What we need are institutions that are neither statist nor capitalist. Both of these involve hierarchy, subordination, and the centralization of power and decision-making authority in the hands of a small few; which is then wielded against the many.
We need institutions that are entirely 1) voluntary, 2) cooperative, and 3) participatory
It is non-physical theft, and thus a form of coercion.
Ah, okey, so you weren't redefining exploitation, but coercion. Being that Coercion ( /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.
My position is that all laborers can as a matter of fact alienate their labor services.
Being that labor is a part of self and that self-ownership is inalienable, employment is illegitimate as much as slavery.
Serpentis-Lucis:What your doing is basically saying no matter what I want, I can't work for someone, morally speaking, yet I still somehow "own" myself.
You obviously didn't read one single link I provided for you.
No wonder you're so ignorant. You don't bother to even try to understand what anyone else is/has said.
Quest:John James, do you honestly believe that your comment was a positive contribution to the question at hand?
Absolutely.
If any of us knew everything we wouldn't come to mises to discuss things and search for truth.
Do you honestly believe that's what kylio27 is here to do?
Quest:Clearly your definition of "boss" is "business owner" and that does not reflect what many people are experiencing in medium-large businesses.
Oh I see, so your problem with what I said is that I neglected the fact that there exist some employees who can fire other employees. And it is in fact those "boss employees" who are the fatcats exploiting everyone. Got it.
The owner/CEO is the boss, but most people are working under managers who are being paid in full and who might actually be worthless/lazy.
So what? "Worthless" by who's valuation? Obviously not the business owner(s) who are paying him. Who are you to judge what one person should voluntarily pay another person?
Are you claiming you should be able to have a say in what other people do with their own money and property?
Kylio, I hope that we can find an economic/societal model that is just and plausible.
One already exists. You just have to realize it, so that it might be implemented.
The OP is rooted in the misunderstanding of property rights and labour. Labour is not exploitation. Labour is not slavery. If labour resembles slavery then it is no longer labour, it becomes slavery. Calling all types of employment exploitation is ridiculous.
@ John James
I didn't read the links because they clearly weren't enough to put this argument to rest, if they settled it then Papirius wouldn't still be getting it so very wrong, that and you were rude so I chose to ignore you.
@ Papirius
If X then Y
Not Y
Therefore not X.
The above sums things up as clearly as humanly possible.
If self-ownership then a person can do whatever they want with their body and labor.
You assert that a person can't do what they want with their body and labor.
Therefore not self-ownership.
So you don't in fact accept self-ownership, for if you did, you would accept that a person can do what they want to with their body. You're so invested in your position that logic doesn't matter to you, so you can't accept that you're actually contradicting yourself, so I'll just end this little "debate" with you here and now.
I do not believe Papirius is correct; however:
@Serpentis
Therefore not X
^^ this is not how logic works, or in order words, your logic, and argument, is flawed.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
@Clayton
No. I put an open umbrella over the ground. The ground is not wet but it is raining.
The correct logical semantics to make what Serpenis was saying correct is:
If *and only if* X then Y
Therefore Not X
Phi, my argument was in the form of modus tollens...
(Actually it is Papirius's argument, not mine, he just doesn't realize that he is in fact arguing against self-ownership, by claiming that a person can't do what they want with their body and/or labor.)
Oh yeah, one more thing, even with a umbrella the ground would still get wet, it's just that the ground directly under the umbrella wouldn't get wet. (Rain would still hit the ground around the umbrella.
I do apologize. I guess that's why the class I took was called "INTRODUCTION to Logic."
I must study more. And apologies to you, too, Clayton.
I do see my mistake more clearly now. Forgive me, that logic class I took was 5+ years ago, and I think I just over complicated the argument in your post. But thank you for correcting me.
Now, back on topic: what do you say, Papirius?
No need to apologize. You are right that the argument is unsound, the form is logically valid though...
If X (Self-Ownership) then Y (You can do whatever you want with your body and labor.)
Papirius asserts that Y is false,
If Y is false then X is also false, because X implies Y.
Y is in fact true, in that you can do whatever you want with your body and labor (or rather you should morally be able to do so, the current Statist systems tells you what you can or can't do with your body unfortunately.) So when Papirius claims Y is false, he is wrong, the argument was trying to make his contradiction, in accepting self-ownership yet at the same time denying it, more blatantly obvious than it already is. He just wants to have his cake (Using self-ownership) and eat it too. (While denying what the self-ownership axiom implies.)
Note: Personally I don't like the term self-ownership on semantic grounds. When one thinks of ownership one thinks of a car, something that can be sold, once something has been sold someone no longer has any control over it, one can never completely give up control over their body, so one's body can never be actually sold. Even in a master/slave relationship the master never completely owns the slave. Thinking about master/slave from the point of BDSM illustrates this nicely. In a BDSM relationship the master is only a master so long as the slave chooses to stay under his command. (Technically making it not slavery at all.) Much of the debate appears to be because of a misunderstanding of a basic concept, which gained semantic baggage, in that what is self-control is called self-ownership.
Additional Note: Self-control doesn't fully encompass the relationship you have over your body. Self-authorship would be a better way to describe it, the term is used to mean something else though,so it may also cause confusion. :(
Serpentis-Lucis:I didn't read the links because they clearly weren't enough to put this argument to rest,
Interesting that you could know this...without having read them.
if they settled it then Papirius wouldn't still be getting it so very wrong,
What makes you think Papirus has read them? Let alone understands them?
This reminds me of "if X weren't a a problem in capitalism then we wouldn't have a law about it"