If we lived in a free, voluntary society, sure, someone should not have the right to take what belongs to others (you're asking a question that is dependent on society as it is today, whereas I am proposing a different kind of society, so this question is slightly missing the point). However, this simply is not the case. What is the case in today's world, and has been the case historically, is that a super-wealthy financial and political elite emerges by sheer virtue of claiming the means of production for themselves (the factories, fields, farms, offices, etc) and forcing everyone else (who do not own capital) to sell their labor in exchange for wages. Essentially (and what many people here seem to miss), these people have no choice but to sell their labor and time and body and mind to somebody else. And of course, you don't get the full value of your labor back, or else there would be no profit for the owner. So while your question proposes an interesting thought regarding a matter of principle, it is still trapped within the confines of society as it is today. So, for example, if we lived in a society in which the community decided how to invest extra capital, of course the workers would deserve equal power to control the company: they are the ones actually doing the work, after all!
You're welcome for the legitimate response, now if you could be so kind as to answer my previous question. I will rephrase it for you: Would this Socialist average Joe be an effective co-owner of industry? Or is there a reason that his boss rose thru the division of labor and became an owner of the company; in short, is he capable? Would this Socialist worker care enough about a company he has invested nothing in; in short, is he willing?
You say elite's "claim the means of production". This is not theft - it is a voluntary process - as anyone who can save capital and innovate can become an owner of production - also they have earned the right to keep their business by virtue of voluntary exchange, by providing others in the economy with a product/service at a cost effective price - not by force. However, the government you advocate calls for theft and non-voluntary barriers on the free market.
Again, this sounds great but is just not true in reality. These options are not really available to most people. For one, something like 9 out of 10 new businesses fail because nobody can compete with giant corporations. And few people have time or money to learn new skills (if you're working 50 hours a week to barely scrape by and raising three kids, how the hell are you supposed to find time or money to just learn new skills?). Also, for the most part, almost nobody in America "moves up" as a result of their own "hard work." In fact, most people are "moving down" right now into lower classes. We cannot seriously say that this because everyone is becoming lazier. The only "beauty" of the "free market" is that it's incredibly rigged against the "little guy" in favor of a wealthy and powerful elite. It has always been that way.
You blame the Free Market and not the Government for the American living standard?
What service has the government provided us recently?
Foreign wars. Drug wars - mass incarceration. Inefficient government spending. High inflation. Trillions in debt.
The Division of labor is competitive: for good reason. if you had three children before learning a skill, this is how you choose to live your life: You choose children over a skill. Is this right or is this wrong? It's subjective, it depends on that individuals values. As far as being busy goes, I work full time and I am a student, but I read books on Economics on my break at work: this is how I have gained the knowledge to refute your Socialist claims. Skill aquired, despite a busy life, it is indeed possible.
Now if a person wishes to live life with the ammenities the free market has to offer they must be productive. If one wishes to live off of unemployment and other welfare programs, they have the choice to be unproductive and live in uncomfort. Still, this is a choice - you are not a slave. I think I have clearly proven that fact.
Here, again, your response is trapped in the framework of the market, which is the very thing I'm critiquing (at least, at the moment) so this isn't really saying much. I could just as easily say the price of labor is determined by whatever the king says it is, or whatever the community decides is fair, or whatever the workers themselves vote on, etc etc. See where I'm getting at?
The workers do vote on their wages:
The price of labor is determined by the productivity the job has on the market: this is done thru subjective (guesses) of both the workers and the employers, respectively. My response is "trapped" in the framework of reality, my friend. You are the one trying to prove to me that your Socialist dream land will succeed.
That's sorta what I'm saying. If it were not for the split of profits between the owners and the workers, the workers would get paid for what they produce. If you build a car and sell it for $5000, you get $5000. If you build a car for a capitalist and he sells it for $5000, you do not get $5000, but whatever the capitalist says is fair, or whatever the "market" says your labor is worth (which, again, is completely arbitrary). But ultimately, whose labor built the car?
Labor and Capital built the car: not labor alone. (Again, you are only focusing on labor - not the entire economy)
If a worker gets 100% of the profits, there is no incentive for a capitalist to build a car: no reward for his risk of capital. If you want a shortages of cars, your policies are a brilliant fit.
Again, if we lived in a society in which nobody could claim the means of production all for themselves and force everyone else to sell their labor or starve, this would not be an issue, i.e., there would not be a split between super-wealthy financial elites (today's owner/investor class) and the mostly poor and powerless workers (today's working/middle class.) There would just be people, voluntarily producing and sharing as equals.
Let me guess: We should create a massive government built on Theft and stop the Natural, Voluntary Exchange of the Free Market by banning private ownership of production!
You have done it my friend! You have created a Free, and Voluntary society. You have won the arguement! Truth is on your side!
DEBUNKED
