The War Against Wages

[Injin]

Maybe so. But there is no denying that the current tax system does seem some of the money returned in services - granted this is just taking the money from one part of 'wealth' over another, but in relative terms it is more fair and just than the current system, no?

The big problem - and one that I challenge you to address here - is that monopolies, coercion, and slavery are born OUT OF free market conditions. Free markets once existed, right? A long time ago, when we were just tribes? Where did they go? What we see today is a natural consequence of the free market I'm afraid - the violence of which you speak is born of the very freedom you wish to return to.

Oh no, the free market was only discovered as a principle about 300 years ago, a little bit after science rocked up,.

before that free markets happened by accident and didn't last due to the widespread loony superstitions that ran the world back then. Not that we have abandoned a lot of them totally, but we have this new idea to compete wth them.

The dea that when someone turns you down it's not an immediate dominance fight is incredibly new. i'd happily agree that it does go against a lot of our innate monkey/lizard brain hardwiring though.

*Before burning your house down and howling like a baboon, obviously.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Injin

[Injin]

Probably my fault for not using clear language (another problem with freedom - the debasement of common language to mean it's opposit - but I digress).

I think we both agree that land (natural resources) cannot be withheld from those that would use it in a free market. Private land ownership makes this possible, and a land tax (I know you hate tax, but hear me out!) would capture any value from the land (but not the improvements) and use this as taxation rather than a tax on the products of labour - this seems more fair and just than the current system.

Ye,s I have sortof solved thsi peoblem by abandoning the idea of landownership and instead only saying that ownership of property is viable and empirical.

That is, you can own your crops, but not the imaginary lines you are hallucinating in the world that you used to plan out the planting.

[Objective Developer]

Ye,s I have sortof solved thsi peoblem by abandoning the idea of landownership and instead only saying that ownership of property is viable and empirical.

That is, you can own your crops, but not the imaginary lines you are hallucinating in the world that you used to plan out the planting.

I'd go one further - you can own your crops and anything else you produce with your labour, but you cannot claim any value in land beyond that, because this value is economic rent and economic rent is not produced by the land owner but by the labour of everyone around. Proximity to expended labour is what gives land it's value, that or some other natural resource that again is not produced by labour.

If you could stop people hoarding economic rent, then you would have a more fair distribution of wealth and a more free society, as those who would work are given access to the ingredients of wealth, because wealth = land + labour.

[LJAR]

I think the examples you cite are also pretty rubbish; there were appalling levels of poverty in the cities of the 'developed' countries you list in the 19th century - it was the 19th century that saw dynastic family wealth cemented (certainly in the USA, less so in the UK but still...).

Dynastic wealth may well have increased, but the common man went from being a subsistence farmer scratching a living from the soil to in many cases a well paid and well off factory worker. There were many more goods to buy to improve his life, conditions were better in his home, food was cheaper. Why did so many people immigrate to the USA if it wasn't a good place to be? They came in their millions.

Conditions were bad compared to today, but they were marvelous compared to what those people's parents and grandparents had considered normal.

Japan is an excellent example since it is able to be compared to India after independence. Japan embraced free trade and markets, India chose to go down the route of government central command. Japan flourished and India stagnated. In both cases the Elite were fine, they always will be, but in Japan the working man did better than India due to improvements in technology and productivity driven by market competition. He was better paid and his goods cost less.

Inner city living conditions were by some measures better than those of the wilderness, but in terms of freedom and wages people were far worse off (in this sense I am talking about true economic wage - the proportion of you wealth production - not the general term as we understand it).

We need to get away from talking about wealth production - it is confusing the issue. The "wealth" that a worker produces is not measured by the price, or the profit of the goods he makes. Has a worker destroyed wealth if the company does not make a profit? I don't think he has, he has been paid a price for his work.

Conditions were dreadful, as the authors of the time attest. They did not complain before because those living in worse conditions in the country were hidden from view. Their conditions were worse still. The people who migrated to cities didn't do it because they were worse off. Conditions were terrible, but they were an improvement.

You see the same thing in India today, it is better to live on $2 per day in the slums of Mumbai than of 50 cents per day in the country. So they move.

Should we try to help them and improve their lot in life? VERY YES, but the quickest and most cost effective way of doing this is to make sure that they have jobs to work in. In the long run that is supplied by the free market, not by government interference.

I think you are confusing wealth and living standards - your argument for 'free markets' as measured by living standards is a false one. Living standards were increasing for slaves (and I'll come back to slavery in a mo) - is that an argument for slavery? Advances is the efficiency of labour are what has improved living standards, but there is something holding people back now. That is the appropriation of economic rent through to land owning monopolies - there is nothing free about that.

I don't care if I own everything in the world, if all there is to own is mud and sticks. So I think living standards are the most important thing in life, rather than some arbitrary proportion of "wealth"

If conditions are getting better for slaves they are still not free, and slavery has no place in a free market, unless the slave has consented to the agreement through a contract with his enslaver. That would be very strange, but people should be allowed to sell themselves f they want to.

Monopolies are anathema to free markets. And free markets and competition are an excellent way to prevent them forming. There are very few monopolies that can withstand proper competition. Over the course of history most monopolies have been supported by distortions in the markets and interference by government or wealthy interests.

[the_austrian]

There is a much simpler way - tax economic rent. All thing created by the unity of land and labour are called wealth, and the labourer has a right to keep this as they earned it.

All value in land that is born of adjacent labour is economic rent, and is NOT earned - it is in fact the product of other peoples labour, and should not therefore be held privately.

Just as a point of clarity, when you say economic rent, is this just normal rent, what is rent that doesn't qualify as economic rent? Not wanting to be pedantic, just wanting to understand clearly.

My complaint about placing a tax on rental income alone would be that there is nothing intrinsically damaging about rent, is it not preferable if you have an empty house to rent it to someone who cannot be bothered to build their own?

[wonderpup]

Not too sure why anyone would work in such a place in a free market.

Both China and India operate what you would call a free market in labour- no one is forced to work under threat of violence.

To point at some slaveshop in Chindia as things stand at present and then blame the free choices of individuals for the crappy conditions would be comical if it wasn't so damn sad.

I agree it's sad- but I point to these 'slaveshops' as an example of where your 'free choice' fantasy fails. Because in your terms these people have freely chosen to work in these conditions.

In reality we both know they actually had no choice- but you can't admit that of course.

[Injin]

Both China and India operate what you would call a free market in labour- no one is forced to work under threat of violence.

Oh, have you told amnesty international about chinas new human rights policies?

I agree it's sad- but I point to these 'slaveshops' as an example of where your 'free choice' fantasy fails. Because in your terms these people have freely chosen to work in these conditions.

In reality we both know they actually had no choice- but you can't admit that of course.

Ofc they had no choice. If they go and try and use raw materials directly they'll get shot at.

Jesus.

[wonderpup]

Oh, have you told amnesty international about chinas new human rights policies?

Chinese workers get paid to work- they are not forced to work at gunpoint. They can move jobs- just like real people in fact. Your ideas on china seem a tad out of date.

So they fit your definition of 'free'.

Look at it this way;

I have six options- I don't wish to take any of them. But as they are the only options I have I choose number five.

So- you could say I have made a free choice here- but had I been truly free to choose, I would have chosen to choose none of the six options.

So was my choice of number five a free choice or not?

[wonderpup]

Ofc they had no choice. If they go and try and use raw materials directly they'll get shot at.

That's true of where I live as well. So Bogbrush is wrong when he says I have a free choice to work him?

[wonderpup]

Any coercion or force will inevitably breed resentment and definitely be UNFAIR.

What is the distinction between leverage and coercion- are they distinct in absolute terms, or points on a continuum?

[Injin]

That's true of where I live as well. So Bogbrush is wrong when he says I have a free choice to work him?

Yep.

You can see it as a sliding scale if you like, with full on totalitarianism at one end and freedom at the other. We are freer than we used to be in the distant past, less free than in the recent past and compared to the extreme end of absolute freedom not that free at all.

Of course it isn't bogbrush and other employers who are responsible for these features of modern life, they are just being smarter at getting by under them. His suggestion is that more people join in rather than fall prey to their frustration and do something stupid like beg the state to fix it and he is right.

[Injin]

Chinese workers get paid to work- they are not forced to work at gunpoint. They can move jobs- just like real people in fact. Your ideas on china seem a tad out of date.

So they fit your definition of 'free'.

Look at it this way;

I have six options- I don't wish to take any of them. But as they are the only options I have I choose number five.

So- you could say I have made a free choice here- but had I been truly free to choose, I would have chosen to choose none of the six options.

So was my choice of number five a free choice or not?

Yes, it was.

You are basically trying to paint a picture here that not being able to choose impossible options means you aren't free and that's unjust. Psych wards up and down the land are full of people who agree with that view, it's one that usually comes with a thorazine hangover and Tardive dyskinesia for afters.

[TGP]

Yep.

You can see it as a sliding scale if you like, with full on totalitarianism at one end and freedom at the other. We are freer than we used to be in the distant past, less free than in the recent past and compared to the extreme end of absolute freedom not that free at all.

Of course it isn't bogbrush and other employers who are responsible for these features of modern life, they are just being smarter at getting by under them. His suggestion is that more people join in rather than fall prey to their frustration and do something stupid like beg the state to fix it and he is right.

When you count freedom.........

Do you count "freedom to be murdered in your bed" as more or less freedom ?

What about "freedom to murder others in their beds" ? Is that more or less freedom.

I suppose what I am asking is......... Is a law against murder more or less freedom ?

Because if you count that as LESS freedom......... considering what such a law does to murder rates........ then I think we can all agree that you can keep your definition of "more freedom" while we'll take the definition that leaves us able to wander the streets with a much reduced fear of death, even if that is "less free" in your eyes.

Is there ever a situation in which a law makes you more free ?

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

When you count freedom.........

Do you count "freedom to be murdered in your bed" as more or less freedom ?

What about "freedom to murder others in their beds" ? Is that more or less freedom.

I suppose what I am asking is......... Is a law against murder more or less freedom ?

Because if you count that as LESS freedom......... considering what such a law does to murder rates........ then I think we can all agree that you can keep your definition of "more freedom" while we'll take the definition that leaves us able to wander the streets with a much reduced fear of death, even if that is "less free" in your eyes.

Is there ever a situation in which a law makes you more free ?

Yours,

TGP

No, of course not.

[TGP]

No, of course not.

Well then you're way of quantifying freedom is not a way that anybody who actually cares about their "freedom to live their lives" should care about.

To most people........... the freedom to go about their lives with almost no fear of murder outweighs, by far, the freedom of a few psycho's to murder who they wish with impunity.

In situations where there are TWO or more people........ the freedoms of one have to be balanced with those of the other in some circumstances....... my "freedom not to be murdered" intereferes with YOUR "freedom to murder me".

Most people would hold that a law that prevents the encroachment of the 99%'s freedom at the expense of the 1%'s freedom is an "increase in freedom" overall (whether this is justified/fair/just or not).

If you feel that allowing the 1%'s wish to kill people override the 99%'s wish not to be killed is an INCREASE in freedom....... then you aren't measuring freedom in any way anybody actually cares about. Your measurement of "freedom" is meaningless.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

Well then you're way of quantifying freedom is not a way that anybody who actually cares about their "freedom to live their lives" should care about.

To most people........... the freedom to go about their lives with almost no fear of murder outweighs, by far, the freedom of a few psycho's to murder who they wish with impunity.

In situations where there are TWO or more people........ the freedoms of one have to be balanced with those of the other in some circumstances....... my "freedom not to be murdered" intereferes with YOUR "freedom to murder me".

Most people would hold that a law that prevents the encroachment of the 99%'s freedom at the expense of the 1%'s freedom is an "increase in freedom" overall (whether this is justified/fair/just or not).

If you feel that allowing the 1%'s wish to kill people override the 99%'s wish not to be killed is an INCREASE in freedom....... then you aren't measuring freedom in any way anybody actually cares about. Your measurement of "freedom" is meaningless.

Yours,

TGP

You obviously think that laws work.

They don't.

Get over it.

[TGP]

[All written before I saw your reply]

Maybe I need to put that more formally.

There are two types of freedom.

Freedom to act as your will dictates.

Freedom not to be acted upon against your will.

You are ONLY counting the first class of things as "freedom" and you are entirely ignoring the second class of things.

As people desire BOTH types of freedom......... and you are only counting one (oblivious to it's effects on the second class) your "measurement of freedom" will come up with a series of results that will be meaningless to actual people, who WISH to have both types of freedoms, and recognise that they have to be balanced in some way.

In your eyes an attempt to "balance" the two types of freedom can ONLY look like a reduction in freedom (as the first class loses something in any compromise).

In everyone elses eyes an attempt to "balance" the two types of freedom can result in an increase in the total freedom available.

You would count (for example) any rule that attempted to prevent anywone setting off a nuclear device in london as a "restriction of freedom".

Most people would count a rule that attempted to do so as an "increase in freedom" as their wish to explode a nuclear weapon is 0, but their wish not to be incenerated by a nuclear bomb is greater than 0.

I'm not sure I can make it much clearer than that. You are making the classic anarchiust mistake of ONLY counting "the freedom to act" as freedom, and NOT counting "the freedom not to be acted upon without your consent" as a freedom.

You obviously think that laws work.

They don't.

Get over it.

Really ? I think you'll find they do. Not perfectly. Not all the time. Not in every circumstance........... but enough to make a difference.

Laws deter. I don;t think anyone seriously argues with that.

Whatsmore, if they do not deter........ they often mean the person who hasn;t been deterred is stopped from performing that action again within free society for a long time.

To show me laws don;t work.........

You'd have to demonstrate that no-one was ever put off a bank robbery by the fact that they could go to jail

AND

That every bank robber jailed would have voluntarily chosen to give up bank robbery entirely of his own accord for 20 years at the exact moment he went to jail for 20 years.

You can't demonstrate either.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

TGP - freedom for humans must mean equivalency.

Thanks.

[LJAR]

I agree it's sad- but I point to these 'slaveshops' as an example of where your 'free choice' fantasy fails. Because in your terms these people have freely chosen to work in these conditions. In reality we both know they actually had no choice- but you can't admit that of course.

If you have a choice between working and starving that IS a choice, albeit not a very nice one to have to make. If they ave been forced to work there, then that is wrong and should be prevented from happening.

In some totalitarian states the choice is Die now or work and starve to death later.

Which situation would you rather be in?

Interestingly though the free market is helping to get rid of sweatshops because European consumers don't like them. As a result companies selling in Europe will go to china and India to inspect the conditions of the workers there. In many cases if they are not satisfactory then the contract will be terminated. The choices made by consumers here are bettering conditions all around the world. I suspect this will be a more potent driver than any government program devised in India or China. The self interest of the company owners to sell in Europe and the USA will make them give the workers better conditions.

Look at it this way: I have six options- I don't wish to take any of them. But as they are the only options I have I choose number five.

So- you could say I have made a free choice here- but had I been truly free to choose, I would have chosen to choose none of the six options.

So was my choice of number five a free choice or not?

I would say it was a free choice. You had several options and you chose one without being forced to as (hopefully) it was the best choice available to you. The market does not take account of whether you LIKE the choices or not. If you think you should have better choices you have to be able to convince other people to give you the opportunities.

What I don't think is ok is to force other people to give you an option that you like. Nobody is intrinsically entitled to have the choices they want open to them. I might want to be king, or prime minister, I can't be at the moment, but maybe I can make a choice to get closer to that goal.

Is there ever a situation in which a law makes you more free ?

I would argue laws against slavery made many people more free. Along with laws against monopolies etc.

TGP - freedom for humans must mean equivalency.

Equivalent how? Equivalent before the law? yes.

Equivalent in all their circumstances? I hope not.

Look the free market is based on the realisation that everyone will work to better his/her condition in life. It is the mos powerful driving force in Human history. If you just let people get on with it, and don't let them force each other to poor exchanges (since some people will try to), then we all benefit.

What is wrong with letting people get on in life?

[Injin]

Equivalent how? Equivalent before the law? yes.

not possible - by definition if you have a law you have some people who are exempt from that law.

Equivalent in all their circumstances? I hope not.

no way of doig that without lots of violence, so no ta.

Look the free market is based on the realisation that everyone will work to better his/her condition in life. It is the mos powerful driving force in Human history. If you just let people get on with it, and don't let them force each other to poor exchanges (since some people will try to), then we all benefit.

What is wrong with letting people get on in life?

As far as I can tell it makes some people extremely anxious and the extremely anxious are prone to irrational violence. This is a problem which needs resolving before the free market can really flourish.

You have a bit of a problem in the "don't let them" - this assumes that freedom is somehow granted or given. It can only ever be removed.

Are you perhaps a minarchist?

[LJAR]

not possible - by definition if you have a law you have some people who are exempt from that law.

I don't think this is true. There are many laws or rules that apply to all people. The highway code for instance, or the prohibition against murder. Who is allowed to kill anyone they like?

As far as I can tell it makes some people extremely anxious and the extremely anxious are prone to irrational violence. This is a problem which needs resolving before the free market can really flourish.You have a bit of a problem in the "don't let them" - this assumes that freedom is somehow granted or given. It can only ever be removed. Are you perhaps a minarchist?

If people get violent against other people or their property then laws exist to make them, desist. If all they want to do is be very angry about it without inconveniencing a third party then that is fine. It is when they attack someone else that it becomes a problem.

In reference to the not letting people force others into exchanges, this is hard to do, but substantially achieved in the "west" these days. Very few things are we forced to do at gunpoint. Only the government is tolerated in doing this.

Freedom isn't granted by anyone, but it can be preserved by a functioning system of laws and courts. They should endeavor to make sure that freedom is maintained as much as possible, in that people should be free to chose between their options without coercion from another party.

What is a Minarchist? I would call myself a libertarian or a liberal.

[wonderpup]

If you have a choice between working and starving that IS a choice, albeit not a very nice one to have to make. If they ave been forced to work there, then that is wrong and should be prevented from happening

But how could they ever be forced? Would they not always have a choice to refuse? (albeit not a very nice one to have to make.)

Even if I pointed a gun at your head and said 'work'- you still have a choice- the same choice you would have between working and starving. In fact a quick bullet might be a better option than starving.

So, in your reality there is no possibility of anyone forcing anyone to do anything ever- they will always, in your terms, have a choice.

So how would I go about forcing someone to work in your reality?

[Injin]

I don't think this is true. There are many laws or rules that apply to all people. The highway code for instance, or the prohibition against murder. Who is allowed to kill anyone they like?

Erm, the state who enforce the laws are.

Ask an Iraqi.

If people get violent against other people or their property then laws exist to make them, desist. If all they want to do is be very angry about it without inconveniencing a third party then that is fine. It is when they attack someone else that it becomes a problem.

The attack is a manifestation of the problem. If we see a raging alcoholic, there are very few intelligent and informed observers who will say his problem is the alcohol - rather the problem is whatever reason he is drinking to cover/hide/run away from. You can't fix him merely by banning all drink - for his underlying problem will merely shift to some other form of expression.

In reference to the not letting people force others into exchanges, this is hard to do, but substantially achieved in the "west" these days. Very few things are we forced to do at gunpoint. Only the government is tolerated in doing this.

And it really, really, shouldn't be. They ain't no special snowflakes.

Freedom isn't granted by anyone, but it can be preserved by a functioning system of laws and courts.

No it can't. That's never happened ever.

They should endeavor to make sure that freedom is maintained as much as possible, in that people should be free to chose between their options without coercion from another party.

Except that the courts ARE a coercive other party.

What is a Minarchist? I would call myself a libertarian or a liberal.

Someone who believes in limited government, which provides a bare bones structure in the background and stays out of most things apart from self defence and contract disputes, that sort of thing.

[LJAR]

But how could they ever be forced? Would they notalways have a choice to refuse? (albeit not a very nice one to have to make.)

So how would I go about forcing someone to work in your reality?

I suppose you can always refuse, but most people would take the work option rather than be shot. One of the few rights people are entitled to is not to be harmed by others so this is a special situation.

Two possible scenarios and I think they are very different morally.

1) Take this job or don't eat.

2) Work or be shot

In the first situation the "don't eat" bit is not the fault of the person offering you the job, nor do they ensure it happens if you refuse the job.

In the second scenario I will kill you if you don't take the job hence I have restricted your choice. The person offering the job is also threatening to kill you if you exercise your choice not to take the job. This threat of violence by another person is the crucial part.

[LJAR]

Apologies for the double post.

Erm, the state who enforce the laws are.

Ask an Iraqi.

And this is how we know Iraq is not a very free state. I don't know of any arm of the British government that is allowed to kill people with impunity.

The fact that the majority of the world does not live in a state of great freedom is hardly a reason that freedom is a bad thing.

The attack is a manifestation of the problem.

But it is the illegal part and the part that hurts people other than themselves. I see no problem with people being angry about things, they are entitled to be angry about anything they like.

No it can't. That's never happened ever.

I would ague that the courts and laws in England do a great deal to preserve our freedom compared to Zimbabwe for example. I would also say that people are largely free to do as they please in America due to the rule of law.

Except that the courts ARE a coercive other party.

They are, but should only be coercive on someone who has broken the law or a contract. If you have broken a law, you usually chose to do so and knew there were penalties.

Someone who believes in limited government, which provides a bare bones structure in the background and stays out of most things apart from self defence and contract disputes, that sort of thing.

Sort of but not quite what I would say constitutes an Ideal government. but a very small one would be a good start.

Edited March 17, 2010 by LJAR