Addressing "theft" within the "free market"

[Sanguine]

Frequently, I find libertarians and company usually treat taxes as a form of theft, basically a coercive act. Well, I'm pretty interested in other forms of what could be considered theft, or cheating one out of their full value. What about cost fixing methods which may be exploited in a "free market", and cheat consumers out of their money? For instance, what about the absurd price fixing that occurs under the petroleum industry? Or, the price fixing that occurred between LCD manufacturers? Price fixing tends to inspire higher profits for all sellers, at the expense of consumers that are cheated out of their value.

With that, there is the fixing of credit card interest rates, which tend to be higher and create a greater burden on the poor. Indeed, very high credit card interest rates lead to debt that is worth much more than the amount originally owed. That isn't to say interest rates themselves are a bad thing, but high ones create too much debt. Especially when it comes to price fixing necessities, how is it not theft?

Then, there's the matter of wage labour. The results of which tend to lead to very low wages for a majority of workers when left unchecked. Labour in China would be a very good example. The value of a worker's labour may be far larger than their wages in any successful business, so wouldn't holding back a large portion of that money by imposing small wages be also considered theft? Sure, anyone may choose their employer, but in reality, that seems to be little more than a slave choosing their master from a list of those that want them. I'm not going to argue that wages should be worth the full price of labour (where exactly would the profit be in that?), but surely the exploitation of others' need of money Would be considered theft? Please try to keep the discussion intelligent, I don't feel like having to answer "A living wage? Why not $1000?"

But RPF, what are your responses to these issues?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You are delusional and not worth saving.

 

[Klibet]

You are delusional and not worth saving.

That is not what we say to the new ones, SHAME

!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Surely the exploitation of others' need of money would be considered theft. Please try to keep the discussion intelligent

Too late!

Seriously, you do not seem to be all that concerned about theft, per se.

Exploiting others' need of money is theft? Really? How? Is there one party having his property taken against his will? No? If not, then the thing in question cannot be theft. Theft means: one person, taking another person's stuff, against that person's will.

You are concerned about various things you see as wrong and lamentable. You wish to correct these wrong and lamentable things somehow. Am I right? You just are labeling them as "theft" arbitrarily to shine a spotlight on just how wrong and lamentable you see them as. And you want us to answer: how would you guys solve the problem of the existence of these wrong and lamentable things?

Here are the wrong and lamentable things you identify, in order, and my solution to them:

1. Consumers that are cheated out of their value. The answer is to allow consumers the freedom to buy whatever they wish, whenever they wish, wherever they wish, from whomever they wish, so long as they can find a seller who agrees. This gives the consumer the maximum amount of power possible to give: 100% of the power. In such a system, the consumer has no limits whatsoever and can do whatever he wants. He holds all the cards. It's his money. The government is not restricting in any way what he can do with it, nor restricting who can compete at taking a shot to give the consumer everything he wants, at a better price and in a better way than anyone else. This is the ideal situation for the consumer.

2. The Creation of a greater burden on the poor. The answer is to allow the poor the freedom to associate with whomever they wish, do whatever honest work they wish, enter whatever occupations they wish, and to save, loan, or borrow whatever they wish. In short, to manage their finances in the way they find best. They should know best. It's their life. It's their money. With the government not restricting in any way what they can do with it, nor restricting who can compete at taking a shot to give the poor all the best financial services they want, at a better price and in a better way than anyone else, the poor are sure to get a better deal than they do today. This puts the poor man in the driver's seat. He would then call the shots as to from whom he borrows money, how much interest he pays, etc. This is the ideal situation for the poor.

3. Very low wages for a majority of workers. The solution is to allow workers, not just the majority but all workers, to have the freedom to work for whomever they wish, including the freedom to work for themselves, in whatever business they wish, in whatever way they wish, with no restrictions. In this way, they can let all the employers bid and compete for their valuable time and services, and the workers would always hold the ultimate trump card. They would have all the power. Under this proposed system, if an employer is exploiting his workers and giving them less than they deserve, not only would the workers be free to switch over to a competitor offering more reasonable wages, but they could all, for example, simply leave, buy their own factory (or whatever premises the business requires) and start their own company doing the same thing. If the company management/owner really brings nothing of value to the table, they would have absolutely no reason not to do this, and so, of course, they would do it. The workers would hold all the power. Anyone and everyone would be free to bid against each other to try to convince the worker to do work for him. The worker would be free to choose whoever could give him the maximum possible full value of what his labor and talents are really worth, and in many cases, that might even be himself! This would be the best possible system to protect the interests of the workers. Each worker would be totally unlimited in his power over his own labor. They would have 100% of the power. You can't have more power than 100%. And so this would be the most ideal possible situation for workers.

Those are my answers.

 

[angelatc]

Please try to keep the discussion intelligent, I don't feel like having to answer "A living wage? Why not $1000?"

What about that statement makes it unintelligent?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Frequently, I find libertarians and company usually treat taxes as a form of theft, basically a coercive act. Well, I'm pretty interested in other forms of what could be considered theft, or cheating one out of their full value. What about cost fixing methods which may be exploited in a "free market", and cheat consumers out of their money? For instance, what about the absurd price fixing that occurs under the petroleum industry? Or, the price fixing that occurred between LCD manufacturers? Price fixing tends to inspire higher profits for all sellers, at the expense of consumers that are cheated out of their value.

With that, there is the fixing of credit card interest rates, which tend to be higher and create a greater burden on the poor. Indeed, very high credit card interest rates lead to debt that is worth much more than the amount originally owed. That isn't to say interest rates themselves are a bad thing, but high ones create too much debt. Especially when it comes to price fixing necessities, how is it not theft?

Then, there's the matter of wage labour. The results of which tend to lead to very low wages for a majority of workers when left unchecked. Labour in China would be a very good example. The value of a worker's labour may be far larger than their wages in any successful business, so wouldn't holding back a large portion of that money by imposing small wages be also considered theft? Sure, anyone may choose their employer, but in reality, that seems to be little more than a slave choosing their master from a list of those that want them. I'm not going to argue that wages should be worth the full price of labour (where exactly would the profit be in that?), but surely the exploitation of others' need of money Would be considered theft? Please try to keep the discussion intelligent, I don't feel like having to answer "A living wage? Why not $1000?"

But RPF, what are your responses to these issues?

I don't have time to discuss this at length. (helmuth has done a good job, anyway) I will say that there is no such thing as "inherent" or "objective" value in anything-labor, property, land, anything. The reason minimum wage earners and poorer earn less than others is simply because they don't offer enough value to the market of employers to merit earning more. IOW, where the supply and demand curves naturally meet is what determines wages.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Addressing "theft" within the "free market"

The true question and complexity is "identifying theft in the free market". When is an action theft or fraud?

 

[dannno]

How is it a free market if prices are being fixed?

The petroleum industry is obviously not a free market if there are a few large players fixing prices.

Think about all of the regulation and taxes that keep the small companies from competing and setting their own prices. That is why large corporations love taxes and regulations, it helps keep out the competition. That is why large corporations pretend to be on the right and identify with the free market, because then people feel like they are "fighting the corporations" if they are Democrats. Well it turns out that they are really smart and that is exactly what they want you to think. They also want people to think that establishment Republicans are pro-free market when most Republicans are not pro-free market. The truth is most on the left and right in politics are anti-free market at almost every turn.

It's a big trick and a big scam. The key is to find politicians who are actually free market and completely understand what that entails and don't just say they are for votes.

 

[Sam I am]

What if there's a more practical barrier to entry. Maybe you need a lot of capital to even begin competing in a particular industry(such as car, or computer chip manufacture)

 

[Sanguine]

How is it a free market if prices are being fixed?

The petroleum industry is obviously not a free market if there are a few large players fixing prices.

Think about all of the regulation and taxes that keep the small companies from competing and setting their own prices. That is why large corporations love taxes and regulations, it helps keep out the competition. That is why large corporations pretend to be on the right and identify with the free market, because then people feel like they are "fighting the corporations" if they are Democrats. Well it turns out that they are really smart and that is exactly what they want you to think. They also want people to think that establishment Republicans are pro-free market when most Republicans are not pro-free market. The truth is most on the left and right in politics are anti-free market at almost every turn.

It's a big trick and a big scam. The key is to find politicians who are actually free market and completely understand what that entails and don't just say they are for votes.

With or without a state though, price fixing can still occur. The state doesn't have much to do with price fixing, it's independently done by actors within the industry, not the state.

Too late!

Seriously, you do not seem to be all that concerned about theft, per se.

Exploiting others' need of money is theft? Really? How? Is there one party having his property taken against his will? No? If not, then the thing in question cannot be theft. Theft means: one person, taking another person's stuff, against that person's will.

You're applying it directly and not thinking of a wider sense. Do people wilfully wish to be paid minimum wage, or do they prefer more fair wages so as to earn something closer to the value of their labour? Are people really willingly born into systems that revolve around capital accumulation?

You are concerned about various things you see as wrong and lamentable. You wish to correct these wrong and lamentable things somehow. Am I right? You just are labeling them as "theft" arbitrarily to shine a spotlight on just how wrong and lamentable you see them as. And you want us to answer: how would you guys solve the problem of the existence of these wrong and lamentable things?

I see it as theft solely because they are either forcing people to pay overcharged prices, or live without the necessity for a decent life. In the case of labor, it is people being forced based on their position to work or starve. It's the irony I see in the argument against welfare, how the state supposedly makes more people dependent o the state. Well, such systems commonly advocated on here and elsewhere lead to dependence on capital and its accumulation.

Here are the wrong and lamentable things you identify, in order, and my solution to them:

1. Consumers that are cheated out of their value. The answer is to allow consumers the freedom to buy whatever they wish, whenever they wish, wherever they wish, from whomever they wish, so long as they can find a seller who agrees. This gives the consumer the maximum amount of power possible to give: 100% of the power. In such a system, the consumer has no limits whatsoever and can do whatever he wants. He holds all the cards. It's his money. The government is not restricting in any way what he can do with it, nor restricting who can compete at taking a shot to give the consumer everything he wants, at a better price and in a better way than anyone else. This is the ideal situation for the consumer.

If the petroleum industry fixes prices, the freedom of choice doesn't make a difference. Don't think you fully understand that.

2. The Creation of a greater burden on the poor. The answer is to allow the poor the freedom to associate with whomever they wish, do whatever honest work they wish, enter whatever occupations they wish, and to save, loan, or borrow whatever they wish. In short, to manage their finances in the way they find best. They should know best. It's their life. It's their money. With the government not restricting in any way what they can do with it, nor restricting who can compete at taking a shot to give the poor all the best financial services they want, at a better price and in a better way than anyone else, the poor are sure to get a better deal than they do today. This puts the poor man in the driver's seat. He would then call the shots as to from whom he borrows money, how much interest he pays, etc. This is the ideal situation for the poor.

This is rhetoric that's making some very bold, and unbacked assertions. Though as an anarchist I would agree that people should have the right to autonomy over their own life- including financial records, I can't pretend that lack of regulation would really benefit the poor at all. It just drives home worse quality products and services for everyone across the board.

3. Very low wages for a majority of workers. The solution is to allow workers, not just the majority but all workers, to have the freedom to work for whomever they wish, including the freedom to work for themselves, in whatever business they wish, in whatever way they wish, with no restrictions. In this way, they can let all the employers bid and compete for their valuable time and services, and the workers would always hold the ultimate trump card. They would have all the power. Under this proposed system, if an employer is exploiting his workers and giving them less than they deserve, not only would the workers be free to switch over to a competitor offering more reasonable wages, but they could all, for example, simply leave, buy their own factory (or whatever premises the business requires) and start their own company doing the same thing. If the company management/owner really brings nothing of value to the table, they would have absolutely no reason not to do this, and so, of course, they would do it. The workers would hold all the power. Anyone and everyone would be free to bid against each other to try to convince the worker to do work for him. The worker would be free to choose whoever could give him the maximum possible full value of what his labor and talents are really worth, and in many cases, that might even be himself! This would be the best possible system to protect the interests of the workers. Each worker would be totally unlimited in his power over his own labor. They would have 100% of the power. You can't have more power than 100%. And so this would be the most ideal possible situation for workers.

By that reasoning, you should be glad to vote for the shiniest of turds for president, and must think that president will fulfill all the things you want. You don't? Well, I guess the freedom to choose your master doesn't mean squat when all of them set specific conditions, like low wages. "Unskilled" labour occupations or high supply occupations are jobs that the poor are desperate for. Business owners hold THAT over their heads. It isn't like skilled labour, where there's a demand coming from the employer, and applicants can hold it over their head. If there was a labour demand, then we'd be seeing wage competitions between various retail and fast food chains. Yet, we don't.

Those are my answers.

And my answers are in BOLD.

What about that statement makes it unintelligent?

Because anyone with a shred of business sense understands that "higher wages causes unemployment" is an excuse from the rich business owners that like to have as large of a profit as possible. So long as the cost of labour doesn't exceed the value of labour, then you won't be unemployed. If the cost of labour exceeds that, then you're either running an inefficient business, or the wage is being set at an absurd number, like say, $50.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You're applying it directly and not thinking of a wider sense. Do people wilfully wish to be paid minimum wage, or do they prefer more fair wages so as to earn something closer to the value of their labour? Are people really willingly born into systems that revolve around capital accumulation?

"Fair wages" is a completely arbitrary term. You use it to refer to something related to a standard of living. A wage for one's labor is has absolutely nothing to do with standards of living. The present market for labor in the wig-dusting industry right now is about zero dollars per hour, because there is absolutely no demand for it, and the present standards of living have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how that labor should be valued. Labor, like anything else people pay for (including yourself), is a price. When you walk into the grocery store with the intention of buying an apple, you have some general conception of how much you're willing to pay for that apple. If the price the grocery store is asking for that apple is outside of your bounds, you will not buy the apple, even if you really like apples.

I see it as theft solely because they are either forcing people to pay overcharged prices, or live without the necessity for a decent life. In the case of labor, it is people being forced based on their position to work or starve.

Firstly, true free market monopolies are difficult to maintain. Monopolies tend to be features of state-intervention in the market place. Monopolists do not have the socially-sanctioned ability to bar other people from competing with them. They are prevalent with the state because the state does enjoy that ability, so the would-be monopolist simply cozies up to it and greases the correct palm. This is why we see that, the larger the state, the more global corporations we have, all seemingly gravitating around it.

Similarly, collusion like price-fixing rarely holds up in a free market because the incentive to capture market share will generally outweigh the price-fixing scheme, and since other players are free to enter the market who are colluding, options will present themselves.

Regardless of course, the state does not present a solution to the issue of price-fixing for reasons stated above.

It's the irony I see in the argument against welfare, how the state supposedly makes more people dependent o the state. Well, such systems commonly advocated on here and elsewhere lead to dependence on capital and its accumulation.

If the petroleum industry fixes prices, the freedom of choice doesn't make a difference. Don't think you fully understand that.

First, state-run welfare programs depend entirely upon theft - the implementation of real or implied violence to confiscate the justly acquired fruits of another person's labor. Because the ends are apparently well-intended does not change this fact, nor the nature of it.

One becomes dependent on a system in which he 'gets' something without effort; just as a child is dependent upon his parents who give him food, shelter, clothing, etc. Those parents who do not insist on some kind of exertion from their children inevitably find themselves with adult offspring who are to some degree or another not self-sufficient.

On the other hand, to say that a person living in a free society is “dependent” upon “capital and its accumulation” is a bizarre characterization. It’s like pointing out that a person is “dependent” upon food, or oxygen. Nothing in nature provides food to a human being without some kind of exertion on his part. Exertion happens to be the means through which a human being accumulates capital (as it appears you are using it), which he exchanges then for things he both needs and wants.

The state does not up-end this reality. Goods do not poof into existence, which the state then distributes out to society. Someone’s labor is expended in the creation of said goods. Separating the exertion from the accumulation is – obviously – a perversion of nature.

By that reasoning, you should be glad to vote for the shiniest of turds for president, and must think that president will fulfill all the things you want. You don't? Well, I guess the freedom to choose your master doesn't mean squat when all of them set specific conditions, like low wages. "Unskilled" labour occupations or high supply occupations are jobs that the poor are desperate for. Business owners hold THAT over their heads. It isn't like skilled labour, where there's a demand coming from the employer, and applicants can hold it over their head. If there was a labour demand, then we'd be seeing wage competitions between various retail and fast food chains. Yet, we don't.

Because anyone with a shred of business sense understands that "higher wages causes unemployment" is an excuse from the rich business owners that like to have as large of a profit as possible. So long as the cost of labour doesn't exceed the value of labour, then you won't be unemployed. If the cost of labour exceeds that, then you're either running an inefficient business, or the wage is being set at an absurd number, like say, $50.

Anyone with a shred of business experience, let alone business sense would typed the words you’ve posted above.

A businessman pays a person what that person’s labor is worth to him. Affixing a floor on that price will inevitably result in jobs not coming into existence which otherwise might have, if the employer was allowed to offer the position at the relative rate.

None of this, of course, takes into account the consequences of a state-controlled, inflationary currency regime. Since wages must lag the price of goods, those on the lower end of the economic ladder are structurally made poor, and always progressively poorer. Thus the state, in an attempt to mask this reality, invents schemes such as the “minimum wage”. Their “fixes” are in every case “cures” to ailments they themselves created – it is a Rube Goldberg machine, which constantly needs tweaking and adjusting until it inevitably collapses in on itself.

 

[Klibet]

Screw my post!

 

[roho76]

"Guns and ammo" (not the magazine)

 

[angelatc]

Because anyone with a shred of business sense understands that "higher wages causes unemployment" is an excuse from the rich business owners that like to have as large of a profit as possible. So long as the cost of labour doesn't exceed the value of labour, then you won't be unemployed. If the cost of labour exceeds that, then you're either running an inefficient business, or the wage is being set at an absurd number, like say, $50.

Anybody with a shred of business knows you're wrong. (Hat tip to the class war card, komrade.)

And the best part is that you've proved it when you contradicted yourself with your statement, that I bolded, because here's the thing: Any minimum wage at all assumes that the current cost of labor must be legislated above the value of labor, and that is the very definition of inefficiency. Using a wage figure like $50 isn't nonsense. Hyperbole, maybe, but it underscores an important fact - a fact that you yourself entered into evidence.

What you're technically saying is that if I'm running a small business that can't absorb a "wee increase" in the cost, but not the value, of labor, I don't deserve to run a business, and therefore the economy is better off leaving that function to the multi-national corporations who can.

Setting the minimum wage a little higher only drives a few businesses under and maybe more importantly, prevents them from ever starting up. Setting the minimum wage a lot higher would have exactly the same effect, only on a lot more businesses.

The successful privileged rich business owners thank you for your support in eliminating their smaller competitors.

 

[Klibet]

Frequently, I find libertarians and company usually treat taxes as a form of theft, basically a coercive act. Well, I'm pretty interested in other forms of what could be considered theft, or cheating one out of their full value. What about cost fixing methods which may be exploited in a "free market", and cheat consumers out of their money? For instance, what about the absurd price fixing that occurs under the petroleum industry? Or, the price fixing that occurred between LCD manufacturers? Price fixing tends to inspire higher profits for all sellers, at the expense of consumers that are cheated out of their value.

With that, there is the fixing of credit card interest rates, which tend to be higher and create a greater burden on the poor. Indeed, very high credit card interest rates lead to debt that is worth much more than the amount originally owed. That isn't to say interest rates themselves are a bad thing, but high ones create too much debt. Especially when it comes to price fixing necessities, how is it not theft?

There is truth in this, price fixing causes a deadweight loss.

Then, there's the matter of wage labour. The results of which tend to lead to very low wages for a majority of workers when left unchecked. Labour in China would be a very good example. The value of a worker's labour may be far larger than their wages in any successful business, so wouldn't holding back a large portion of that money by imposing small wages be also considered theft? Sure, anyone may choose their employer, but in reality, that seems to be little more than a slave choosing their master from a list of those that want them. I'm not going to argue that wages should be worth the full price of labour (where exactly would the profit be in that?), but surely the exploitation of others' need of money Would be considered theft? Please try to keep the discussion intelligent, I don't feel like having to answer "A living wage? Why not $1000?"

But RPF, what are your responses to these issues?

Why pay high wages when someone else would take the job for less, low wages come from workers competing over jobs and high wages from businesses competing over workers. And workers with skills that are in high demand compared to supply will naturally have much higher wages then workers with skills that in low demand and unskilled workers. A full employment economy is the only solution to low wages that does not cause more problems then it creates. Make labor expensive by artificially pushing it up via minimum wage laws and Trade unions causes a deadweight loss. These two models show what happens to wages when demand for labor goes up and what the minimum wage does to teenagers.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I am a business man. Here is an example of a job that I would like to provide but can't because its value to me is less than minimum wage.

I would like to hire a low skill worker to be my driver to and from jobs. It means driving about 3 hours a day driving and on vehicle maintenance such as checking tire pressure, but being with me about 10 hours a day and waiting for me to work at clients houses. The time spent waiting can be spent on personal endeavors, such as studying for a better job.

The state currently requires me to pay for the full 10 hours at $9.18/hr for $91.80 a day. I would happily pay for just the 3 hours actually spent driving at that wage level, but that is not allowed.

Too bad, it would be a good job for a teenager wanting a little spending cash in the summer while studying for his college entrance exams, or reading up on personal interests.

 

[mczerone]

Two things the OP needs to see: (1) value is subjective, not based in labor; and (2) If you have a problem with a social structure, the burden is on you to create peaceful means to solve those problems.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You're applying it directly

Right. Clearly, literally, and straightforwardly. To use words according to their actual definitions is usually the simplest solution to the problem of communication.

and not thinking of a wider sense.

You have chosen to do otherwise. And as I already explained, I understand that. You are choosing to apply the term "theft" in a "wider" way, to mean (instead of its actual, simple definition) anything you find wrong and lamentable. I don't really have a problem with using specialized, idiosyncratic, or totally made-up definitions of words, I just wanted to be clear and state plainly that that is what you are doing, so that we're all on the same page.

Do people wilfully wish to be paid minimum wage, or do they prefer more fair wages so as to earn something closer to the value of their labour?

Well, it sounds like you know! Indeed, you seem to be styling yourself as the resident expert on exactly what people, all people, willfully wish and prefer. I do not have such grand and lofty pretentions to knowledge. I can only tell what people willfully wish and prefer by observing what they choose. By observing their actual actions, I can tell you what is called their "demonstrated preference." By choosing to take a particular option, or act a particular way, out of a practically infinite set of possibilities, a man demonstrates -- physically and incontrovertibly -- that he prefers that option or act above all possible others of which he is aware. That is how I figure out what people prefer, since I am not gifted with your abilities for reading minds. So I must pray you to tell me, as the resident mind-reader: what exactly is it that they prefer?

Are people really willingly born into systems that revolve around capital accumulation?

Ahh, now you ask a religious question. Well, little is known about the personality and its choices prior to conception and birth. Some believe in re-incarnation. Others believe the soul just snaps into existence suddenly. Others believe that our intelligences were organized into spirits by God, long before our birth, and that we dwelt in this pre-mortal world prior to coming down to this mortal one. In this last belief, it is possible that you and I, as spirits, did have some kind of say or input about where we were to be born. Does that help to answer your question?

I see it as theft solely because they are either forcing people to pay overcharged prices, or live without the necessity for a decent life. In the case of labor, it is people being forced based on their position to work or starve. It's the irony I see in the argument against welfare, how the state supposedly makes more people dependent on the state. Well, such systems commonly advocated on here and elsewhere lead to dependence on capital and its accumulation.

The system I advocate gives all power to the people. All of it. In totality. 100%. You cannot have more power than 100%. It simply is not possible. My proposed system empowers the three groups you expressed concern for: the workers, the consumers, and the poor. It empowers them to the maximum extent possible. Are you proposing an impossible absurdity, like giving them 110% power, or are you advocating that they need to be doled out a more moderate portion of empowerment, like 70% power?

If the petroleum industry fixes prices, the freedom of choice doesn't make a difference. Don't think you fully understand that.

It makes all the difference in the world, to the man who has the freedom of choice. To that man, it makes all the difference in the world whether he has freedom and dignity and is the master of his life, or whether that freedom is taken away from him. Since you are arguing against his freedom, I take it you propose to take his freedom away from him? If so, that is an awful thing to advocate. I have too much respect, too much compassion, for my fellow man to ever advocate that. Instead, I advocate that he be free. Believe me, it makes a difference.

You say: But, but... "the petroleum industry fixes prices"!! Let us substitute for "the petroleum industry fixes prices," "Wrong and Lamentable thing X," since the details and particulars of the wrong and lamentable thing really don't matter. If there exists a wrong and lamentable thing X in the universe, that is of a nature that humans having freedom of choice does not solve nor mitigate that problem in any way, why should we from that assume that humans not having freedom of choice is likely to solve or mitigate the problem? There may be many such problems. Rain comes to mind. Human freedom doesn't stop the rain. But neither does lack of it.

Back to this specific case. Being blessed with perfect foreknowledge, you know that human freedom will not at all mitigate the problem of "the petroleum industry fixes prices." But granting your omniscience, why then should I believe that lack of human freedom will somehow solve it? Free humans are helpless before this evil, faceless "petroleum industry" threat, yet unfree humans are not? You will have to clue me in to why this is.

This is rhetoric that's making some very bold, and unbacked assertions. Though as an anarchist I would agree that people should have the right to autonomy over their own life- including financial records, I can't pretend that lack of regulation would really benefit the poor at all. It just drives home worse quality products and services for everyone across the board.

Regulation of who, by whom? Oh, of the poor, by someone else. Who is the someone else? A massive multi-trillion-dollar monopolist, based out of a swamp in Maryland. I propose that the poor buy whatever financial services they want, from whomever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, however they want, for whatever price they want. You say, "No, no, no. Bad, bad, bad. That would be very, very bad indeed." You counter-propose your solution: the Maryland monopolist limits and hamstrings and makes all the final decisions about what they can and cannot buy, from whom they can and cannot buy, where they can and cannot buy, when they can and cannot buy it, how can can and cannot do so, and what they can and cannot pay. You want to disempower the poor, empower a continent-spanning super-monopolist, yank away decision-making power from the poor, give all their decisions over to the monopolist, and you expect this course will end up benefitting the poor? Why in the world would that monopolist look after their interests better than they themselves? Once again, I find your idea so bizarre you will just have to explain it to me.

By that reasoning, you should be glad to vote for the best of tyrants for president, and must think that president will fulfill all the things you want. You don't?

I do!

Under my proposed system, everyone has complete, 100% power to choose whatever president for himself he wishes, or even to choose no president at all. He may make whatever contract he wishes with that president, or make none at all. If the people clamoring to be his leader (president, sultan, pastor, Pope, boss, mayor, or investment advisor) bring nothing of value to the table, as he sees it, he can simply be his own leader and keep his own counsel. This gives all the power to the people. The people get 100% of the power. It is impossible to give the people more than 100% of the power. The people will thus get the best possible system of heirarchs and leaders, according to their personal preferences.

Well, I guess the freedom to choose your master doesn't mean squat when all of them set specific conditions, like low wages.

It makes all the difference in the world, to the man who has the freedom of choice. To that man, it makes all the difference in the world whether he has freedom and dignity and is the master of his life, or whether that freedom is taken away from him. There may be some undesirable condition that his freedom doesn't immediately solve and eradicate, like rainy days, or low wages. But his freedom matters to him, believe me, even though it may not matter to you.

"Unskilled" labour occupations or high supply occupations are jobs that the poor are desperate for. Business owners hold THAT over their heads. It isn't like skilled labour, where there's a demand coming from the employer, and applicants can hold it over their head. If there was a labour demand, then we'd be seeing wage competitions between various retail and fast food chains. Yet, we don't.

You seem to be saying that the unskilled are in a relatively disempowered and weak state. Yet, you reject my solution to empower them -- to give them 100% of the power. Instead, you want to grab a percentage of that power and give it to someone else. You want them to have 90% or 70% or even just 50% of the power that is due them as the owners of their lives. But yet the problem as you describe it is them not having enough power. 100% power is more power than 70% power. You cannot have more than 100% power. I propose to give the workers, the consumers, and the poor, all the power that there is to give. To give them 100% of it. This seems like the right thing to do. To give them anything less is to keep them under the thumb of whoever gets the other share of the power that's rightfully theirs. Indeed, to give them anything less would be uncivilized.

 

[Sanguine]

Anybody with a shred of business knows you're wrong. (Hat tip to the class war card, komrade.)

And the best part is that you've proved it when you contradicted yourself with your statement, that I bolded, because here's the thing: Any minimum wage at all assumes that the current cost of labor must be legislated above the value of labor, and that is the very definition of inefficiency. Using a wage figure like $50 isn't nonsense. Hyperbole, maybe, but it underscores an important fact - a fact that you yourself entered into evidence.

I'm sorry, but what? The value of the wage being greater than the value of labour leads to unemployment. It's a basic rule of business. Setting a MW above the value of labour WILL lead to unemployment, but MW isn't thought of as that. Were it, the MW would be much, much, MUCH higher.

What you're technically saying is that if I'm running a small business that can't absorb a "wee increase" in the cost, but not the value, of labor, I don't deserve to run a business, and therefore the economy is better off leaving that function to the multi-national corporations who can.

Depends on how inefficient your business is. If it's a massive increase, then it's a questionable decision. If it's a small amount, then yeah, your business isn't making much of a profit to begin with.

Setting the minimum wage a little higher only drives a few businesses under and maybe more importantly, prevents them from ever starting up. Setting the minimum wage a lot higher would have exactly the same effect, only on a lot more businesses.
Again, businesses that go under from a minimal increase are doing terrible to begin with. Starting up shouldn't be significantly harder either, but it does become harder with a larger increase.

The successful privileged rich business owners thank you for your support in eliminating their smaller competitors.

Those same large business owners are against raising the minimum wage, because they don't want ANY decrease in profits. Competition from small business doesn't really bother them in the first place lol.

There is truth in this, price fixing causes a deadweight loss.

Why pay high wages when someone else would take the job for less, low wages come from workers competing over jobs and high wages from businesses competing over workers. And workers with skills that are in high demand compared to supply will naturally have much higher wages then workers with skills that in low demand and unskilled workers. A full employment economy is the only solution to low wages that does not cause more problems then it creates. Make labor expensive by artificially pushing it up via minimum wage laws and Trade unions causes a deadweight loss. These two models show what happens to wages when demand for labor goes up and what the minimum wage does to teenagers.

The funny thing is that employment is always demanded, globally. When the demand for workers outstrips the demand for employment, a lot of those jobs are filled by immigrants, driving up demand once more. A full employment economy would also require one hell of a lot of planning, considering that the amount of skilled occupations now would require people to form skills and talents to fit that occupation. Sounds a bit... Orwellian, if you ask me.

I am a business man. Here is an example of a job that I would like to provide but can't because its value to me is less than minimum wage.

I would like to hire a low skill worker to be my driver to and from jobs. It means driving about 3 hours a day driving and on vehicle maintenance such as checking tire pressure, but being with me about 10 hours a day and waiting for me to work at clients houses. The time spent waiting can be spent on personal endeavors, such as studying for a better job.

Drivers in this case are an unnecessary luxury, not a producer. Unless having a driver somehow increases your profits, there's no reason to complain about it.

The state currently requires me to pay for the full 10 hours at $9.18/hr for $91.80 a day. I would happily pay for just the 3 hours actually spent driving at that wage level, but that is not allowed.

If your driver waits for you, then that costing him his time, which could be spent in other pursuits. Depending on the conditions of employment, in some cases you should be paying for him to fill the tires (say, if it's your own vehicle, or you are directly employing him and not contracting a company for a driver).


Too bad, it would be a good job for a teenager wanting a little spending cash in the summer while studying for his college entrance exams, or reading up on personal interests.

So you've read my posts before, and use my circumstances as a means to appeal to me. Nice effort, but I'd make more money and experience in culinary arts.

Right. Clearly, literally, and straightforwardly. To use words according to their actual definitions is usually the simplest solution to the problem of communication.

You have chosen to do otherwise. And as I already explained, I understand that. You are choosing to apply the term "theft" in a "wider" way, to mean (instead of its actual, simple definition) anything you find wrong and lamentable. I don't really have a problem with using specialized, idiosyncratic, or totally made-up definitions of words, I just wanted to be clear and state plainly that that is what you are doing, so that we're all on the same page.

The term of theft applies to purposefully denying an employee much of the value of their labour in a system that is pressed upon them, in the same scope as taxation. You see, in this system, the state is the originator of the present currency and its value, much like how labour originates from the business owner. the businessowner denies the labourer the full value of their work, saying that they deserve a cut due to the employment opportunity they provide just as the state denies the individual the full value of what they have, demanding some entitlement for creating the opportunity for you to succeed.


Well, it sounds like you know! Indeed, you seem to be styling yourself as the resident expert on exactly what people, all people, willfully wish and prefer. I do not have such grand and lofty pretentions to knowledge. I can only tell what people willfully wish and prefer by observing what they choose. By observing their actual actions, I can tell you what is called their "demonstrated preference." By choosing to take a particular option, or act a particular way, out of a practically infinite set of possibilities, a man demonstrates -- physically and incontrovertibly -- that he prefers that option or act above all possible others of which he is aware. That is how I figure out what people prefer, since I am not gifted with your abilities for reading minds. So I must pray you to tell me, as the resident mind-reader: what exactly is it that they prefer?

I'm sorry, what? I don't exactly recall saying anything about knowing exactly what people want and do. I know how a demographic behaves and can draw limited conclusions about them, but no, I never said anything about predicting lives.

Ahh, now you ask a religious question. Well, little is known about the personality and its choices prior to conception and birth. Some believe in re-incarnation. Others believe the soul just snaps into existence suddenly. Others believe that our intelligences were organized into spirits by God, long before our birth, and that we dwelt in this pre-mortal world prior to coming down to this mortal one. In this last belief, it is possible that you and I, as spirits, did have some kind of say or input about where we were to be born. Does that help to answer your question?

No, what you said wasn't relevant to my point. Was I willingly born into capitalist society as opposed to say, developed anarchy? No, I wasn't. I talked about choice, not spiritual beliefs regarding our origins.

The system I advocate gives all power to the people. All of it. In totality. 100%. You cannot have more power than 100%. It simply is not possible. My proposed system empowers the three groups you expressed concern for: the workers, the consumers, and the poor. It empowers them to the maximum extent possible. Are you proposing an impossible absurdity, like giving them 110% power, or are you advocating that they need to be doled out a more moderate portion of empowerment, like 70% power?

*To people. The people means you're talking collectively. Besides that, how exactly does your system "empower" them? Cut down the rhetoric and provide explanations. Otherwise, I won't take you seriously.

It makes all the difference in the world, to the man who has the freedom of choice. To that man, it makes all the difference in the world whether he has freedom and dignity and is the master of his life, or whether that freedom is taken away from him. Since you are arguing against his freedom, I take it you propose to take his freedom away from him? If so, that is an awful thing to advocate. I have too much respect, too much compassion, for my fellow man to ever advocate that. Instead, I advocate that he be free. Believe me, it makes a difference.

Funny, because I stand for the autonomous governance of one's own life. What I don't stand for is the decisions of others dictating the conditions affecting their life. I admit only that an infringement on liberty is necessary, because I view capitalism as having some use.

You say: But, but... "the petroleum industry fixes prices"!! Let us substitute for "the petroleum industry fixes prices," "Wrong and Lamentable thing X," since the details and particulars of the wrong and lamentable thing really don't matter. If there exists a wrong and lamentable thing X in the universe, that is of a nature that humans having freedom of choice does not solve nor mitigate that problem in any way, why should we from that assume that humans not having freedom of choice is likely to solve or mitigate the problem? There may be many such problems. Rain comes to mind. Human freedom doesn't stop the rain. But neither does lack of it.

Petroleum is a needed source of energy. In order to have a decent quality of life, petroleum is required. Exploitation of that need through price fixing at absurd prices only perpetuates poverty, which often is not caused by personal choice. The system was set, but it was the choices of others which had set it and sustain it.

Back to this specific case. Being blessed with perfect foreknowledge, you know that human freedom will not at all mitigate the problem of "the petroleum industry fixes prices." But granting your omniscience, why then should I believe that lack of human freedom will somehow solve it? Free humans are helpless before this evil, faceless "petroleum industry" threat, yet unfree humans are not? You will have to clue me in to why this is.

Man, I never knew not forcing conditions upon one's life was tyrannical. Thanks for basically telling me that the USSR wasn't tyrannical, because people were "free" to choose between options forced upon them.

Regulation of who, by whom? Oh, of the poor, by someone else. Who is the someone else? A massive multi-trillion-dollar monopolist, based out of a swamp in Maryland. I propose that the poor buy whatever financial services they want, from whomever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, however they want, for whatever price they want. You say, "No, no, no. Bad, bad, bad. That would be very, very bad indeed." You counter-propose your solution: the Maryland monopolist limits and hamstrings and makes all the final decisions about what they can and cannot buy, from whom they can and cannot buy, where they can and cannot buy, when they can and cannot buy it, how can can and cannot do so, and what they can and cannot pay. You want to disempower the poor, empower a continent-spanning super-monopolist, yank away decision-making power from the poor, give all their decisions over to the monopolist, and you expect this course will end up benefitting the poor? Why in the world would that monopolist look after their interests better than they themselves? Once again, I find your idea so bizarre you will just have to explain it to me.

>implying I actually support the state dictating what people should and shouldn't buy
>implying I actually support the state


I do!

Under my proposed system, everyone has complete, 100% power to choose whatever president for himself he wishes, or even to choose no president at all. He may make whatever contract he wishes with that president, or make none at all. If the people clamoring to be his leader (president, sultan, pastor, Pope, boss, mayor, or investment advisor) bring nothing of value to the table, as he sees it, he can simply be his own leader and keep his own counsel. This gives all the power to the people. The people get 100% of the power. It is impossible to give the people more than 100% of the power. The people will thus get the best possible system of heirarchs and leaders, according to their personal preferences.

I'd love to see this proposed system of yours, which apparently eliminates the dominating influence that parties have over government.

It makes all the difference in the world, to the man who has the freedom of choice. To that man, it makes all the difference in the world whether he has freedom and dignity and is the master of his life, or whether that freedom is taken away from him. There may be some undesirable condition that his freedom doesn't immediately solve and eradicate, like rainy days, or low wages. But his freedom matters to him, believe me, even though it may not matter to you.

Freedom would be a lack of wages, where one has what they need, owns the means of production, and is not dictated by a leader.

You seem to be saying that the unskilled are in a relatively disempowered and weak state. Yet, you reject my solution to empower them -- to give them 100% of the power. Instead, you want to grab a percentage of that power and give it to someone else. You want them to have 90% or 70% or even just 50% of the power that is due them as the owners of their lives. But yet the problem as you describe it is them not having enough power. 100% power is more power than 70% power. You cannot have more than 100% power. I propose to give the workers, the consumers, and the poor, all the power that there is to give. To give them 100% of it. This seems like the right thing to do. To give them anything less is to keep them under the thumb of whoever gets the other share of the power that's rightfully theirs. Indeed, to give them anything less would be uncivilized.

No, you propose the employers, the rich and powerful the ability to impose conditions upon the poor, the labourers, and consumers. The power to choose a different master or tyrant is like the choice to live on the ocean instead of complying with the tyrannical state- it's not a free choice. You say you give everyone "100%" but that's so far from the truth.

Comments in BOLD​.

 

[angelatc]

Ok, you're resorting to spewing gibberish now, in hopes of being able to simply talk so much that we will all go away and you can pretend that you won the debate.

In your first post, you claimed that raising the minimum wage equated to raising unemployment was a myth spread by rich businessmen.

Because anyone with a shred of business sense understands that "higher wages causes unemployment" is an excuse from the rich business owners that like to have as large of a profit as possible

Then you went on to say that raising the minimum wage actually increases unemployment.

The value of the wage being greater than the value of labour leads to unemployment. It's a basic rule of business.

Then you implied that as long as it was only small businesses that went under as a result of an increase in inefficiency, that was ok, and even went so far as to believe that large corporations don't actually care about efficiency, they only care about the profit they will lose as a result of increasing inefficiency. (Another hat tip to the liberal "corporations are evil!" card, komrade.) That's ridiculous. Large corporations buy smaller companies all the time to profit from them - sometimes that profit comes from ending production of the former competitor's product. Small businesses often start with a long term exit strategy of being purchased by a bigger competitor. For someone who claims to intimately understand business, you seem to not really understand business.

So you hate big businesses, but you also sneer at and mock small start-ups, most of whom already run at losses for years. So pray tell - what business endeavors do you actually respect?

Profit is nothing more than a measure of efficiency. Of course business (small and large both) wants to run as efficiently as possible.

You don't even make sense. You're just making noise.