On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote:
> Wasn't it Marcel Popescu, who is a self-avowed "anarcho"capitalist,
> say that striking is theft (for the workers have given the capitalists
> their work in return for pay, and therefore striking is stealing
> continued work from the capitalists). Also, doesn't the
> "anarcho"capitalist doctrine of Utilitarianism allow slavery (for one
> has the right to sign away their freedom and liberty).
If the strikers were paid in advance, then yes, it would be theft of
whatever amount of work they were paid for and did not complete. The
corollary is that the workers may refuse to do any work they have not been
paid for (and refuse payment for more work, of course).
I believe that "anarcho"capitalism would permit slavery. Why anyone would
ever sell themselves into slavery is not apparent to me.
> You expect an individual person to earn enough money to make a
> corporation that can compete with huge multinational corporations?!
Yes. History is full of examples.
> > Why is starting a collective more difficult in a capitalist society?
>
> A capitalist society does not lend itself to the creation of
> collectives (for the creation of collectives often has the same
> problems as the creation of a plain old corporation).
How would you start a collective in your ideal society? How does that
differ from how you would start one in a capitalist society?
> > So the commonplace charities - salvation army, etc - don't really give to
> > the poor? Where does all that money go, then?
>
> I'm talking about the ruling class. And anyways, the Salvation Army
> does give to the poor, for doing so helps it advance religion.
Nobody at the Salvation Army really cares about the welfare of the poor?
> > Yeah. The solution to that is to strike, or to quit and join a better
> > company. Both of those are possible and effective.
>
> For lots of people, there really isn't the option of quitting and
> joining a better company. Maybe in theory, but often not in
> practice.
What factors are most important in denying those people that option?
> What I am saying is that the corporations and such can practically get
> away with murder, even if it is technically illegal, for the people in
> the government support capitalism and business and therefore are often
> perfectly willing to overlook crimes committed for capitalism.
So I've heard. That puts us in a rather dismal situation. The argument
comes down to "if the government allows X, it will allow crimes to be
committed to make X stronger." The same argument can be used against any
proposed system.
> > Would you be content pursuing the goals of collectivisation and equality
> > within the framework of a fair, just, and minimal civic order which
> > respected the rights to life, liberty, and property?
>
> The problem with this is property, which is a thoroughly capitalist
> and authoritarian notion, for it allows stuff like landlordism and
> shareholders and executives controlling the workers who actually do
> the work. The replacement of property with possession/use rights
> fixes this because it shifts ownership from some arbitrary owners to
> those who live somewhere or uses something (instead of a landlord
> owning an apartment building, the apartment building is owned by all
> the people who live in it, and instead of shareholders owning the
> means of production, the workers who use the means of production own
> the means of production).
But why would the people ever allow their property to fall into the hands
of landlords and shareholders and executives if they did not want to?
Absent criminal coercion, I don't see any explanation except that most
people don't mind landlords, shareholders, and executives. Or perhaps most
people are just too stupid, fearful, and obedient to do anything about
them.
--
"...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense
and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves."
Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
