NationStates Jolt Archive

What are the other political parties arguments against libertarian
economics? I have heard alot of literature praising there free
market approach and anti government spending, but very little
defending normal government spending and programs. Many progressives
argue for universal education, healthcare, wealthfare, minimum wage etc,
but I havent heard much economic basis for these ideas.

Basically, the arguement is that with lib. economics, all the money (ie 90+%)will eventually make it to a perportionally small amount of people (say 1%) and everyone else will have to make due with the rest.

The idea is that the money lost due to inefficiency is made up for by fairness.

What are the other political parties arguments against libertarian
economics? I have heard alot of literature praising there free
market approach and anti government spending, but very little
defending normal government spending and programs. Many progressives
argue for universal education, healthcare, wealthfare, minimum wage etc,
but I havent heard much economic basis for these ideas.It's because we (progressives) think there are more important things than mere economic concerns. Nonetheless, some things can be justified for economic reasons.

Firstly, a country with universal education is more likely to be able to adapt to changes in the market. Secondly, a country with universal healthcare will have healthier workers who need to take less time off from work than they would otherwise. Furthermore, countries with universal healthcare tend to spend less tax money per person on healthcare than the U.S. does with its system.

What are the other political parties arguments against libertarian
economics? I have heard alot of literature praising there free
market approach and anti government spending, but very little
defending normal government spending and programs. Many progressives
argue for universal education, healthcare, wealthfare, minimum wage etc,
but I havent heard much economic basis for these ideas.

They use the (antiquated) labor theory of value of Smith and Ricardo, add a few assumptions, and they try to show that a free market will result in "exploitation."

The labor theory of value states that the true value of all goods is the cost of production, and when you trace production back to its origin, the cost of production is essentially the accumulated cost of labor used to produce all input into the good. Those who believe this attempt to show that owners of capital can only earn a profit when there is a gap between what they pay their workers and the value of the good (they are getting more labor out of their workers than they are paying for), and therefore are exploiting those in their employ.

The supporters of the Labor Theory of Value have been marginalized (pun intended) by superior theories for over a century, but because labor will always be a key aspect of any pricing theory, leftists will probably always be able to cling to the LTV even though it is on par with Intelligent Design.

What are the other political parties arguments against libertarian
economics? I have heard alot of literature praising there free
market approach and anti government spending, but very little
defending normal government spending and programs. Many progressives
argue for universal education, healthcare, wealthfare, minimum wage etc,
but I havent heard much economic basis for these ideas.
Because on the surface many of those positions appear compassionate, and thus morally superior.

Many of them cause more harm than good, but the explanation as to how that works is too complex for laypeople to understand. Laypeople don't understand the cycle of dependency, for example.

The idea is that the money lost due to inefficiency is made up for by fairness.

Libertarianism is principled, not pragmatic. The goal of neoclassical economics is to provide fairness and freedom in the application of labor.

To claim that the economic left has a moral high ground in "fairness" demonstrates the constant strawman streaming from the opponents of free market capitalists.

Well, let's compare the economic situation in the U.S. today, with the economic situation the last time the U.S. had a completely unregulated free market.

It was called the Gilded Age, and it sucked. Hard.

Well, let's compare the economic situation in the U.S. today, with the economic situation the last time the U.S. had a completely unregulated free market.

It was called the Gilded Age, and it sucked. Hard.

Yes that bastion of a free market where the government shot striking workers.

Well, let's compare the economic situation in the U.S. today, with the economic situation the last time the U.S. had a completely unregulated free market.

It was called the Gilded Age, and it sucked. Hard.

Lets compare any capitalist economy, with the economy of the USSR.

It became a total disaster and collapsed. It sucked. Harder.

The lack of any economic basis in this thread for why libertarianism is actually unfair shows what neoclassical economists are up against: strawmen, appeals to emotion, and, of course, the "selfish rich guy" stereotype/ad hominem.

There are a few from the left side who are economically principled, but they generally call for either an end to government intervention into the economy (mutualists, who go with the LTV, but see government as merely a tool for big business) or the implementation of publicized industry that still behave according to market forces (market socialists, who go with the STV, but don't support private property).

Lets compare any capitalist economy, with the economy of the USSR.

It became a total disaster and collapsed. It sucked. Harder.

This is also a strawman. It is even greater than the strawman that regulatory liberals cast on libertarians.

Yes that bastion of a free market where the government shot striking workers.

Right. Because in a real free market economy we aren't dealing with human beings, rather with idealized caricatures who won't use their power and influence to gain them power when they have the opportunity.

That is to say, we are not dealing with reality.

The lack of any economic basis in this thread for why libertarianism is actually unfair shows what neoclassical economists are up against: strawmen, appeals to emotion, and, of course, the "selfish rich guy" stereotype/ad hominem.

Economics has no category for "unfair," any more than biology does.

There are a few from the left side who are economically principled, but they generally call for either an end to government intervention into the economy (mutualists, who go with the LTV, but see government as merely a tool for big business) or the implementation of publicized industry that still behave according to market forces (market socialists, who go with the STV, but don't support private property).

And those of us who go with neither, but still reject the LTV?

Are we just lunatics?

Libertarianism is principled, not pragmatic.

Maybe it is to you, but the majority of the arguments for free market economic policies have been utilitarian in nature.

There are very good reasons for this. Firstly, the audience's conception of fairness is not the same as that of libertarians. Secondly, it is perfectly possible from a libertarian perspective to advocate regulation of the market. Market relations are social, not private; choices I make affect the welfare of others, and can thus be regulated.

To claim that the economic left has a moral high ground in "fairness" demonstrates the constant strawman streaming from the opponents of free market capitalists.

No. It demonstrates the simple fact that most people do not think purely free market relations would lead to a just distribution of wealth.

It demonstrates the simple fact that most people do not think purely free market relations would lead to a just distribution of wealth.
Which means we need to work out what it is they think "just" means.

You appeal to words like "just" a lot. Justice is a powerful concept in a debate because most people think they value it, but I don't think most of us have a solid definition handy when we use the word.

Right. Because in a real free market economy we aren't dealing with human beings, rather with idealized caricatures who won't use their power and influence to gain them power when they have the opportunity.

That is to say, we are not dealing with reality.

Much of libertarian economics (and economics in general) is based on assuming rational human behavior, as such free market economists do not utilize idealized caricatures (alright, maybe Ayn Rand), rather they account for individuals increasing the economic leverage.

Your principle misunderstanding is that free market economists believe that, through free contractarianism, that all will be able to act in their own interest, and as a result one will only creates ones own benefit by providing for another's benefit.

Read my sig for a more elegant explanation.

Economics has no category for "unfair," any more than biology does.

But, as biology gives us data with which to make moral calculations, so does economics.

And those of us who go with neither, but still reject the LTV?

Are we just lunatics?

If you are economically principled, then you are probably in the minority.

Much of libertarian economics (and economics in general) is based on assuming rational human behavior
I don't think libertarian economics (of which I'm a fan) assume rational human behaviour so much as they encourage rational human behaviour. Some people will behave irrationally, but that's their problem.

Which means we need to work out what it is they think "just" means.

Yes. That's true.

You appeal to words like "just" a lot. Justice is a powerful concept in a debate because most people think they value it, but I don't think most of us have a solid definition handy when we use the word.

As far as distribution of wealth goes, I go back and forth between two formulations.

Either a distribution of wealth is just when it leads to the greatest average of preference satisfaction in the relevant society, or it is just when all the inequalities it contains benefit everyone, specifically those at the bottom of the scale.

(Or, it is just when it leads to the greatest average of preference satisfaction in the relevant society, and in order to do so it must be such that all the inequalities it contains benefit everyone, specifically those at the bottom of scale.)

Regardless, I don't think capitalism as it is meets either, and I doubt that that will ever change.

Maybe it is to you, but the majority of the arguments for free market economic policies have been utilitarian in nature.

Libertarianism is established on the liberty of self-ownership, not Pareto efficiency.

There are very good reasons for this. Firstly, the audience's conception of fairness is not the same as that of libertarians.

Exactly, libertarians are constantly forced to argue on others terms.

Secondly, it is perfectly possible from a libertarian perspective to advocate regulation of the market. Market relations are social, not private; choices I make affect the welfare of others, and can thus be regulated.

Libertarians are firmly opposed to regulating social relations. Choices must be allowed, with rewards granted and consequences enforced.

No. It demonstrates the simple fact that most people do not think purely free market relations would lead to a just distribution of wealth.

I only wished to show that libertarians are often misrepresented as not being concerned with "fairness" and "justice."

I understand that others have a different idea of what "fairness" actually is, but to say that capitalism is built upon expediency and not a sense of fairness is completely untrue, and usually based on strawmen.

Either a distribution of wealth is just when it leads to the greatest average of preference satisfaction in the relevant society, or it is just when all the inequalities it contains benefit everyone, specifically those at the bottom of the scale.

(Or, it is just when it leads to the greatest average of preference satisfaction in the relevant society, and in order to do so it must be such that all the inequalities it contains benefit everyone, specifically those at the bottom of scale.)
Ahh. So you just want everyone to be happy. Got it.

Much of libertarian economics (and economics in general) is based on assuming rational human behavior, as such free market economists do not utilize idealized caricatures (alright, maybe Ayn Rand), rather they account for individuals increasing the economic leverage.

Then you would rationally expect that the winners in a free market economy would use the means available to keep their wealth and power at the expense of the losers, even if it violates free market principle.

It is not enough to argue that shooting striking workers violates free market principle. This is obvious. What you must argue is that under free market capitalism, the concentrations of power will not be such that such violations can occur, or that the harm caused by such violations will be offset by other benefits of the system.

Your principle misunderstanding is that free market economists believe that, through free contractarianism, that all will be able to act in their own interest, and as a result one will only creates ones own benefit by providing for another's benefit.

Read my sig for a more elegant explanation.

You've given me that quote before. It is a doctrine that amounts to nothing useful in practice, like the notion of mutually beneficial contracts. This can be illustrated by a simple example - a robber exchanges the life of her victim for money. Undoubtedly, both benefit from the exchange, but this tells us nothing about the justice of the system because it does not justify the original situation of the robber having the power of life and death over her victim.

I only wished to show that libertarians are often misrepresented as not being concerned with "fairness" and "justice."
I'm a libertarian, and I'll admit that I'm not really concerned with justice at all. Mostly because I can't figure out what the hell the word means.

Fairness I think I get. But fairness penalises people who make mistakes, and that's why many people object to a system based on fairness.

Ahh. So you just want everyone to be happy. Got it.

No, I have a concern for liberty as well, I just don't think it's relevant in the context of a just distribution of wealth (aside from prohibitions on involuntary labor, perhaps.)

Well, let's compare the economic situation in the U.S. today, with the economic situation the last time the U.S. had a completely unregulated free market.
Which was never.

That's right. Never. The US has never had a completely unregulated market. Never.

I'm going to repeat that, just so you get it through your head: the US has NEVER had a completely unregulated market.

All of the "robber barons" were created by government handouts. All. Of. Them. It wasn't the market which created high freight charges on certain railroads, for example. It was government-mandated monopolies. That's right: government-mandated monopolies. For instance, the CP had a 30-year monopoly on rail traffic in California (or at least parts of it) due to the California State Legislature.

Now then, if you'd like to be bothered to get the facts, rather than spew bullshit, people will take you seriously. If, however, you want to spew bullshit, I don't think that anyone other than those who've bought into the same bullshit myth that you have will take you seriously.

Lets compare any capitalist economy, with the economy of the USSR.

It became a total disaster and collapsed. It sucked. Harder.

Just because I oppose a completely unregulated market doesn't mean I'm a communist. There are things besides extremes in the world.

You've given me that quote before. It is a doctrine that amounts to nothing useful in practice, like the notion of mutually beneficial contracts. This can be illustrated by a simple example - a robber exchanges the life of her victim for money. Undoubtedly, both benefit from the exchange, but this tells us nothing about the justice of the system because it does not justify the original situation of the robber having the power of life and death over her victim.
Socialism eliminates crime, does it?

I'm a libertarian, and I'll admit that I'm not really concerned with justice at all. Mostly because I can't figure out what the hell the word means.

Fairness I think I get. But fairness penalises people who make mistakes, and that's why many people object to a system based on fairness.

If people weren't punished for mistakes, they would cease to be mistakes.

Just because I oppose a completely unregulated market doesn't mean I'm a communist. There are things besides extremes in the world.
Middle of the Road Policies Lead to Socialism (http://www.mises.org/midroad.asp)

Libertarianism is established on the liberty of self-ownership, not Pareto efficiency.

Your libertarianism is. Great. But this is not the case with a great many libertarians, especially the more moderate ones.

Exactly, libertarians are constantly forced to argue on others terms.

And when actual free market doctrine is adopted, those are the terms used to justify it. So when leftists argue against free market doctrine, how can you object to them citing fairness as a reason?

Libertarians are firmly opposed to regulating social relations. Choices must be allowed, with rewards granted and consequences enforced.

You misunderstand my distinction between private and social; private and public would probably have been the better choice of words.

I am echoing Mill here; actions that can harm others belong properly to the sphere that the community can regulate, while actions that do not harm others do not. (I quibble over a few points of this doctrine, but that's another topic.) Market relations, insofar as they can bring about unconsensual harm, are legitimate areas for regulation.

I only wished to show that libertarians are often misrepresented as not being concerned with "fairness" and "justice."

I understand that others have a different idea of what "fairness" actually is, but to say that capitalism is built upon expediency and not a sense of fairness is completely untrue, and usually based on strawmen.

To say that capitalism's beginnings had anything to do with expediency (except exclusive expediency) or fairness is untrue, but I'll grant that the justifications for the free market (which really should be distinguished from capitalism) have often included notions of justice and freedom.

This is also a strawman. It is even greater than the strawman that regulatory liberals cast on libertarians.

Cause and effect my good man.

Then you would rationally expect that the winners in a free market economy would use the means available to keep their wealth and power at the expense of the losers, even if it violates free market principle.

I don't like the term "winners", but yes, I would expect individuals that can gain from an elimination of market factors to try to eliminate market factors. That trend is demonstrable throughout the history of capitalism.

The key of course, is to maintain government that prohibits them from achieving their goals.

It is not enough to argue that shooting striking workers violates free market principle. This is obvious. What you must argue is that under free market capitalism, the concentrations of power will not be such that such violations can occur, or that the harm caused by such violations will be offset by other benefits of the system.

I do believe that economic power will be decentralized into regional markets in a (nearly) true free market, however, like I said, the only defense against such violation is public commitment to free market principles. No ethical political or economic system can sustain itself without a commited public backing it.

You've given me that quote before. It is a doctrine that amounts to nothing useful in practice, like the notion of mutually beneficial contracts. This can be illustrated by a simple example - a robber exchanges the life of her victim for money. Undoubtedly, both benefit from the exchange, but this tells us nothing about the justice of the system because it does not justify the original situation of the robber having the power of life and death over her victim.

That is not a contract, nor is there an exchange.

Socialism eliminates crime, does it?

No, that would be a complete misunderstanding of my post.

One of the major points of libertarian socialism, and chief sense in which it is libertarian, is that it seeks to eliminate, as far as reasonably possible, the sort of power relations that lead to exploitation and unfreedom, be they legal or illegal, consistent with free market doctrine or not.

Interesting discussion ive spawned. So far no one has really challenged the free market with much vigour......which leads to a few more questions: A- Many believe F.D.R got the United States of the depression....many do not, your thoughts? B- if the libertarian concept of economics is as correct as it seems, then why has there been no libertarian president? Could there be in the future?

I don't like the term "winners", but yes, I would expect individuals that can gain from an elimination of market factors to try to eliminate market factors. That trend is demonstrable throughout the history of capitalism.

The key of course, is to maintain government that prohibits them from achieving their goals.

Which is probably impossible. You cannot have a government strong enough to prevent the rich from privately violating free market doctrine that simultaneously is weak enough that it does the rich no good to use it to their advantage.

I do believe that economic power will be decentralized into regional markets in a (nearly) true free market, however, like I said, the only defense against such violation is public commitment to free market principles. No ethical political or economic system can sustain itself without a commited public backing it.

You need more than that. You need public power.

A vaguely mutualist arrangement might well be able to solve this problem.

That is not a contract, nor is there an exchange.

There is most definitely an exchange; the robber agrees not to shoot the victim in exchange for money.

You may not like the circumstances of the exchange, but I don't like the circumstances of an exchange between a starving worker and a "utility-maximizing" capitalist, either.

Your libertarianism is. Great. But this is not the case with a great many libertarians, especially the more moderate ones.

Perhaps you can link me to any article where a prominent libertarian doesn't base his politics on self-determination and liberty.

And when actual free market doctrine is adopted, those are the terms used to justify it. So when leftists argue against free market doctrine, how can you object to them citing fairness as a reason?

Explain.

You misunderstand my distinction between private and social; private and public would probably have been the better choice of words.

I am echoing Mill here; actions that can harm others belong properly to the sphere that the community can regulate, while actions that do not harm others do not. (I quibble over a few points of this doctrine, but that's another topic.) Market relations, insofar as they can bring about unconsensual harm, are legitimate areas for regulation.

Unconsensual harm is regulated by civil courts.

To say that capitalism's beginnings had anything to do with expediency (except exclusive expediency) or fairness is untrue, but I'll grant that the justifications for the free market (which really should be distinguished from capitalism) have often included notions of justice and freedom.

Now I must apologize for my wording. Capitalism originated through a dialetical progression from mercantilism, and yes, the free market should certainly be separated from capitalism.

Which is probably impossible. You cannot have a government strong enough to prevent the rich from privately violating free market doctrine that simultaneously is weak enough that it does the rich no good to use it to their advantage.

Privately violating free market doctrine? What do you mean?

You need more than that. You need public power.

A vaguely mutualist arrangement might well be able to solve this problem.

The public will empower themselves when they need to.

It is government intervention that prevents the public from assuming its power at present, leaving an entrenched elite.

Syndicalism is a key component here.

There is most definitely an exchange; the robber agrees not to shoot the victim in exchange for money.

What does the victim receive (the fact that we are referring to a "victim" means that this is not an exchange)?

You may not like the circumstances of the exchange, but I don't like the circumstances of an exchange between a starving worker and a "utility-maximizing" capitalist, either.

Any time a worker is underpaid, the employer is dependent upon him. As long as the employer is dependent on the employee, the employee will have the bargaining power to raise his wages.

Perhaps you can link me to any article where a prominent libertarian doesn't base his politics on self-determination and liberty.

See John Stuart Mill, Chapter Five of On Liberty:

Again, trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society: accordingly, it was once held to be the duty of governments, in all cases which were considered of importance, to fix prices, and regulate the processes of manufacture. But it is now recognized, though not till after a long struggle, that both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free, under the sole check of equal freedom to the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere. This is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, which rests on grounds different from, though equally solid with, the principle of individual liberty asserted in this Essay. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, qua restraint, is an evil: but the restraints in question affect only that part of conduct which society is competent to restrain, and are wrong solely because they do not really produce the results which it is desired to produce by them. As the principle of individual liberty is not involved in the doctrine of Free Trade so neither is it in most of the questions which arise respecting the limits of that doctrine: as for example, what amount of public control is admissible for the prevention of fraud by adulteration; how far sanitary precautions, or arrangements to protect work-people employed in dangerous occupations, should be enforced on employers. Such questions involve considerations of liberty, only in so far as leaving people to themselves is always better, caeteris paribus, than controlling them: but that they may be legitimately controlled for these ends, is in principle undeniable.

Explain.

When free market doctrine is advanced on the basis that it leads to economic growth, it is perfectly legitimate to object that fairness is more important than growth.

Unconsensual harm is regulated by civil courts.

So the worker can challenge unsafe working conditions in the civil courts? That hardly seems consistent with a free market to me.

Interesting discussion ive spawned. So far no one has really challenged the free market with much vigour......which leads to a few more questions: A- Many believe F.D.R got the United States of the depression....many do not, your thoughts?
He didn't. The policies which the federal reserve, congress, he, and his advisors put into place lengthened and worsened the depression. For some evidence, the unemployment rate in 1938 was the same (plus/minus a tenth or two) as in 1933.


B- if the libertarian concept of economics is as correct as it seems, then why has there been no libertarian president? Could there be in the future?
The one-party-masquerading-as-two-in-power has written campaign laws to virtually exclude other parties from the ballot. Only when this is corrected can there really be other options.

Which means we need to work out what it is they think "just" means.

You appeal to words like "just" a lot. Justice is a powerful concept in a debate because most people think they value it, but I don't think most of us have a solid definition handy when we use the word.

It means basicly that the people who get it are the people who deserve it.

And who deserves it - those who work for it or try to work for it.

Privately violating free market doctrine? What do you mean?

Say, hiring private gangs to kill striking workers, instead of state gangs.

It is government intervention that prevents the public from assuming its power at present, leaving an entrenched elite.

I agree, but we would probably disagree on the way in which it does so.

Public power will always be incompatible with a concentration of wealth and power, and a society which managed to greatly reduce such concentrations in favor of public power would be a society considerably preferable economically to the present one, whatever the economic system used.

What does the victim receive (the fact that we are referring to a "victim" means that this is not an exchange)?

Her life. More precisely, the robber's agreement not to take her life. And I would label the exploited worker as just as much a victim.

Any time a worker is underpaid, the employer is dependent upon him. As long as the employer is dependent on the employee, the employee will have the bargaining power to raise his wages.

Why is the employer dependent on an underpaid worker?

What are the other political parties arguments against libertarian economics?


First, one needs to define exactly what "libertarian" is (as there are many claiming the word all over the political spectrum), and then one needs to define what "libertarian economics" is (as, again, there are many claiming the title all over the political spectrum).

Second, I'm just going to leave the thread now before all this talk about "freedom," and "liberty," and "equality," and "competition," and "compassion," and such nonsense makes me sick. All of that is irrevelant, as ultimately the only thing each of us is asking is thus: what gets me what I want. The right-wing's talk about "liberty" is bullshit. The left-wing's talk about "equality" is bullshit. And the ?-wing's talk about "anti-government" is bullshit. At most, the only real difference is which set of asses in suits I have to kiss while they profit and rule at my expense. That and whether I am to refer to them as "The Right Honorable" or as "<name>, CEO."

Like I said in another thread asking one's opinion on some "school" of economics: meh.

At most, the only real difference is which set of asses in suits I have to kiss while they profit and rule at my expense.

Some of us want to get rid of all the "asses and suits" that "profit and rule" at anyone's expense.

But the proper organization of society in order to achieve this objective is not a question that can be answered without considering questions of liberty, equality, freedom, competition, and compassion.

But the proper organization of society in order to achieve this objective is not a question that can be answered without considering questions of liberty, equality, freedom, competition, and compassion.

The historical record indicates the results of our species attempts to organize themselves along such "ideals." As far as I can tell, the result has been to move further and further away from the stated goal. Since the ultimate objective has always been the elimination or neutralization of those who don't agree with one's own assessment of liberty, equality, etc., the elimination of rulers entirely is impossible; the exercise and maximization of power will always be necessary in order to overcome those on the other side. That is, at best, the extent of the quest to eliminate rulers: eliminate the opposition so our new rulers can move in to take their place.

I'm not really all that impressed. (edit: the rise of [at least something resembling] democracy allows this nonsense to continue on without [so much] bloodshed, at least. That might be something to be [kinda] proud of).

The historical record indicates the results of our species attempts to organize themselves along such "ideals."

No, it doesn't. This is simply untrue.

The past few centuries, maybe, indicate a pursuit of moderate forms of such ideals - and such pursuit has wrought much benefit.

As far as I can tell, the result has been to move further and further away from the stated goal.

Democracy, even statist democracy, over monarchy? Capitalism over feudalism? Civil liberties over the repression of dissent? Secularism over religious tyranny? I see lots of progress.

Since the ultimate objective has always been the elimination or neutralization of those who don't agree with one's own assessment of liberty, equality, etc.,

No, my assessment of liberty and equality demands that I do neither.

the elimination of rulers entirely is impossible;

Nonsense. The prevention of rule has never required rulers.

the exercise and maximization of power will always be necessary in order to overcome those on the other side.

People are not sheep who need to be led by shepherds. They are perfectly capable of saying "no" to tyranny of their own accord, without being influenced by vanguards and philosopher-kings.

That is, at best, the extent of the quest to eliminate rulers: eliminate the opposition so our new rulers can move in to take their place.

No, eliminate all rulers, and work with others to construct a society that will stay that way.

See John Stuart Mill, Chapter Five of On Liberty:

Mill makes it quite obvious that self-determination is his governing factor.

When free market doctrine is advanced on the basis that it leads to economic growth, it is perfectly legitimate to object that fairness is more important than growth.

True.

So the worker can challenge unsafe working conditions in the civil courts? That hardly seems consistent with a free market to me.

No, the worker can quit. With sufficient solidarity all of the workers will quit and the employer is up shit creek.

Why is the employer dependent on an underpaid worker?

Because he needs the underpaid worker to maintain his current profit margin.

Because the underpaid worker is a much more valuable commodity than the average or overpaid worker.

(I know you are going to get into alternative definitions of "dependent" here, but employers don't go by ultimate dependency and value, they go by marginal dependency and value, just like the rest of us.)

Democracy, even statist democracy, over monarchy?


The divine right of kings simply replaced by the divine right of the mob. Either way, still serves as a justification of the curbing of individual liberties (edit: to question the mob's right is now something akin to a moral sin, too)


Civil liberties over the repression of dissent?


Until some unwanted event occurs, and the people can't start cowering in the corner begging the state for salvation (i.e. repression) fast enough.


Secularism over religious tyranny?


Simply the replacement of one religion with another. Instead of crusading in the name of God, we crusade in the name of secular democracy (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html). The euphemisms have changed, but the motive and modus operandi? Exactly the same.


Nonsense. The prevention of rule has never required rulers.


Name one case, I'll point out the ruler.


They are perfectly capable of saying "no" to tyranny of their own accord, without being influenced by vanguards and philosopher-kings.


Then what, does it seem, is taking them so long?

Mill makes it quite obvious that self-determination is his governing factor.

But his pro-free market position is separate from his pro-liberty stance. He does not make a moral argument for free exchange as Locke or Nozick would.

No, the worker can quit. With sufficient solidarity all of the workers will quit and the employer is up shit creek.

So are the employees, who are no longer being paid. Who will hold out longer? Probably the person who has more resources and who is not directly dependent on the other.

Because he needs the underpaid worker to maintain his current profit margin.

Sure. And if the underpaid worker gets a higher wage, he will not maintain his current profit margin.

Because the underpaid worker is a much more valuable commodity than the average or overpaid worker.

And paying the underpaid worker more thus makes that worker less valuable.

The divine right of kings simply replaced by the divine right of the mob. Either way, still serves as a justification of the curbing of individual liberties (edit: to question the mob's right is now something akin to a moral sin, too)

The rule of the mob is much preferable to the rule of a king; the mob, at least, represents a larger portion of the population.

In avoiding tyranny of the majority, democracy works a whole lot better than most of its detractors said it would. Indeed, its real failure seems to be its tendency, at least in its state form, to degrade into tyranny of the minority.

Anyway, compare the average democracy to the average monarchy, and there is a clear difference in terms of the "individual liberties" you hold dear.

Until some unwanted event occurs, and the people can't start cowering in the corner begging the state for salvation (i.e. repression) fast enough.

It seems to me that the state tends to be more eager to propagandize the people into such an attitude; this is the result of a separation between populace and state, a servile attitude of the populace to the state, and would be solved, in large part, by anarchism.

Simply the replacement of one religion with another. Instead of crusading in the name of God, we crusade in the name of secular democracy (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html). The euphemisms have changed, but the motive and modus operandi? Exactly the same.

It has been observed, fairly accurately, that democracies do not tend to war against one another. This is a vast improvement over monarchies.

Not to mention the fact that whenever the foreign policy crusading, the domestic policy with regard to religion is far more liberal in a secular state than one without the separation of church and state.

Name one case, I'll point out the ruler.

One case of what?

Then what, does it seem, is taking them so long?

All political changes take time, especially when they are opposed by powerful interests.

Name one case, I'll point out the ruler.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain :

"The rising was actually moved forward two days to July 17, and was crushed in areas heavily defended by anarchist militants,...Anarchist militias were remarkably libertarian within themselves, particularly in the early part of the war before being partially absorbed into the regular army. They had no rank system, no hierarchy, no salutes, and those called "Commanders" were elected by the troops."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain :

"The rising was actually moved forward two days to July 17, and was crushed in areas heavily defended by anarchist militants,...Anarchist militias were remarkably libertarian within themselves, particularly in the early part of the war before being partially absorbed into the regular army. They had no rank system, no hierarchy, no salutes, and those called "Commanders" were elected by the troops."

God, I hate that example.

It was not sustained, nor was it a very large rift between the industrial and military complex surrounding it.

But his pro-free market position is separate from his pro-liberty stance. He does not make a moral argument for free exchange as Locke or Nozick would.

Mill states very plainly before explaining his position:

"Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, qua restraint, is an evil"

From here he explains that social actions the are themselves restraints or are harmful are legitimate realms for government regulation. While I don't agree with his assessment of trade and exchanges, he still bases this on the self-determination of the individual. Where I see regulation within a free market as both principally and pragmatically restrictive to the liberty of the individual, he proposes that it is principally beneficial to liberty.

So are the employees, who are no longer being paid. Who will hold out longer? Probably the person who has more resources and who is not directly dependent on the other.

Neither is directly dependent on the other. There is an open labor market under which a worker can sell his labor to another employer, or the employer can buy labor from another worker.

It is unlikely that any employer is likely to hold out, as another employer will simply work to fill the void in production.

Sure. And if the underpaid worker gets a higher wage, he will not maintain his current profit margin.

Very true, but if one employer maintains a high profit margin, that will be ample enticement for other potential employers to enter the industry and provide another avenue for the worker.

"...and those called 'Commanders' were elected by the troops."

**points at the rulers**

(no I don't buy that their position is some how inherently legitimate because it was "elected." Again, all that's changed is the replacement of "divine right of kings with more guns than me" with the "divine right of more people with more guns than me." Two people can toss the rights and interests of one aside much easier, but now with Legitimacy (TM)! )

Mill states very plainly before explaining his position:

"Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, qua restraint, is an evil"

From here he explains that social actions the are themselves restraints or are harmful are legitimate realms for government regulation. While I don't agree with his assessment of trade and exchanges, he still bases this on the self-determination of the individual. Where I see regulation within a free market as both principally and pragmatically restrictive to the liberty of the individual, he proposes that it is principally beneficial to liberty.

No, he proposes that, at least in the case of price controls, it is unwise, and thus evil (because it has negative consequences and is restraint without purpose.) He does not say anywhere that it is beneficial to liberty, merely that because exchange is a social act, it is within the legitimate sovereignty of the government.

They "are wrong solely because they do not really produce the results which it is desired to produce by them."

On the other hand, restrictions on, say, the sale of opium would, to him, be restrictions on individual liberty regardless of whether or not they actually met their aim of reducing the purchase of opium.

This distinction is the major reason many people who insist that the state should keep out of people's bedrooms and legalize drugs turn "authoritarian" on "economic freedom", and is also why basically utilitarian arguments are necessary in order to hvae a decent basis for a free market position. And, to return to the original point, once certain things are opposed - regulation of the market, for instance - not intrinsically because they are violations of liberty but simply because they have negative consequences, it is easy to argue that those negative consequences are worth it in pursuit of some greater good.

Neither is directly dependent on the other. There is an open labor market under which a worker can sell his labor to another employer, or the employer can buy labor from another worker.

It is unlikely that any employer is likely to hold out, as another employer will simply work to fill the void in production.

And the employer could well merely hire replacements for the striking workers, too. Of course, if the workers had good alternatives they would not have needed to strike in the first place, so most likely they are at this point unemployed and desperate, and willing to take the most disgustingly exploitative wages in order to survive.

A harsh warning to any other group which might get it into its head to resist exploitation.

Very true, but if one employer maintains a high profit margin, that will be ample enticement for other potential employers to enter the industry and provide another avenue for the worker.

Whether the worker has one or ten avenues is immaterial, if all the avenues are bad.

(no I don't buy that their position is some how inherently legitimate because it was "elected." Again, all that's changed is the replacement of "divine right of kings with more guns than me" with the "divine right of more people with more guns than me." Two people can toss the rights and interests of one aside much easier, but now with Legitimacy (TM)! )

Provide an alternative, and I'll be happy to hear it.

A demand for absolute perfection will never be met.

Their beliefs end up quite laissez-faire which can be a very bad thing on the personal end, especially for the less affluent. Even if you don't care much about workers and unions, the deregulation of numerous industries are a much sharper bite you can feel as a sample of what the libertarians have in store.

No, he proposes that, at least in the case of price controls, it is unwise, and thus evil (because it has negative consequences and is restraint without purpose.) He does not say anywhere that it is beneficial to liberty, merely that because exchange is a social act, it is within the legitimate sovereignty of the government.

What negative consequences?

Why is his stating that restraint for restraint's purpose is an evil not an affirmation of the principle of human self-determination?

It still appears that by principle he stands by self-determination but states that government is legitimized in controlling industry because of its social nature (I disagree), but is only right in doing so when it promotes liberty.

They "are wrong solely because they do not really produce the results which it is desired to produce by them."

So Mill believes that any regulation over social issues is right as long as it produces the results desired? If a dictator wanted to shut down the media (surely by Mill's estimation, a social matter) in order to fight political dissent, he would be justified in doing so as long as it accomplished its goal?

On the other hand, restrictions on, say, the sale of opium would, to him, be restrictions on individual liberty regardless of whether or not they actually met their aim of reducing the purchase of opium.

How is this?

And the employer could well merely hire replacements for the striking workers, too. Of course, if the workers had good alternatives they would not have needed to strike in the first place, so most likely they are at this point unemployed and desperate, and willing to take the most disgustingly exploitative wages in order to survive.

So employers can replace an entire workforce at the drop of a hat and workers only strike because they are desperate?

Workers strike because the employer is dependent upon a constant flow of labor and at least a central core of competency amongst the workforce.

Because the existing workforce is the only entity that can provide this, they are able to bargain as an equal negotiator.

A harsh warning to any other group which might get it into its head to resist exploitation.

Right, because employers, despite the dog-eat-dog, screw-your-neighbor, get-the-most-stuff environment of capitalism, are perfectly willing to send themselves down the shitter to support a competitor.

Whether the worker has one or ten avenues is immaterial, if all the avenues are bad.

That he has multiple avenues who are all in competition with each other is the only reason he may end up with good possibilities.

What negative consequences?

Inefficiency, probably. All the negative consequences of price controls that free-marketists like him had been insisting upon for years.

Why is his stating that restraint for restraint's purpose is an evil not an affirmation of the principle of human self-determination?

It is, but has little to do with his point. It is simply a side-note.

It still appears that by principle he stands by self-determination but states that government is legitimized in controlling industry because of its social nature (I disagree), but is only right in doing so when it promotes liberty.

"Is only right in doing so" when its concern is preventing harm - specifically, he mentions the "prevention of fraud by adulteration" and "arrangements to protect work-people employed in dangerous occupations."

So Mill believes that any regulation over social issues is right as long as it produces the results desired? If a dictator wanted to shut down the media (surely by Mill's estimation, a social matter) in order to fight political dissent, he would be justified in doing so as long as it accomplished its goal?

No, free speech doesn't harm anybody the way paying someone less than a living wage or forcing her to work in a dangerous occupation does.

How is this?

Because it is a regulation that creates what today is called a "victimless crime."

So employers can replace an entire workforce at the drop of a hat and workers only strike because they are desperate?

So another employer can fully replace the production of an employer whose workforce is on strike at the drop of a hat, as you insisted upon in the post before this one?

I merely responded with the same line of logic.

Workers strike because the employer is dependent upon a constant flow of labor and at least a central core of competency amongst the workforce.

Because the existing workforce is the only entity that can provide this, they are able to bargain as an equal negotiator.

Yes, but the employer is less dependent on his workforce than his workforce is on him; he wants a "constant flow of labor," but he wants it as cheaply as possible, and his capability to control the constant flow of wages that the workers need gives him the leverage to guarantee it.

The key difference I was getting at is that while the employer can take sacrifices (loss of production) in the short term for long-term gains, the employees, because their economic security is far more tenuous, cannot do so to the same extent.

Right, because employers, despite the dog-eat-dog, screw-your-neighbor, get-the-most-stuff environment of capitalism, are perfectly willing to send themselves down the shitter to support a competitor.

No, they do it for their own advantage; the workers they hire to replace the strikers will also have a strong warning of the consequences of disobedience, and the demands of the strikers will not have to be met.

It does indeed help nearby capitalists, but that is not the motive.

That he has multiple avenues who are all in competition with each other is the only reason he may end up with good possibilities.

They are all in competition with each other, yes, but they all have a common interest in keeping wages low.

That is why, in some cases, that in order for the worker to get "good possibilities" in a capitalist labor market, one of two things are necessary: a direct increase in worker power (attained through unions) or state intervention.

Both are risky methods; the former has highly limited efficacy and the latter is generally insincere and incompetently done.

God, I hate that example.

It was not sustained, nor was it a very large rift between the industrial and military complex surrounding it.It's admittedly not a very good example, but it's sufficient for the idea that rulers can be fought without the use of rulers with a similar amount of power.

**points at the rulers**

(no I don't buy that their position is some how inherently legitimate because it was "elected." Again, all that's changed is the replacement of "divine right of kings with more guns than me" with the "divine right of more people with more guns than me." Two people can toss the rights and interests of one aside much easier, but now with Legitimacy (TM)! )Inherently legitimate...no. Of course, no position is inherently legitimate, election is simply the most legitimate way of filling positions.

"Is only right in doing so" when its concern is preventing harm - specifically, he mentions the "prevention of fraud by adulteration" and "arrangements to protect work-people employed in dangerous occupations."

And what is the point of preventing harm?

(I should remind you that it is simple libertarian principle to "first do no harm".

So another employer can fully replace the production of an employer whose workforce is on strike at the drop of a hat, as you insisted upon in the post before this one?

Of course not, but there are plenty of rival companies that will feast on that share and presumably take on those workers.

I merely responded with the same line of logic.

No, your logic has been based on a many-on-one relationship between worker and owner. Since there are many, many competing owners, there is ample impetus for a owner NOT to hold out, as its financial consequences will be disastrous.

Yes, but the employer is less dependent on his workforce than his workforce is on him; he wants a "constant flow of labor," but he wants it as cheaply as possible, and his capability to control the constant flow of wages that the workers need gives him the leverage to guarantee it.

He needs a constant, competent flow of labor, otherwise he loses money, and since his dependencies and motivations are entirely financial (I am assuming he is not making a principled stand against the labor force) he will be quick to negotiate if he is about to lose that.

The key difference I was getting at is that while the employer can take sacrifices (loss of production) in the short term for long-term gains, the employees, because their economic security is far more tenuous, cannot do so to the same extent.

Short term losses are long term losses in terms of production.

It does indeed help nearby capitalists, but that is not the motive.

It is precisely the motive NOT to follow the actions you mentioned.

Refusing to bargain and completely shutting down the production will send the best workers to their competitors at a discounted price, alienate their own workforce, drive the consumers away, and incur massive financial losses in the form of wasted inventory, overhead costs, less than optimal production, underexperienced labor.

All the while their competitors are benefitting greatly, expanding, and hiring the workers that they laid off for less than they themselves could have negotiated.

They are all in competition with each other, yes, but they all have a common interest in keeping wages low.

No, they all have common interests in keep profit high, and high wages and high profits are not mutually exclusive.

They use the (antiquated) labor theory of value of Smith and Ricardo, add a few assumptions, and they try to show that a free market will result in "exploitation."
You're a liar, I know for a fact that socialist-influenced programmes like public transport, education and the like have directly improved my quality of life. I also know history and how bad life was for most people before these reforms were made.

You're a liar, I know for a fact that socialist-influenced programmes like public transport, education and the like have directly improved my quality of life.
How much better would your life be were your property not stolen to provide these things?


I also know history and how bad life was for most people before these reforms were made.
You mean how bad it was before industrialization came along and kept people from starving?

It's amazing how many people think that because the market is ammoral it is also immoral. The market reflects the true nature of humanity, for better or worse. In fact, treating "the market" as something removed from society is a fundamentally flawed idea. The market is made up of the demands of society and the supplies of society. There is no way to remove society from the equation. Resources are divided up in ways that ensure the greatest creation of more resources. However, resources are not merely tangible things. This is something that libertarians tend to toss out the window. Why do I pay more for Ben and Jerry's ice cream when it's not much different from regular brands? Why don't I buy my socks at Walmart?

The answer is that there is moral value attached to my decisions. Sure, socks cost less at Walmart, but I also have to live with the notion that I am supporting practices I consider immoral. As such, buying more expensive socks at a place with better labour and environmental practices actually provides me with more value: I get socks and I feel like I've done the right thing, which feels good.

People tend to treat the market as only maximizing tangible wealth, but it allows for more than that. Humanity is driven to observe the greatest pleasure in their life, to paraphrase Smith. As such, money is just one factor in the equation that adds up to happiness. The market deals with all of the factors, not just that one, because it is a reflection of human demands, material or otherwise.

As such, when you see people buying regular eggs instead of free range eggs, it is because they do not really care about the conditions that chickens live in. We may think that they should care, but we need to convince them with our own logic, not the coercion of government.

I do not defend the selfishness of others. In fact, I find it rather appalling. I do, however, defend their right to be selfish.

You're a liar

Whoa, hold on buddy. Everything I have said about the backing for libertarian and socialist economic policies was true.

I know for a fact that socialist-influenced programmes like public transport, education and the like have directly improved my quality of life. I also know history and how bad life was for most people before these reforms were made.

Because you have lived under a system where those services were provided by a developed free market?

How much better would your life be were your property not stolen to provide these things?

Oh, you mean like not being able to afford train or bus tickets? Like not having the money to provide healthcare for my family because I chose my profession for reasons that weren't simply about profit?

My family has been through some tough times because my parents chose to go into ministry rather than pursuing more profitable careers that they would have been able to take. I'll cheerfully pay my taxes because they allowed my family to make it through and they allow people who are far worse off to do the same.

Sure the economy isn't whizzing along at a thousand miles an hour but neither am I and half my friends living on the street. I'll take the tradeoff.

Oh, you mean like not being able to afford train or bus tickets?
Sounds like the fault of the government for stealing your money in the first place.


Like not having the money to provide healthcare for my family because I chose my profession for reasons that weren't simply about profit?
Sounds like YOUR problem. You made the decision, didn't you? No one put a gun to your head.


My family has been through some tough times because my parents chose to go into ministry rather than pursuing more profitable careers that they would have been able to take.
Sounds like THEIR problem.

You can take the "tradeoff" if you like. But it's the same tradeoff as a mafia goon trading not burning your place down in exchange for protection money you supply.

Oh, you mean like not being able to afford train or bus tickets? Like not having the money to provide healthcare for my family because I chose my profession for reasons that weren't simply about profit?

My family has been through some tough times because my parents chose to go into ministry rather than pursuing more profitable careers that they would have been able to take. I'll cheerfully pay my taxes because they allowed my family to make it through and they allow people who are far worse off to do the same.

Sure the economy isn't whizzing along at a thousand miles an hour but neither am I and half my friends living on the street. I'll take the tradeoff.
Try to avoid tunnel vision when responding to other posters. I've already addressed this in my earlier post. The market system is designed to maximize all profits, material and immaterial.

How much better would your life be were your property not stolen to provide these things?

Much worse, since I probably wouldn't have much property to speak of. Even though I am getting taxed, the current laws ensure that I'm getting paid more than I ever would in a "free" economy.

You mean how bad it was before industrialization came along and kept people from starving?
It is true that life was bad before industrialisation, but I mean how bad it was before socialist ideas were put into practice in the civilised world.

Socialism is an improvement on industrialisation, not an attempt to destroy it.

Much worse, since I probably wouldn't have much property to speak of.
What makes you state that lie?


Even though I am getting taxes, the current laws ensure that I'm getting paid more than I ever would in a "free" economy.
Evidence? And even if you are, at what cost to other resources?


It is true that life was bad before industrialisation, but I mean how bad it was before socialist ideas were put into practice in the civilised world.
How much better would it be if the socialist ideas were not there? And please don't think that any progress made has been because of "socialist ideas". It's been in spite of. You're correlating w/o causation.

Much worse, since I probably wouldn't have much property to speak of. Even though I am getting taxes, the current laws ensure that I'm getting paid more than I ever would in a "free" economy.
What do you do?

It is true that life was bad before industrialisation, but I mean how bad it was before socialist ideas were put into practice in the civilised world.
It could just as easily be said that things got better because of the free market industrialization and slowed down because of socialist policies. History is way too easy to manipulate, in my opinion.

And what is the point of preventing harm?

(I should remind you that it is simple libertarian principle to "first do no harm".

Mill was basically a utilitarian. There's your answer.

Of course not, but there are plenty of rival companies that will feast on that share and presumably take on those workers.

Then why bother striking, if there are competing options?

No, your logic has been based on a many-on-one relationship between worker and owner. Since there are many, many competing owners, there is ample impetus for a owner NOT to hold out, as its financial consequences will be disastrous.

And raising wages might have "disastrous" consequences too.

The relevant question for both the worker and the employer is which is worse. The employer is free to calculate this according to lost profits either way, but the worker cannot simply calculate this according to lost wages versus future wage gains; she must assure her own survival before doing any such thing.

Thus, unless the demands of the workers are quite modest, there is a very good chance they will lose out.

He needs a constant, competent flow of labor, otherwise he loses money, and since his dependencies and motivations are entirely financial (I am assuming he is not making a principled stand against the labor force) he will be quick to negotiate if he is about to lose that.

"Negotiate," perhaps. But will he accede to their demands? After all, his "dependencies and motivations are entirely financial," and he does not wish to lose money.

Short term losses are long term losses in terms of production.

Why? In the long-term, any such losses can be recovered.

It is precisely the motive NOT to follow the actions you mentioned.

Refusing to bargain and completely shutting down the production will send the best workers to their competitors at a discounted price, alienate their own workforce, drive the consumers away, and incur massive financial losses in the form of wasted inventory, overhead costs, less than optimal production, underexperienced labor.

All the while their competitors are benefitting greatly, expanding, and hiring the workers that they laid off for less than they themselves could have negotiated.

And, again, if the competitors were so eager to hire the workers, the workers would not have gone on strike in the first place.

Yet clearly workers do strike, and always have under conditions of industrial capitalism, even when anti-free market policies have sought to stop them, so this notion cannot be correct.

No, they all have common interests in keep profit high, and high wages and high profits are not mutually exclusive.

No, but they are opposed to one another, once the wages have exceeded the level workers must get in order to work at all (quite low, for the reasons noted above.)

Mill was basically a utilitarian. There's your answer.

What "good" was Mill seeking to maximize?

And raising wages might have "disastrous" consequences too.

The relevant question for both the worker and the employer is which is worse. The employer is free to calculate this according to lost profits either way, but the worker cannot simply calculate this according to lost wages versus future wage gains; she must assure her own survival before doing any such thing.

Thus, unless the demands of the workers are quite modest, there is a very good chance they will lose out.

There is constant pressure for an employer to pay the highest amount for labor, while still turning a profit. While individual workers and entire workforces may not make significant gains, over time the labor market will equilibriate at the natural value of labor.

"Negotiate," perhaps. But will he accede to their demands? After all, his "dependencies and motivations are entirely financial," and he does not wish to lose money.

Of course he will not accede to all of them, but he will accede to those that keep the workers working and still maintains a acceptable profit margin.

Why? In the long-term, any such losses can be recovered.

Because we can assume that the business was operating at nearly its optimal efficiency prior to the loss of production, and therefore the loss of production cannot be made up in the future without accelerated production (which will amount to a loss of money eliminating the purpose) or more efficient production (which we see is not possible).

And, again, if the competitors were so eager to hire the workers, the workers would not have gone on strike in the first place.

Yet clearly workers do strike, and always have under conditions of industrial capitalism, even when anti-free market policies have sought to stop them, so this notion cannot be correct.

I stated that the workers would move to another employer for less than they could have bargained for at their present employer.

Since the present employer has a greater necessity for his current workforce than any other employer(they are trained and organized to fit his needs, not the needs of another company), the workers can better negotiate with their current employer, because he is likely to offer them more. Factor in the friendships and collective work they had forged with their coworkers, it is quite reasonable for them to first press for increased wages at their present location.

No, but they are opposed to one another, once the wages have exceeded the level workers must get in order to work at all (quite low, for the reasons noted above.)

With labor, like any other commodity on a free market, you will get mostly what you pay for, so higher paid positions will draw higher quality labor, and thus higher production.

Profit and increasing wages are opposed in two situations:

1. Wages have already reached their natural rate, and as such an employer is paying more than what his labor is worth.

2. An employer is producing at a higher rate or with more quality than the market calls for.

Otherwise, higher labor expenditures will generally equate to higher labor production.

What "good" was Mill seeking to maximize?

Happiness - sort of, anyway. He held that social decisions should be made with an eye towards maximizing the happiness of all, but that each person was, in general at least, the best judge of how to make themselves happy.

There is constant pressure for an employer to pay the highest amount for labor, while still turning a profit. While individual workers and entire workforces may not make significant gains, over time the labor market will equilibriate at the natural value of labor.

Since this is the conclusion for which you have been trying to argue for a long while, merely stating it does not help your case.

Of course he will not accede to all of them, but he will accede to those that keep the workers working and still maintains a acceptable profit margin.

He will accede to those that maximize his profit margin, not merely those that allow him an acceptable level.

This means that he has a very good reason to wait out a strike, especially when his workers are poor and thus have a weak bargaining position.

Because we can assume that the business was operating at nearly its optimal efficiency prior to the loss of production, and therefore the loss of production cannot be made up in the future without accelerated production (which will amount to a loss of money eliminating the purpose) or more efficient production (which we see is not possible).

Yes, but there is no reason to believe that the loss in production is anything but temporary, that is, short-term.

Any loss in market share would be similarly short-term, only extending as long (or perhaps slightly longer) as the loss in production.

I stated that the workers would move to another employer for less than they could have bargained for at their present employer.

Then what do they gain?

Since the present employer has a greater necessity for his current workforce than any other employer(they are trained and organized to fit his needs, not the needs of another company), the workers can better negotiate with their current employer, because he is likely to offer them more. Factor in the friendships and collective work they had forged with their coworkers, it is quite reasonable for them to first press for increased wages at their present location.

Yes, but only if the costs of doing so are low; since it leaves them without pay, they are hardly so.

With labor, like any other commodity on a free market, you will get mostly what you pay for, so higher paid positions will draw higher quality labor, and thus higher production.

This does not help the position of workers in general. It merely references something that even Marx was perfectly willing to admit; employers will pay more for skilled (high-value) than unskilled (low-value) labor.

If people weren't punished for mistakes, they would cease to be mistakes.
No, they would drag the whole society down with them.

Whoa, hold on buddy. Everything I have said about the backing for libertarian and socialist economic policies was true.
Except the lies that socialism is theft, and that anyone who advocates evil ideas like the minimum wage and public education must be so behind the times as to be depending on the labour theory of value.

That said, I don't agree with pure socialism, which just doesn't work. The best system is a regulated capitalist market. The "regulated" part is where we disagree.

Because you have lived under a system where those services were provided by a developed free market?
I don't have to, and I don't really want to give it a try. I have learned what life was like for most people back then when "services" were "provided" by the free market.

Also, most examples of privatisation in Europe have not made the services in question any better or cheaper.

What do you do?
Last job was digging at an archaeological site, where I was paid about 120% of the minumum wage. Otherwise I'm a full time student.

What makes you state that lie?

Because I wasn't born into an aristocratic family. Class mobility wasn't big in those days.

Evidence? And even if you are, at what cost to other resources?
Minimum wage laws are the evidence. If workers were being paid adequately in the free market, why did any of them ever feel the need to vote for minimum wage laws?

Let's face it, people like to be able to afford more than just bread.

How much better would it be if the socialist ideas were not there? And please don't think that any progress made has been because of "socialist ideas". It's been in spite of. You're correlating w/o causation.
Europe would probably look a lot more like Indonesia, Brazil and other countries where a wealthy minority floats above an impoverished majority.

There seems to be a slight difference of perception here…

One sees the valiant ‘workers’ as starving people desperate to cling to meager wages because they are barely above starvation while there are a couple of colluding evil ‘capitalists’ who control everything and have so much they are happy to shut down their business for months just to laugh at the suffering they are causing.

The other seems to have this crazy notion that employers are people too, and they need to make an income as well. Most people are employed by small businesses that rely upon their workforce to stay in existence, and that there is some sort of mutual dependency going on even in large corporations. He must be crazy - that is such an unbelievable notion. Everyone knows 99% of all money is held by 3 people who laugh and take unmitigated joy grinding the populace under their boots. ;)



Employers and employees are mutually dependent. Without the employees, a company has no income and cannot survive, just as much as an employee would have no income without an employer (excepting the self-employed). Plus workers have unemployment insurance and welfare to rely upon, while businesses loose out to their competitors.

The view that striking workers are on the verge of starvation and have no choice is about as antiquated as calling cars horseless-carriages. Let us look at the Delphi (second largest maker of auto parts): they were hemorrhaging money and were facing bankruptcy. The average compensation (wages plus benefits) of one of these poor downtrodden factory workers was $65/hr. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t exactly bring images of starving indolent workers being exploited to me. In an effort to cut costs, the company wanted to cut compensation in half to bring it down to a more reasonable rate of around $30/hr, but the workers figured it would be better to hold their ground and force the company into bankruptcy.

By the way, the CEO of Delphi refused to take a salary while the company was in such dire straights, while the workers demand to be paid twice the average for factory work in the area. Before anyone cries “but the fat executives were paid a lot more than the worker!” I just need to point out that executive compensation is comparable to their peers. If the company would have been better served by firing the executives and putting factory workers in their place, I would be all for it.

Unions such as the United Auto Workers are bullies used to unfairly exploit the corporations. They receive far more compensation than they should, and drive the cost of production far too high. Estimates put union costs at around an additional $3,400 per car – no wonder Detroit is rapidly loosing market share. Just imagine that cars cost 3 to 4 thousand dollars less – that is a major boon to the common working man, but the common worker is being screwed over by union labor and not the corporation.

Free markets would allow companies and workers to work out a mutually beneficial agreement. Companies who treat their employees poorly tend not to survive; likewise employees who are incompetent should be fired.

Government regulations impose the views of a bureaucrat on the market – while I believe that people should be free to make their own decisions. Nobody should be told who they have to work for, nor should a businessman be told who he has to hire. A person should be free to buy what products they want, not the brand someone else says they have to buy. It is a fundamental question of freedom. If a company makes money, it is providing a product or service people value; if your job doesn’t pay well then you are not doing a job people value.

That you believe everyone should only buy products from companies that only hire albino pygmies just means your personal spending should reflect that, not that everyone else should be forced to conform to your personal views. Yes that is ridiculous, but it illustrates my point.

WalMart is a good example, you think it treats its employees horribly and people shouldn’t buy from them, while other people obviously don’t see a problem. The workers obviously receive adequate compensation or they wouldn’t have taken the job (and don’t give me garbage about not having a choice, the economy is not so bad that there are no options). If you do not want to buy from WalMart, then don’t. You can control your own spending – you have no right to make that choice for me.

If enough people agree with you, WalMart will go out of business.
Obviously most people disagree.

There seems to be a slight difference of perception here…

One sees the valiant ‘workers’ as starving people desperate to cling to meager wages because they are barely above starvation while there are a couple of colluding evil ‘capitalists’ who control everything and have so much they are happy to shut down their business for months just to laugh at the suffering they are causing.
That's not the way it is now thanks to the progress of civilisation, but things were like that in the 19th century.

Except the lies that socialism is theft,
That isn't a lie; that's a fact. Taking by force the property of someone else is theft, and that is what socialism offers in order to provide everything to everyone.


and that anyone who advocates evil ideas like the minimum wage and public education must be so behind the times as to be depending on the labour theory of value.
I've yet to meet a socialist who didn't use the LTV, nor one who didn't like a minimum wage law, nor one who didn't advocate for free (compulsory) public education.


That said, I don't agree with pure socialism, which just doesn't work. The best system is a regulated capitalist market. The "regulated" part is where we disagree.
As Mises pointed out, middle-of-the-road policies lead to socialism.


I don't have to, and I don't really want to give it a try. I have learned what life was like for most people back then when "services" were "provided" by the free market.
And how, precisely, did you learn about them? And what, precisely, did you learn. Please educate us as to what you actually know. Then, we'll educate you as to the facts.


Also, most examples of privatisation in Europe have not made the services in question any better or cheaper.
Look into the phone service in Sweden. It's much better and cheaper than when it was a government-run monopoly.


Because I wasn't born into an aristocratic family. Class mobility wasn't big in those days.
Aha. So I repeat: what makes you state the lie that you wouldn't have much property to speak of?


Minimum wage laws are the evidence.
No they aren't.


If workers were being paid adequately in the free market, why did any of them ever feel the need to vote for minimum wage laws?
To eliminate competition. Some of the biggest supporters of minimum wage legislation are trade unions. They help to drive wage costs up, keeping out the "undesirables" from their trades.

Oh--you didn't know that? You really should do more research.


Europe would probably look a lot more like Indonesia, Brazil and other countries where a wealthy minority floats above an impoverished majority.
Last I knew, those countries weren't capitalist.

That's not the way it is now thanks to the progress of civilisation, but things were like that in the 19th century.
Only in the novels of Charles Dickens and where companies had government-granted monopolies. But not anywhere else. Certainly not where the free market had sway.

Last job was digging at an archaeological site, where I was paid about 120% of the minumum wage. Otherwise I'm a full time student.
Who paid you and why did you deserve it?

No, they would drag the whole society down with them.

Exactly, if the wrong action lost its negative consequences, at best there would be no preference for wrong or right, at worst wrong would be chosen more often based on its ease.

If people weren't punished for mistakes, then what were mistakes would be purposeful wrongdoing.

Except the lies that socialism is theft, and that anyone who advocates evil ideas like the minimum wage and public education must be so behind the times as to be depending on the labour theory of value.

You are completely lost.

That said, I don't agree with pure socialism, which just doesn't work. The best system is a regulated capitalist market. The "regulated" part is where we disagree.

Because a liberal cartelized capitalist economy is worst than both pure socialism (or anything resembling it) and pure capitalism (or anything resembling it).

I greatly prefer a natural socialism than I do anything resembling the capitalist status quo. Your liberal regulation does nothing but entrench those in power by eliminating most avenues for their power to be usurped.

Sure you gain your insured bare minimum and safety nets, but you are perpetually subservient to the elite, and uncompromisingly dependent upon the government.

I don't have to, and I don't really want to give it a try. I have learned what life was like for most people back then when "services" were "provided" by the free market.

No you haven't.

Also, most examples of privatisation in Europe have not made the services in question any better or cheaper.

I don't believe you, and I don't believe your sources.

I've yet to meet a socialist who didn't use the LTV, nor one who didn't like a minimum wage law, nor one who didn't advocate for free (compulsory) public education.

You obviously haven't heard of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. They are socialists who developed the ParEcon strain of socialist thinking. In their work, A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics, they explicitly reject LTV, and minimum wage reformism.

As Mises pointed out, middle-of-the-road policies lead to socialism.

Last I checked, none of the countries that practiced middle of the road Social Democracy have made the transition to democratic socialism. In fact, they are sliding back to the right.

You obviously haven't heard of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. They are socialists who developed the ParEcon strain of socialist thinking.
I've heard of it. Of course, they smuggle in the LTV.


Last I checked, none of the countries that practiced middle of the road Social Democracy have made the transition to democratic socialism.
Same thing.


In fact, they are sliding back to the right.
Because socialism is unsustainable.