non-coercion.
It sure as Hell involves a lot of coercion against anyone who doesn't accept your conception of property bounds, or who happens not to fit the judgment of arbitration agencies.
'Coercion' has no meaning except in terms of social convention.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
permabear86 wrote,
Well I certainly don't defend sweatshops, however I agree the workers are better off with employment at a sweatshop than they would have otherwise been.
Given that sweatshops pay their employees more than other employers, why not defend sweatshops?
The question is, why are the workers in countries with sweatshops paid so little? Is it "big bad capitalism"? Or is it a government that violates private property rights and doesn't allow the labor market to function correctly?
It's actually probably because of rising income levels. Two hundred years ago working conditions in the United States were as bad, or worse. But, capital accumulation, investment and production slowly leads to large increases in real wages, and an increase in the standard of living. That is what is occuring in China and many other third world countries.
Thank you to whomever moved all of this off of the thread I started.
False. There is a praxeological difference between a coerced exchange and a free exchange.
I Samuel 8
I'll pay for Drace's one way plane ticket to go to a poor country and tell some factory workers that he is shutting down their factory.
I can't imagine what people will think of the average American's working conditions 400 years from now.
I always think of the petulent brat from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory when I hear people complain about working conditions. "I want better working conditions and I want them NOW!"
No, there isn't. The difference is not in praxeology, it's in customary law (torts, specifically). Everything is force and power, customary law simply decides what kinds of force under what circumstances are unlawful.
So there's no difference between mugging someone and selling lemonade?
Not in Libertay's imaginary world where s(he) is führer.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
There is a difference that is relevant to people. There isn't some cosmological difference.
are you capable of taking the teleological or intentional stance?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
There is a difference that is relevant to people.
remind me what we are again?
"There is a difference that is relevant to people. There isn't some cosmological difference"
Well, there's no cosmological difference between killing an ant and killing an adult.
Or killing an adult and writing a book. Or anything.
Whether I use a gun to convince a man or a legal document, I am in the same position - using my power to convince him that it is better for him to do as I please than not. He just finds the latter more tolerable.
Ugly bags of mostly water (Star Trek joke).
The point is that there is nothing inconsistent about being indifferent between the gun and the contract, and there is no existential difference - it just so happens that due to biological and sociological reasons people prefer the force of social pressure than the force of bayonets. But, ultimately, persuasion is persuasion.
But, ultimately, persuasion is persuasion.
are overpowering people and doing things to them a form of persuasion?
There's a huge difference between a gun and a contract. I'd think it would be pretty obvious that forcing someone with a gun is different than persuading someone to sign a contract. In the former he has only one choice or his life, the latter he can walk away unharmed. How is there not a difference in the two?
>>Whether I use a gun to convince a man or a legal document, I am in the same position - using my power to convince him that it is better for him to do as I >>please than not. He just finds the latter more tolerable.
I was asking about you, when you philosophise, when you think about things and write about them on forums...
I should hope that you have access to the teleological/intentional stance... If so then the concept of coercion really shouldn't prove such an insoluble issue for you, any more than say....the concept of 'choosing' and other such things
Murray Rothbard:In the latter role, the economist has an enormous part to play. He can analyze the consequences of the free market and of various systems of coerced and hampered exchange. One of the conclusions of this analysis is that the purely free market maximizes social utility, because every participant in the market benefits from his voluntary participation. On the free market, every man gains; one man’s gain, in fact, is precisely the consequence of his bringing about the gain of others. When an exchange is coerced, on the other hand—when criminals or governments intervene—one group gains at the expense of others. On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers.
Man, Economy, and State
The difference between coercion and freedom is praxeological. In a free exchange, both parties benefit; in a coerced exchange, one party benefits at the expense of the other. Do you not see how this is praxeological?
What happened to Drace? Did he/she quit the forum?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Hopefully he took our advice and went to the library to read some Hayek.
Drace carried his/her findings back to RevLeft for investigation and research.
Drace's profile on RevLeft: http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=17099 [Mod edit]
Liberté: False. There is a praxeological difference between a coerced exchange and a free exchange. No, there isn't. The difference is not in praxeology, it's in customary law (torts, specifically). Everything is force and power, customary law simply decides what kinds of force under what circumstances are unlawful.
Right. For those who insist on using the phrase might makes right (which is almost always used negatively). It is simply a matter of which might? The might of reason, the might of truth, which might makes right?
And for those who think the law is there to serve any means other than their own are simply delusional. Decentralized customary law is the obvious solution to this problem. It also implies the actual use of the ancient Hellenistic use of the word "ethics" (which just means custom, tradition, etc) which is a much less hokey use of the word; as well as possibly taking the word "right" to it's original meaning as just a legal phrase.
All that is left is to dispel the magical use of the concept of "virtue" to the more practical Hellenistic, and rather arbitrary, concept of "arete" ("ἀρετή)
Drace, don't be holding out on me bro. Where is your coherent refutation of the Hoppe article (which destroys your flawed world view) ?
I am sorry, which article?
mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf
Give us your feedback please!
Drace is from Revleft!? This is certainly a shocking development!
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Drace: Drace, don't be holding out on me bro. Where is your coherent refutation of the Hoppe article (which destroys your flawed world view) ? I am sorry, which article?
oh this new forum is killing me
Physically manipulating them is RARELY part of the bargain. Usually you are threatening them, that is offering them the choice between probable physical injury and compliance. Ultimately it's the same with a contract, it's just that they are psychologically inclined and socially pressured into finding the results of contractual exchanges (that is, non-tort exchanges) to be improvements in their own lives. Liberal jurisprudence and propertarian norms generate the market because they harvest these incentives, but there is nothing existentially peculiar about them; it's just that they coordinate under these conditions.
Right. For those who insist on using the phrase might makes right (which is almost always used negatively). It is simply a matter of which might? The might of reason, the might of truth, which might makes right? And for those who think the law is there to serve any means other than their own are simply delusional. Decentralized customary law is the obvious solution to this problem. It also implies the actual use of the ancient Hellenistic use of the word "ethics" (which just means custom, tradition, etc) which is a much less hokey use of the word; as well as possibly taking the word "right" to it's original meaning as just a legal phrase. All that is left is to dispel the magical use of the concept of "virtue" to the more practical Hellenistic, and rather arbitrary, concept of "arete" ("ἀρετή)
Vry g00d :P
>>Physically manipulating them is RARELY part of the bargain
so you concede that physically manipulating people is not persuasion and is coercion?
everyone has to start somewhere
No, just that physically manipulating them takes their intentionality out of the picture.
>>>>>so you concede that physically manipulating people is not persuasion and is coercion?
>>No, ....
so you think that physically manipulating people is persuasion and is not coercion?
Come over my house and I'll show you the difference between persuasion and coercion.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Bringing up the horrible conditions in sweatshops isn't really just making an emotional appeal. I mean if your discussing politics, I certainly hope this kind of thing concerns you..
Drace, let me first point out that I agree with you that anybody who wrotes off the some of the conditions people have to work in around the world as "emotional pleas" probably isn't the sort of people we want in political discourse anyway. Let me also say that I think there is definitely some elements of coercion (and not just the narrow definition people here use) and oppression in a large amount (all?) of these sweatshops. But what I think all of us in the relatively affluent west (sorry if I make any unwarranted presumptions here) tend to forget that the world can be a horrible place, the entirety of humanity lived in abject poverty until 200 years ago, a huge number of people still do. I don't want to give the impression that I'm defending sweatshops as they are, but I just don't see another way, government planning has historically failed and is, to say the least, historically failed. The fact of the matter is that sweatshop workers work in horrible conditions for meagre pay, but the jobs are highly sought after and often very prestigious.
What's more there are possible market solutions to these issues, In Powell's work on sweatshops he points out that some companies are producing shoes with a mark on them which guarantees that the workers worked in humane conditions. Furthermore as these workers continue to work they're accumulating human capital and knowledge, as more workers gained these there are positive social effects.
Courtesy of DD5 I've been labelled a certified troll, so lest I disappoint here's where I disagree with the rest of you.
First, simply saying "implement markets" isn't an answer, or if it is, it's only part of the answer, part of the time. In order to come up with a more convincing explanation one would need to explain why markets haven't yet emerged (given the obvious gains from doing so) and why they've failed when they have been implemented (see Russia).
Second, I think government can have a positive roll in economic development by helping economies to break out of the vicious circle that arises from lack of human capital and knowledge and by providing the framework for economic development (rule of law, private property rights etc.)
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I'm still waiting on your economic expertise in your asteroid thread Giles.
Hence, according to Marx, there is exploitation.' What is wrong with this analysi~?~ The answer becomes obvious once it is asked why the laborer would possibly agree to such an arrangement! He agrees because his wage payment represents present goods
First off, why does the serf agree to an arrangement with the landlord? The worker, being in a inferior position, has no choice to but accept exploitative work or starve.
The article so far does not even address class and class struggle. It does not make a distinction between the common laborer and the capitalist. It merely goes to avoid that by discussing the economics of wages.
I read this argument here, and I laughed.
The hypothetical example created was that if a worker put a year of labor onto creating a $5500 train that takes 5 years to create, he is not entitled to 1/5 of it, but instead merely the present value of the goods he produced. He goes on to say that if he did nothing but gather scraps of metal for the project, he deserves perhaps about $900.
Going by this argument, if the worker did nothing but draw the blue prints, he is not entitled to any of the share, as the present value of a piece of paper with instructions is worthless. It ignores the mechanics of value, and doesn't attribute market factors for the phenomenon of value either, but rather just assumes that prices are governed by the concept of present vs future goods without any evidence and merely an unimaginable example to show the point. Its not a very scientific argument.
The factor of intenet is also wholly missing in the argument.
It seeks to create a situation in which single individuals are producers themselves. This does not at all reflect the complex nature of production.
Workers create commodities with the intent of doing so. Individual workers do not simply gather metal together and wait for a capitalist to take ownership and sell it off.
If 5 workers are producing the train itself, with each contributing 1/5 of the labor, then by what magical phenomenon can you say that they do not respectively earn 1/5 of the profit? Their joined effort created the train. The hypothetical situation tries to strip off production into mere individuals.
"the worker can only be paid this "full" amount if he is willing to wait the full five years."
It does not even correctly reflect the real life situation. Production is done among a joint effort of many workers. Indivduals alone do not create a train and opt out because they don't want to wait until its completed. The situation assumes that a single person will be contributing to the whole finished product at a time.
Not to mention that in most instances, workers do work for the same capitalist for years upon years. So technically, the worker does more than just wait until the produciton is finished, he works and put continous value into future products that are to be produced.
But considering most commoditites are rather quickly produced, and there really is no waiting, the present value and future value makes no relevance.
It also ignores the premise of exploitation; that the capitalist recieves the surplus value merely because of his superior position in the means of production. He recieves profit by not contributing labor but only because he owns the productive tools which workers need to produce.
Hell, it doesn't even acknowledge Marx's criticism. Workers still produce, and the capitalist still by some god given right appropriates the surplus value. The only attribute raised by the article that is contradictory to this is that of risk. That apperently since the capitalist is responsible for having to deal with the finished product, he is entitled to a share of the worker's labor.
Present vs future price isn't even relevant. Is feudalism not exploitative because the serf had to wait the full year for his crops to grow while the landlord had the risk of lendiing out land that would not even grow any crops?
Look, anyone who calls a foreign factory a sweatshop knows nil about factories and is just flicking boogers from a tree branch. All factories are sweatshops. All factories are dirty, stinky, noisy and hot. I tried working at an auto parts plant and collapsed on the first day. People who work in these sooty/dusty environments also inevitably acquire respiratory diseases from buildup in the lungs.
Look, anyone who calls a foreign factory a sweatshop knows nil about factories and is just flicking boogers from a tree branch. All factories are sweatshops. All factories are dirty, stinky, noisy and hot. I tried working at an auto parts plant and collapsed on the first day.
Yeah bro, factories in the US are totally comparable to the factories in China with 16 hour work shifts, no clean water, no bathroom breaks, poverty wages, poor enviroments, no worker safety, and armed guards.
Yes, they are exactly the same.