Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Economics Economics Questions
21

Fine, self-ownership is a axiom, so what? If I can’t do what I want with myself (like being employed) then why bother to call it self-“ownership”? You need to break it down, showing me how the self-ownership axiom some how makes it morally impossible, because in your above post you seem to ignore a very basic fact, that if I own myself which I do, no other person can tell me I am morally wrong to engage in employment. (Reason being because I own myself and am free to do whatever I want with myself.) What your doing is basically saying no matter what I want, I can’t work for someone, morally speaking, yet I still somehow “own” myself. That’s like a parent that tells their child, “You’re your own person”, then tells them they can’t do X, because they don’t approve, but offer a fancy excuse as to why.

(FYI: My post never denied self-ownership. I gave you a choice, either self-ownership is indeed a axiom, in which case I can do what I want, including “renting” myself out, or I don’t actually “own” myself. It was meant to show how you can’t hold self-ownership as a axiom and at the same time say a person can’t do something with his body or his labor, and how it is contradictory to make both claims at the same time.)

22

Reason being because I own myself and am free to do whatever I want with myself.

Except not own yourself. Because that would invalidate your justification form being free to do whatever you want.

That’s like a parent that tells their child, “You’re your own person”, then tells them they can’t do X, because they don’t approve, but offer a fancy excuse as to why.

No, that’s like a parent telling their child “you’re your own person” an then tells them- “therefore, you can’t be anyone other’s person”.

I gave you a choice, either self-ownership is indeed a axiom, in which case I can do what I want, including “renting” myself out, or I don’t actually “own” myself.

That is a choice between 1) self-ownership being a axiom that is self-contradictory (meaning then that it’s not an axiom) and 2) self-ownership not being an axiom. Tough choice.

It was meant to show how you can’t hold self-ownership as a axiom and at the same time say a person can’t do something with his body or his labor

And my writing meant to show how you can’t hold self-ownership as an axiom and at the same not hold it as an axiom.

When you justify rejection (in practice selling or renting) of self-ownership by self-ownership, and in rejecting self-ownership you have rejected the very justification for your rejection, making the situation contradictory, therefore- self-ownership is inalienable.

23

why? Is it because I might violate my ownership rights over myself, and then have a claim against myself that would cause me, myself, and I to have a three-way dispute?

24

why?

You cannot justify rejection of self-ownership by that self-ownership. If you reject it, there’s no justification for the rejection so you can’t actually reject it. So you if can reject, you can’t. That’s called a contradiction and implies that you just can’t reject self-ownership.

25

There are three types of slaves- by birth, by being taken as a PoW, and by selling oneself. Third one is voluntary. Doesn’t change the fact that the self (body and it’s actions) are inalienable (making slavery, serfhood and employment illegitimate).

Is farming or hunting illegitimate? (That is, the immediate action required to at a later time satisfy your hunger)

26

John James, do you honestly believe that your comment was a positive contribution to the question at hand?

If any of us knew everything we wouldn’t come to mises to discuss things and search for truth.

Clearly your definition of “boss” is “business owner” and that does not reflect what many people are experiencing in medium-large businesses.

The owner/CEO is the boss, but most people are working under managers who are being paid in full and who might actually be worthless/lazy.

Kylio, I hope that we can find an economic/societal model that is just and plausible.

27

Exploitation requires an element of coercion.

Markets have no coercion.

Thus, capitalism cannot be exploitative, by definition.

Now, if you have governments colluding with businesses, and businesses using the law to capture markets, then you have the mixed economy where everything changes and you may be right in your assessment–especially in poorer parts of the world. But, a liebrtarian system where law could not be captured by business would not be exploitative at all.

28

Is farming or hunting illegitimate?

which has nothing to do with the topic.

Exploitation requires an element of coercion.

Fraud doesn’t entail coercion. Capitalists defraud workers of the product of their labor by laying to them that it’s legitimate to alienate themselves (concretely, their labor) which is what happens in employment.

29

First of all, both enter into the agreement voluntarily. So, morally it’s fair. There’s no fraud going on. Both are benefitting from the employment contract, so it’s a moral arrangement necessarily.

Now, let’s talk about why each side is willing to enter into this agreement.

I’ll give you the example out of Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty as best as I can recount it.

Employer A hires workers B and C to ship logs down the river where they’ll be sold to D.

A pays 40g for the logs, and pays each worker 20g also, then sells the logs for 100g, making a 20g profit.

Now, the workers could have bought the logs upstream if they had the 40g, but they don’t. A had saved up previously earned wages in order to invest them.

B and C therefore are willing to sell their labor services for two reasons, because they don’t have enough savings to invest in raw logs, and they may not be willing to take the risk that the logs can be sold profitably at the end of the line.

A pays them wages up-front, profit or not, and transfers all risk to himself.

So, the utility to B and C is risk transferrence and the ability to profit from capitali that they did not own. They were able to make a wage because A had saved up his own wages previously.

The idea that A makes the highest profit is also a bit wrong I think. Most firms spend the vast majority of their income on labor, some 85% is paid out in wages. Most firms are delighted to make a 1 or 2% profit, if that, once all costs have been paid for.

I think you’re guilty of looking purely at gross income and ignoring net profit.

The worker every day sees thousands of dollars coming through his store in sales, and sees only a few dollars coming to him in his paycheck, and figures the owner must be pocketing the difference. However, he doesn’t see rent, debt service, insurance, health-costs, and a host of other costs the owner pays to keep things running.

Many firms don’t actually achieve profitability until the year’s end holiday sale. Yet all year long they’ve been paying wages to employees.

You say the boss “hardly sweats” yet all the money that he’s invested in the firm had to be previously earned by physical labor and then saved to later be put to productive use in the business. The boss and investors all did sweat for that money, by being productive with their own labor services in the past.

30

Fraud does too entail coercion, just indirect coercion. If all the fact were known, party A would not have transferred title to party B, thus party B has coerced A into giving up property under false pretenses rather than through force. In both cases, an illegitimate transfer of title has occurred. It is non-physical theft, and thus a form of coercion.

If that’s really the heart of your objection to employment you should really look into it more deeply.

My position is that all laborers can as a matter of fact alienate their labor services. They can do something for someone else. This is obviously and concretely possible in the real world. You just saying it isn’t legitimate really means nothing without supporting rationale.

A worker can do labor that doesn’t achieve any of their own ends but achieves someone else’s ends, in exchange for being paid. That is possible in reality and there is no fraud there.

I don’t know why you stand here like a child saying “it’s not legitimate. it’s not legitimate.” without a single explanation of WHY alienating your labor service is not legitimate. Until you address that directly you’re nothing more than a socialist parrot.

31

It is non-physical theft, and thus a form of coercion.

Ah, okey, so you weren’t redefining exploitation, but coercion. Being that Coercion ( /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.

My position is that all laborers can as a matter of fact alienate their labor services.

Being that labor is a part of self and that self-ownership is inalienable, employment is illegitimate as much as slavery.

32

You obviously didn’t read one single link I provided for you.

No wonder you’re so ignorant. You don’t bother to even try to understand what anyone else is/has said.

33

Absolutely.

Do you honestly believe that’s what kylio27 is here to do?

Oh I see, so your problem with what I said is that I neglected the fact that there exist some employees who can fire other employees. And it is in fact those “boss employees” who are the fatcats exploiting everyone. Got it.

So what? “Worthless” by who’s valuation? Obviously not the business owner(s) who are paying him. Who are you to judge what one person should voluntarily pay another person?

Are you claiming you should be able to have a say in what other people do with their own money and property?

One already exists. You just have to realize it, so that it might be implemented.

34

The OP is rooted in the misunderstanding of property rights and labour. Labour is not exploitation. Labour is not slavery. If labour resembles slavery then it is no longer labour, it becomes slavery. Calling all types of employment exploitation is ridiculous.

35

@ John James

I didn’t read the links because they clearly weren’t enough to put this argument to rest, if they settled it then Papirius wouldn’t still be getting it so very wrong, that and you were rude so I chose to ignore you.

@ Papirius

If X then Y

Not Y

Therefore not X.

The above sums things up as clearly as humanly possible.

If self-ownership then a person can do whatever they want with their body and labor.

You assert that a person can’t do what they want with their body and labor.

Therefore not self-ownership.

So you don’t in fact accept self-ownership, for if you did, you would accept that a person can do what they want to with their body. You’re so invested in your position that logic doesn’t matter to you, so you can’t accept that you’re actually contradicting yourself, so I’ll just end this little “debate” with you here and now.

36

I do not believe Papirius is correct; however:

@Serpentis

If X then Y

Not Y

Therefore not X

^^ this is not how logic works, or in order words, your logic, and argument, is flawed.

37

@phi: nothing wrong with serpentis’s logic. “If it’s raining, then the ground is wet. The ground is not wet therefore it is not raining.”

Clayton -

38

@Clayton

No. I put an open umbrella over the ground. The ground is not wet but it is raining.

The correct logical semantics to make what Serpenis was saying correct is:

If and only if X then Y

Not Y

Therefore Not X

39

Phi, my argument was in the form of modus tollens…

(Actually it is Papirius’s argument, not mine, he just doesn’t realize that he is in fact arguing against self-ownership, by claiming that a person can’t do what they want with their body and/or labor.)

Oh yeah, one more thing, even with a umbrella the ground would still get wet, it’s just that the ground directly under the umbrella wouldn’t get wet. (Rain would still hit the ground around the umbrella.

40

I do apologize. I guess that’s why the class I took was called “INTRODUCTION to Logic.”

I must study more. And apologies to you, too, Clayton.