If we’re going to say that capitalist entrepreneurs are necessary to take on risk, then why not say the state is necessary to take on risk? If workers prefer the security of wage labor, then why wouldn’t businesses prefer the security of living under a state that can bail them out, protect their property, etc.?
The state only “takes on risk” as much as it spreads it around.
I’d prefer the extortion of my fellow citizens to get some start-up capital for my business. Where does that leave me?
Mutualism, unlike anarcho-capitalism is not strictly voluntary, because it places restrictions on how people Mutualism, unlike anarcho-capitalism is not strictly voluntary, because it places restrictions on how people can willfully organize themselves. Businesses should be able to choose to be businesses and consumers should be able to choose to be consumers. With out a division of labor society can never move forward.
Two words: Capital Theory
The simple answer is that if one combined mutualism and anarcho-capitalism one would have an optimal system, however, with this being said mutualism puts far more restraints upon action and most importantly the profit and loss calculation mechanism of the market system. It is more chaotic and less tuned into actual demand.
The only thing that I know about mutualism is the occupancy ownership deal. Obviously it would change incentives. But, it seems to at least qualify as a solution to conflict. I haven’t seen a specific argument to that.
The state only “takes on risk” as much as it spreads it around.
I’d prefer the extortion of my fellow citizens to get some start-up capital for my business. Where does that leave me?
The state funds a lot of R&D. Isn’t this the role of an entrepreneur? And when a business fails, it’s usually the employees that suffer the most. So capitalist entrepreneurs spread around risk just as well.
They suffer mainly from the stupid expectation that a hire position is forever and that all choices of career are equal. That is part of the pathological mentality of the rat racer.
The entrepreneur can calculate. The state “funds” R&D only to the extent that it extorts these funds from its citizens.
What? The risk is taken on (voluntarily) by the employees. But when a business is guaranteed a bailout by the state, the specific risk of starting the business is being spread from those who voluntarily took on the risk to those who didn’t.
They suffer mainly from the stupid expectation that a hire position is forever and that all choices of career are equal. That is part of the pathological mentality of the rat racer.
Huh? I don’t think my job is forever, but that doesn’t mean I won’t suffer if my company goes under.
The entrepreneur can calculate. The state “funds” R&D only to the extent that it extorts these funds from its citizens.
A business “funds” R&D only to the extent that it extorts work from its employees.
What? The risk is taken on (voluntarily) by the employees. But when a business is guaranteed a bailout by the state, the specific risk of starting the business is being spread from those who voluntarily took on the risk to those who didn’t.
I don’t voluntarily consent to the decisions my company makes anymore than I do the decisions my government makes.
You’re a fool idiot , but if I must:
A business doesn’t “extort” its workers; the business and worker (presumably) have a mutual employment agreement. It’s a voluntary relationship.
Whether you aknowledge it or not, you’re taking on the risk of the business failing (and therefore, of losing your job) when you agree to be employed by it. This is very different than being liable for the failure of a company which you have no contractual relation to.
I agreed to move to the city I currently live in. Does that mean the city taxes I pay aren’t extortion?
Oh, and I prefer fool.
The “city”, certain individuals wearing funny uniforms, are not the rightful owners of the city are they now? So yes, those taxes are extortion.
Then the people wearing funny suits aren’t the rightful owners of my company either.
@Fool on the Hill:
“The risk is taken on (voluntarily) by the employees.”
Wait a minute, wait a fuckin minute. So now capitalists aren’t even the risk takers? So people work for wages and take on all the risks? Capitalists are looking more useless every day.
“But when a business is guaranteed a bailout by the state, the specific risk of starting the business is being spread from those who voluntarily took on the risk to those who didn’t.”
And the capitalists aren’t included in those who took on the risk? They are the ones getting bailed out. They are the ones who get their investment returned either way. And they really don’t seem to mind. Nor do the seem to share that guarantee with their employees.
Take on “all the risk”? I don’t think I said that, and I surely didn’t mean to if I did. Employees take on risk, but they are risks different from that of the capitalist, and I think most would say they take on an inferor risk (but this might be subjective).
I think the Misesian distinction is that the wage-earner doesn’t risk capital, and gets paid in relatively more predictable terms (“x” amount a week, for instance), but I’m not sure. I remember something about capitalists foregoing immediate income as well, but once again, I could be mistaken.
Huh? The risk taken on by the capitalist is spread among the taxpayer in the situation described (guaranteed government bailout).