4 ms·

I think the best example of this is Uber. Uber connects riders and drivers, and theoretically doesn't really do "labor". However, without the middleman, neith

by mises 8y ago

I think the best example of this is Uber. Uber connects riders and drivers, and theoretically doesn't really do "labor". However, without the middleman, neither would likely be connected. I'd say most companies are similar. Yes, the worker does a lot. Without the company, it's unlikely one guy manufacturing something could find as many customers, if any. Finally, not everything can be done on an individual scale: the iPhone can't be built by one man. Also, what do you mean by dictatorships? You can leave any time you want to. The job market is amazing for a worker right now. The workers get their compensation in the form of benefits, wages, etc. There are companies that are run as co-ops: see REI. Most employees love it their, according to a friend who worked their for a while. If you want to work there, that's fine. If you want to work at a company with stock options, that's fine. But don't try to use the club of government to change an existing for-profit, shareholder-controlled company into what you want it to be, just because you want it. That's authoritarianism.

hellisothers 8y ago
And this is a straw man, we’re talking about labor unions not Marxism.
- mises 8y ago
  No, we're talking about workers pushing for increased control of the means of production. That's definitionally a discussion of Marxism, even if it's people pushing for it gradually.
scarmig 8y ago
A country with a right of exit can still be quite authoritarian, just as an organization that you can leave can be as well. What's authoritarian is the structure: owners and especially managers nowadays controlling priorities and work rules, as opposed to the people actually doing the labor in companies. I'd generally opt for all those parties collaborating in decision making. > don't try to use the club of government to change an existing for-profit, shareholder-controlled company into what you want it to be, just because you want it. Do you think existing corporate management structures don't rely on state violence to maintain themselves? If a bunch of workers enacted control over their workplace, do you think shareholders would be the ones coming in and cracking heads, or government agents? You're simply defining your narrow conception of property rights and economic organization to be the Right and Natural Way for Things to Be, and you choose to not see the club of government used to enforce it.
- mises 8y ago
  > owners and especially managers nowadays controlling priorities and work rules So? I do think some people have bad practices. Non-competes, for instance, are often abused. But you can still leave... > existing corporate management structures... rely on state violence to maintain themselves... If a bunch of workers enacted control over their workplace Yes, if there was a workers uprising, I would darn well hope the police would come in and crack heads. You don't get to "enact control" over other people's stuff (including their company). But I do think that crony capitalism is cancer, see Amazon's recent $15/hr push to force competitors out of business. > You're simply defining your narrow conception of property rights and economic organization to be the Right and Natural Way for Things to Be, and you choose to not see the club of government used to enforce it. You're absolutely right that property rights are the Right and Natural Way for things to Be. If you don't agree, read about the tragedy of the commons. And look at the 100s of millions communism has killed. We live in a nation founded on the basis of property rights. One of the most basic functions of our government is to enforce property rights. It's impossible to run a civilization on our scale without it. If you really don't like America and the way she's run, you could leave. And the idea that you can have my stuff just because you want it is plain wrong.
  - scarmig 8y ago
    > We live in a nation founded on the basis of property rights. Assuming you live in the United States, do you mean the right to enslave people and take their labor? Or the right to kill people and take their land?
    - mises 8y ago
      Care to clarify? I was never alive at either of those times, nor were my predecessors (all immigrated legally after that). I and my family have fairly earned what we have. I agree there were past issues, but socialism/communism is worse in that it keeps taking every year after. And none of what you mentioned is a free market.
      - 8y ago

by mises 8y ago

hellisothers 8y ago

And this is a straw man, we’re talking about labor unions not Marxism.

mises 8y ago
No, we're talking about workers pushing for increased control of the means of production. That's definitionally a discussion of Marxism, even if it's people pushing for it gradually.

scarmig 8y ago

A country with a right of exit can still be quite authoritarian, just as an organization that you can leave can be as well. What's authoritarian is the structure: owners and especially managers nowadays controlling priorities and work rules, as opposed to the people actually doing the labor in companies. I'd generally opt for all those parties collaborating in decision making. > don't try to use the club of government to change an existing for-profit, shareholder-controlled company into what you want it to be, just because you want it. Do you think existing corporate management structures don't rely on state violence to maintain themselves? If a bunch of workers enacted control over their workplace, do you think shareholders would be the ones coming in and cracking heads, or government agents? You're simply defining your narrow conception of property rights and economic organization to be the Right and Natural Way for Things to Be, and you choose to not see the club of government used to enforce it.

mises 8y ago
> owners and especially managers nowadays controlling priorities and work rules So? I do think some people have bad practices. Non-competes, for instance, are often abused. But you can still leave... > existing corporate management structures... rely on state violence to maintain themselves... If a bunch of workers enacted control over their workplace Yes, if there was a workers uprising, I would darn well hope the police would come in and crack heads. You don't get to "enact control" over other people's stuff (including their company). But I do think that crony capitalism is cancer, see Amazon's recent $15/hr push to force competitors out of business. > You're simply defining your narrow conception of property rights and economic organization to be the Right and Natural Way for Things to Be, and you choose to not see the club of government used to enforce it. You're absolutely right that property rights are the Right and Natural Way for things to Be. If you don't agree, read about the tragedy of the commons. And look at the 100s of millions communism has killed. We live in a nation founded on the basis of property rights. One of the most basic functions of our government is to enforce property rights. It's impossible to run a civilization on our scale without it. If you really don't like America and the way she's run, you could leave. And the idea that you can have my stuff just because you want it is plain wrong.
- scarmig 8y ago
  > We live in a nation founded on the basis of property rights. Assuming you live in the United States, do you mean the right to enslave people and take their labor? Or the right to kill people and take their land?
  - mises 8y ago
    Care to clarify? I was never alive at either of those times, nor were my predecessors (all immigrated legally after that). I and my family have fairly earned what we have. I agree there were past issues, but socialism/communism is worse in that it keeps taking every year after. And none of what you mentioned is a free market.
    - 8y ago