waas
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 2,432
- Reaction score
- 451
- Location
- Riding a tapir
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Are you a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?
Are you a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?
Are you a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?
Are you a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?
Waas and I had been talking about it in another thread, so he made this thread and the question intentionally ambiguous because he wanted to try to catch me in a logical contradiction, which so far hasn't worked.Gonna have to be a little more specific...
As long as that power isn't protected by the government, then yes. In most cases today you'll find big business is using the government as their muscle to protect their power. In a truly free market, an employee makes a voluntary contract with an employer, and no work will take place until both parties are happy with the terms of the deal.
I see, so as long as it's not the government infringing upon liberty, you're okay with it.
And a market like the one you describes does not exist. In reality, competition for jobs exists, and due to the need to sustain yourself, workers will take any position that helps them earns them a salary.
A company without the power of government coercion can not infringe on liberty. People have a right to enter into voluntary contracts for work. How can one voluntarily have one's rights infringed?
I'm sorry, but that's a rather narrow definition of freedom. Just because I voluntarily sign an employment contract, it is not an indication that I possess liberty or that I am free in a broader sense of the word. It may simply be an indication that I chose the best option out of a menu of horrible options.
A company without the power of government coercion can not infringe on liberty. People have a right to enter into voluntary contracts for work. How can one voluntarily have one's rights infringed?
Sure, the employees have the liberty to walk away.
Are you simply illiterate? I explained to you that the need to generate income forces an employee to choose between unsavory employment options. And before you go on the expected tangent: No, when there're plenty of workers available, employers won't be forced to raise their offered wages to compete; inversely, employers with high offered wages will lower them to compete with institutions paying less.
And what happens if they walk away? Starve, or find another job.
And what happens if they walk away? Starve, or find another job.
Isn't the freedom advocated by libertarianism defined in relation to government?Are you [still] a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?
Are you [still] a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?
I'm sorry, but that's a rather narrow definition of freedom. Just because I voluntarily sign an employment contract, it is not an indication that I possess liberty or that I am free in a broader sense of the word. It may simply be an indication that I chose the best option out of a menu of horrible options.
Oh, I'm plenty literate, I just don't buy into the bull**** that you're pushing. Any individual company isn't responsible for the macroeconomic health of our country. I would say the government is far more responsible for the situation we're in. I know that you know big business and our politicians are in bed with each other. Your solution however is to give these horribly corrupt politicians MORE power.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Name any government in history where the leaders have had excessive power, and you'll find a pretty ****ty situation. We need to destroy the relationship our politicians have with business. It's a disease.
So in your mind, the poverty and massive unemployment in our country stems from Kinkos, or Mom and Pop's Printing Shop and not other factors?
Not the problem of the business owner just so long as someone takes their place. Shocking that nobody is entitled to me hiring them or keeping them isn't it? Bring back slavery or indentured servitude and you would have a moral argument, otherwise, your worker's wants do not exceed my needs.
Interesting. To you, the exploitation of workers and the widening of the gap between rich and poor is fine, provided the label slavery is absent.
No that is your one-sided world view speaking, not me. If the government forced you to spend money at my business whether your needed the goods or services or not, then equity would dictate that the government would have greater say in how I do business as part of that exchange. If you are not forced to do business with me, then it is none of your business what my relationship with my employees are. I haven't had anybody jump on the underground railroad and they still give me something for Massa's Day, so my down-trodden slaves must be content.
Did I ever say that? First, you're only barely touching upon the quoted post. I believe that economic problems stem from the divide between the creators of wealth and the upper class.
How sad. You really think I'm addressing your business specifically.
The government not intervening in certain practices opens the door for abuse, something our country has a long history of. I'm not saying it happens at your place of business specifically, but using yourself to characterize the country as a whole is ridiculous.
Seems like a bigger problem is that you can't differentiate between those who create goods and those who create wealth.
Guess which one is easier to do...which is directly related to their relative value to society and scarcity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?