trade unionism came into popularity, it was common for a corporation to enclose an entire city, or area. The workers had no choice but to buy their food and commodities from the corporation itself. The workers eventually were no longer paid in dollars, but in company credit. Food and commodities were imported by the companie at the cheapest price they could find, and then the prices were artificially inflated when sold to the lower worker. workers who complained were beaten, or punished by not being allowed into the company store for a few days. company credit was always given to them at a lower percentage of the dollar amount on paydays, if paydays even came on time. Sure, many were allowed to leave (which was their excuse for saying "see, you arent slaves"), but their names were blacklisted as a "trouble maker" or as a "communist" and then shared with many other companies so that you could no longer find work in the immediate area.

That's why we advocate a government to protect the rights of the people and a global market economy in which the sort of isolated cooperation required for that to function simply can't be effectively organised. If there is a company behaving like that, even if they aren't violating the rights of others, the opportunities for someone to undercut them or steal their employees is tremendous. The most effective way for any business to stay in operation long term is to provide consumers with goods at a price they are willing to pay and keep their employees well enough paid so they aren't available to the competition, anything less introduces vulnerabilities in the business that will likely be fatal.

Quote:There is a more sensible solution, it's called Georgism, the idea that no natural resources can be owned but one does own the value that they add to natural resources. In such a system society would own all resources, land, minerals etc, yet you could profit by adding value to the system, paying back the value that was not available to others because of your procurement of the goods and taking for yourself that which you contributed.

Say someone takes a section of land, landscapes it and builds a house, they would pay rent to the community which would be equally divided for the resources they are using that are unavailable to others, but they would be able to profit from the work they did when they transfer the lease on resources, the next person would either have to pay increased rent to them for the labour done or buy it outright.

It would be a bit of a nightmare to implement given how deeply engrained ownership of natural resources is, but in theory it's the single most fair and efficient type of "tax" possible, one that makes sure that people who use more natural resources pay a higher price and other people are fairly compensated for missing out.

Given that I believe as a classical liberal that people should be the sole beneficiary of their own productivity Georgism (Geolibertarianism) is a position I've taken great interest in recently.

I have studyied it. I find it still continuing the current problems we have today. Syndicalism advocates the abolishment of wage, and therefore the abolishment of taxes. Georgism still introducses the concept of profit into the system. As long as profit exists, corruption will flourish greatly. Creativity will flourish regardless of what economic system exists at the moment, and people will still introduce their creations. Elimination of wages will eliminate inequality, domination, societal leeches, and centralization. Creativity and the introduction of new products will still come about with or without a wage system, or regardless of free or planned economies. In fact, many scientists say that science could not have come into existence without leisure time. Syndicalism will increase leisure time for all, as opposed to the few rich who could afford it. It is well known that the cradle of science was brought about by mostly rich men who could afford the down time. Just imagine how much more we would be better off we would be if others during their time had the same capability?

(October 12, 2011 at 8:19 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Syndicalism advocates the abolishment of wage, and therefore the abolishment of taxes.

There are still taxes, they just don't go by that name. Each person is still provided with and required to contribute their productivity towards services for the community, whether this tax is a portion of a currency paid or they are required to work towards building up some infrastructure/resources to be spent by some other collective they are still effectively being taxed.

Quote:Georgism still introducses the concept of profit into the system.

That's what's good about it, people are still endowed with the value they create, those who contribute goods/services that are more desirable (and thus more valuable) should rightly have more wealth. All other measures of value are arbitrary.

Quote:As long as profit exists, corruption will flourish greatly.

Oh, so I suppose their were no greedy communists in the history of the world? Greed is more primary than profits, power or force, not a function of it but something that can use it. To eliminate greed you can't just change a system, you'd have to change the very nature of greedy people.

Quote:Creativity will flourish regardless of what economic system exists at the moment, and people will still introduce their creations.

It will, but to varying degrees. The nations most known for innovation are those with market economies of one form or another. Different systems have different motivating factors, the incentive to succeed financially is a very powerful one, one that can be combined with other motivating factors. It stands to reason that the system with the most innovation will be the one with the most opportunity, freedom and motivating factors.

Quote:Elimination of wages will eliminate inequality

No it won't, it will simply ignore it.

Quote:societal leeches

How so? Are you going to force people to work or let them fend for themselves if they will not? If you're of the opinion that everyone should be given an equal share of all productivity there will always be people who are producing less than average and thus be leeching to some extent, as will there always be people who produce more and bare a heavier burden.

Quote:Creativity and the introduction of new products will still come about with or without a wage system, or regardless of free or planned economies. In fact, many scientists say that science could not have come into existence without leisure time. Syndicalism will increase leisure time for all, as opposed to the few rich who could afford it. It is well known that the cradle of science was brought about by mostly rich men who could afford the down time. Just imagine how much more we would be better off we would be if others during their time had the same capability?

Science in the modern era is rarely done from the tool-shed, unless these people have access to a laboratory in their spare time little will change. Besides, in the days of old people had little to occupy them when they were not working and the unknown wasn't massively out of reach of an untrained layman with a general sense of curiosity, these days most people would spend their leisure time in front of a television of computer, not pioneering technologies out of sheer curiosity. It would be the overwhelming minority that even attempted such a thing, let alone succeeded at it.

(October 11, 2011 at 1:29 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(October 11, 2011 at 1:07 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Sweetheart, there was no apology necessary. I just wanted to make sure you were okay, and to get "you" back.

A basket full of Loki's goblins preparing to wreak havok on this forum as we speak

I agree with SummerQueen. Knew something was wrong / really getting to you and making you angry as. Couldn't do or say anything until you came forward with what was bothering you so much. Glad to hear things have calmed down a bit for you mate

I love Ferrets...Loki's goblins?

Kichi is obviously a lot less nosy than I.