Private Sector Pay Morality

Rarely do the economic liberals amongst us realise the totalitarianism of their stances.

Liberty cannot be brought about without both co-operation and self-management.

There is positive liberty as defined as the power to maximise one's own potential through the access of external resources.

Resources would include material qualities such as free education as well as co-operation with other individuals which acts to help the growth of the individual by the exchange of ideas, mutual aid and so forth. Anarchists do not subscribe to authoritatian notions of positive liberty, though it should be said.

Negative liberty would be important to as this is the ability to think and act without external restraints: one should have self-management of one's own life.

Both are important concepts to the anarchist. Solidarity (co-operation between members of society) enhances the individual liberty of an individual.

I agree. I just disagree with obligating people to do so.

Why is this desirable? Again,your explanation of what I asked initially is simply restating the premise.

Do you expect people to prescribe to public ownership theory? What of people who would prefer not to offer their services without monetary compensation?

Of course.

See my initial bit.

Errg...this is tricky to explain to someone who is not an anarchist.

I don't have an exact definition of "liberty" as such, as it is a vague concept and its definition is highly contentious.

What I am really talking about is growth of the individual and I do not believe this is possible without solidarity, equality and self-management. The hierarchy of capitalism is such that labourers cannot manage their own labour as they must sell it in the labour market (thus they do not have self-management).

The Bakunin quote means that there is no freedom really without socialism: it would just be freedom for the privileged and wealthy few.

I support the abolition of the state. I think it presents itself as an immoral monopoly on force that uses coercion to maintain its rule over the population. Although, despite Aeolus' random pretentious musings over the last two pages I disagree with the concept that market exchange or labor exchange (either or, doesn't really matter given labor exchange occurs in a market anyhow) is inherently coercive. The anarchism without adjective concept was brought about to stop such tripe bickering between different schools of though to what "true" anarchy was "e.g you are not really anarchist because you support hierarchy and "you are not really anarchist because you support socialism".

I figure myself a proponent of Voluntaryism; if one wishes to organize themselves into a commune or a workers society, and to interact with whoever the choose, they ought to be free to do so, in the same manner by which persons who wish to exchange their labor for a wage ought to be afforded the same freedom, were they to find the arrangement desirable, and movement between the two should not be impinged. If people wish to exist in a hierarchical society, they should be free to do so in the same way they are free to reject doing so.

But isn't that the question, though? Meaning is central to any philosophy. I think "freedom from coercion" ought to suffice. The question is what constitutes coercion?

Can they not save their own capital and subsequently manage their own labor or say, farm of their own volition? In both these instances one both maintains control over their own labor and provides for the existence of property rights.

I'm a college student, and I don't have very much money. Why would I propose a self-injurious system if I do not perceive some benefit in it? I've read Kropotkin and Sorel in the same way I've read Spooner and Rothbard, so it's not as if I am ignorant of the beliefs of either side of the spectrum.

Errmm...actually anarchism without adjectives evolved to prevent bickering between the socialist schools of thought to help the various social anarchist groups (mutualists, anarcho-collectivists, anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists) to organise for a revolution in Spain and were inspired by the comments of Fernando Tarrida del Marmol.

Technically speaking, capitalism is a hierarchy of property owners over non-property owners, of monopoly holders over consumers, of landlords over tenants, of employers over wagelabourers and so on.

We are voluntaryists as well but for the full fruits of voluntaryism to be realised it is necessary to have social equality.

When two forces make a contract there is no freedom involved when one has market dominance over the other

To propose voluntary communistic communes under the capitalistic economic infrastructure would be naive to say the least, given the power that privately owned capital possesses to crush any hostile forces which threaten the bourgeois legacy. Large scale organisations must receive international support while small scale organisations will die out due to their isolation from the wider world: in short, a revolution is necessary to overthrow the capitalist infrastructure.

think about it this way: under a system of privatised protection agencies and privatised law courts, there would still be a "state" - it would just be a state for the wealthy.

If you "vote with your money" under capitalism and the business transactions are important when making this informed decision (though it assumes that one has an encyclopoediac knowledge of the markets to say the least - an ordinary man tends to know very little about his hospital's business dealings) then to say the very least, it would be the most wealthy of consumers that market forces would alter their business dealings in order to please the most, surely? This could be quite dangerous if this theory were to carry over private protection agencies and private law courts accepting the largest proportion of their income from "generous donations" by various firms and so forth. What is your argument against the possibility of cartels (imposing their own regulations, etc.) in the free market?

Another worry is that the rich would rule. After all, won't justice just go to the highest bidder in that case, if you turn legal services into an economic good? That's a common objection. Interestingly, it's a particularly common objection among Randians, who suddenly become very concerned about the poor impoverished masses. But under which system are the rich more powerful? Under the current system or under anarchy? Certainly, you've always got some sort of advantage if you're rich. It's good to be rich. You're always in a better position to bribe people if you're rich than if you're not; that's true. But, under the current system, the power of the rich is magnified. Suppose that I'm an evil rich person, and I want to get the government to do something-or-other that costs a million dollars. Do I have to bribe some bureaucrat a million dollars to get it done? No, because I'm not asking him to do it with his own money. Obviously, if I were asking him to do it with his own money, I couldn't get him to spend a million dollars by bribing him any less than a million. It would have to be at least a million dollars and one cent. But people who control tax money that they don't themselves personally own, and therefore can't do whatever they want with, the bureaucrat can't just pocket the million and go home (although it can get surprisingly close to that). All I have to do is bribe him a few thousand, and he can direct this million dollars in tax money to my favorite project or whatever, and thus the power of my bribe money is multiplied.

Whereas, if you were the head of some private protection agency and I'm trying to get you to do something that costs a million dollars, I'd have to bribe you more than a million. So, the power of the rich is actually less under this system. And, of course, any court that got the reputation of discriminating in favor of millionaires against poor people would also presumably have the reputation of discriminating for billionaires against millionaires. So, the millionaires would not want to deal with it all of the time. They'd only want to deal with it when they're dealing with people poorer, not people richer. The reputation effects — I don't think this would be too popular an outfit.

Worries about poor victims who can't afford legal services, or victims who die without heirs (again, the Randians are very worried about victims dying without heirs) — in the case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You're too poor to purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the claim, to someone else. Actually, it's kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded.

(10) Robert Nozick and Tyler Cowen: Private Protection Agencies Will Become a de facto Government

Okay, one last consideration I want to talk about. This is a question that originally was raised by Robert Nozick and has since been pushed farther by Tyler Cowen. Nozick said: Suppose you have anarchy. One of three things will happen. Either the agencies will fight — and he gives two different scenarios of what will happen if they fight. But I've already talked about what happens if they fight, so I'll talk about the third option. What if they don't fight? Then he says, if instead they agree to these mutual arbitration contracts and so forth, then basically this whole thing just turns into a government. And then Tyler Cowen has pushed this argument farther. He said what happens is that basically this forms into a cartel, and it's going to be in the interest of this cartel to sort of turn itself into a government. And any new agency that comes along, they can just boycott it.

Just as it's in your interest if you come along with a new ATM card that it be compatible with everyone else's machines, so if you come along with a brand new protection agency, it is in your interest that you get to be part of this system of contracts and arbitration and so forth that the existing ones have. Consumers aren't going to come to you if they find out that you don't have any agreements as to what happens if you're in a conflict with these other agencies. And so, this cartel will be able to freeze everyone out.

Well, could that happen? Sure. All kinds of things could happen. Half the country could commit suicide tomorrow. But, is it likely? Is this cartel likely to be able to abuse its power in this way? The problem is cartels are unstable for all the usual reasons. That doesn't mean that it's impossible that a cartel succeed. After all, people have free will. But it's unlikely because the very incentives that lead you to form the cartel also lead you to cheat on it — because it's always in the interest of anyone to make agreements outside the cartel once they are in it.

Bryan Caplan makes a distinction between self-enforcing boycotts and non-self-enforcing boycotts. Self-enforcing boycotts are ones where the boycott is pretty stable because it's a boycott against, for example, doing business with people who cheat their business partners. Now, you don't have to have some iron resolve of moral commitment in order to avoid doing business with people who cheat their business partners. You have a perfectly self-interested reason not to do business with those people.

But think instead of a commitment not to do business with someone because you don't like their religion or something like that, or they're a member of the wrong protection agency, one that your fellow protection agencies told you not to deal with — well, the boycott might work. Maybe enough people (and maybe everyone) in the cartel are so committed to upholding the cartel that they just won't deal with the person. Is that possible? Yes. But, if we assume that they formed the cartel out of their own economic self-interest, then the economic self-interest is precisely what leads to the undermining because it's in their interest to deal with the person, just as it's always in your interest to engage in mutually beneficial trade.

Have you, by any chance stumbled across the "Ask An Anarchist Thread" in the Political Theory and Philosophy Forum?

...

Can you perhaps substantiate this? On what basis are you making this claim?

Well that is not really the question here is it? The question concerns the levels of what one can earn and the inequality that exists.

Lets say that these rather foggy and vauge statements of yours are true. Why then must the gap between salaries be so ridiculously wide?

This is also very interesting, and extremely authoritarian. As a mantra, it wouldn't be out of place in some Stalinist nightmare.

Ok, go ask 100 people what success in the workplace means. I garuntee that the majority of answes will include increased salary.

The true question is, why should it not be?

Oh my, you are quite the Dramatist.
I'm talking about jelousy in the work place. Of entitlement complexs.

'He makes more than me, but I work hard to, I should get the same wage!'
That's not sufficent. That's not reaoning, that's jelousy and greed.

If you want to earn more it's up to you to do something about it, not expect everyone else to give up their money for your feeling of self worth.

So you can't substantiate it. That's what I thought.




No it isn't. That is a rather cheap and obvious way of dodging my point. You say that the current inequity of private sector salaries is down to natural competition or somthing else foggy.

I am asking how you infer from this such drastic pay inequality. Saying 'Why isn't it' is begging the question. You made the statement, you justify it on logical grounds.

Given that the current status quo and wealth distribution was not established by the private sector, your flaccid and fatuous talk about the 'pecking order' is rather droll and lacking in intellectual substance.




I am not sure what your definition of reaoning (sic) is. But logically, if we are to be fair (And morality is what this thread is about) logically if your labour is worth as much as somebody elses. There should not be a drastic difference in salary? Why should there be? (After all you were the one who bought up reason.)



Your entire argument is based on frivolous and sensationalist generalisations like these.

I'm sorry, yes you're correct, I don't have a study backing my claim, but it is rather obvious. Please do as I've invited you to and post your results, I think you'll find them concordant with my hypothesis.
Pay diferences typically stem from job. You understand this I suppose?
Now, tell me, how is it fair that a job that can only be done by 1 man is paid the same as a job that can be done 100 men? That first man is clearly more valuable, and as such is paid more, simple logic.

Excellent and complex analysis right there. I'm starting to see a pattern in your arguments.




No it is not simple logic. I am starting to think you have no idea what logic is judging from your utterly fallacious posts across this forum. Your arguments are utterly circular.

You are implying that this inequality is somehow natural and innate. I am challenging you as to how you infer this from your premise. I will simplify our argument for you.

You state that inequality is somehow natural and innate. I have not denied this. What I am contending is the dramatic gulf in inequality that exists. A gulf, and a descrepency that utterly overshadows any kind of natural inequality.

That is what you must explain because your original argument fails completely. You are trying to derive a normative from a positive and in this case it simply will not work.

Saying something completely frivolous like " ItZ CaPitaliZt LogiC Duh!" is to employ a circular argument that is just a complete waste of my time.

If you don't understand what these things I am talking about are then just don't reply it will save us both a frustrating exchange. Just don't repeat what you said before. It's ridiculous.

Take a look around you. Take a look at the natural world. Tell me now, how is inequality expressed there?

Death, violence and starvation. Take a loom through society. Inequlity is inate and natural. The gulf in equality is the smallest it has ever been, it is simpley pay here. And even then, it's not inequality, there's a reason some people earn more than others, as I've stated before.

Perhaps if you would see sense, then we could move forwards.

Stop this ridiculous fallacy! Rape is innate and natural!

Now if it is ok with you I am off to violently challenge my next door neighbour for his territory, beat him and rape his wife into submission.

Good evening

(Natural = Good rite?)

Take his example and argument to a ridiculous extreme!! That'll show him!!!

Nice.


I said it was natural, I didn't say everything that is natural is good and proper. Grey things and Elephants and all that.