Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so those 10 workers should just take home the widgets produced each day and when the factory owner has them arrested for theft, you can defend them in court with your natural law defense.
Sounds like a winner.
Amazing how utterly ridiculous your arguments are. Go heat up another hot pocket and attack that keyboard with a vengeance.
funny, I was using the 10 workers as a context to explain the reasoning why having one person with dominate control with operational capacities is ridiculous.
But all you have are these cheap jokes and a desperate attempt to mitigate everything I say. Not surprising, just disappointing.
funny, I was using the 10 workers as a context to explain the reasoning why having one person with dominate control with operational capacities is ridiculous.
missed the mark, it sounds absolutely reasonable and commonplace. What's ridiculous is the notion that the 10 workers would own what belonged to their employer.
Use an analogy to demonstrate this: if you want to kill nazis, who would you want to kill the most, Hitler or a low level nazi soldier? It's true that bad things are all done by the soldiers, but who is behind all that? Of course the head of any operation plays a bigger role in outcomes.
The mistake here is that a.) you believe capitalism is voluntary and b.) you believe private property is based on natural law.
The reality is that natural law is based on personal property. The operation of a good is the basis of ownership. If 10 workers operate in a factory, they own those means. Conversely the capitalist ‘owner’ having a piece of paper verified by the state doesn’t make it so. In fact, without state violence, these concentrations of wealth could not be maintained by a few individuals.
If someone wanted to pay those workers to do as he says, then fine. But the ownership of those means lay in the hands of those who operate it, and the second workers do not wish to follow his orders is the second that arrangement ends.
When capital is owned by one source, that naturally limits the right of workers to band together because the tools of production are controlled by one source with state protection.
You don't know what I believe. In the real world, people can set up a company as a worker owned coop. Google King Arthur Flour coop.
If a person goes to XYZ company and applies for a job, they are voluntarily selling their labor for the agreed wages.
You don't know what I believe. In the real world, people can set up a company as a worker owned coop. Google King Arthur Flour coop.
If a person goes to XYZ company and applies for a job, they are voluntarily selling their labor for the agreed wages.
How is any of this false?
Because capital cannot be controlled by people who don't operate under it. If you allow state law to protect claims of ownership of all forms of capital by private power, then you just lead to corporate domination of the economy, and conversely, control over production to benefit themselves rather than the community.
Use an analogy to demonstrate this: if you want to kill nazis, who would you want to kill the most, Hitler or a low level nazi soldier? It's true that bad things are all done by the soldiers, but who is behind all that? Of course the head of any operation plays a bigger role in outcomes.
I'm not sure I understand your point.
If it is that the leaders are the ones with power and therefore should maintain that power, there are a few problems.
1.) The Nazis were a political machine that operated under a war. Production centers are not organized for a long term goal of domination, but the constant goal of production. It is a known variable that doesn't change the logic by which it exists, even when production capacities change
2.) Even in your own argument, Hitler derived his power from his armies and supporters. Without them he would have no excess power. Naturally it is logical to understand that the power the nazis had didn't come from above, but from horizontal cooperation among all fascist forces.
Because capital cannot be controlled by people who don't operate under it. If you allow state law to protect claims of ownership of all forms of capital by private power, then you just lead to corporate domination of the economy, and conversely, control over production to benefit themselves rather than the community.
None of what you wrote has anything to do with YOUR original question. You started a false discussion.
It seems you want to discuss whether personal property exists. That's an entirely different discussion.
By the way, is there some obligation that production benefits the community when the means of production are held privately?
Do you have a car? Are you obligated to drive your neighbors around?
None of what you wrote has anything to do with YOUR original question. You started a false discussion.
It seems you want to discuss whether personal property exists. That's an entirely different discussion.
By the way, is there some obligation that production benefits the community when the means of production are held privately?
Do you have a car? Are you obligated to drive your neighbors around?
My question was do executives deserve the output of the workers. The question wasn't a moral one, but a technical one. If the workers are producing the output, they should naturally control what happens to it.
There is no direct obligation but that should be the effect when demand is what forms supply (demand of the community). Sadly when you have corporate run businesses, they don't care what the people need, they formulate demand through marketing, product placement, monopolization of the supply chain/market place, and state intervention. When production is completed in excess, why should there be those that require something who should not receive it? In our private controlled state backed economy, we have a higher housing vacancy than we have a homeless population, the reason why is that exploitation is the basis of all trade in a personal profit driven economy with executives possessing more power than they operate with.
With respect, your analogy is not reflective of anything that I said, a car is your own personal property as you operate under it while production centers are cooperatively managed means that produce a good/service for the wider community.
Take it easy on the OP. This is probably a topic for a middle school social studies paper.
These are lies and deflections, but I will remain civil and respectful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
