Assertion. Prove it.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
you were the one that brought up rights i think,thus you are the one bringing the terms rights into the discussion. What i am saying may have nothing to do with rights.
Ok lets pretend that employers have somehow gained the right to mistreat there workers. I geuss some people are allowed to do whatever they want,but is right that workers are murdered or employed to work under poor conditons?
I think workers should be allowed to form unions and go on strike without having to worry about there employer getting involved. Even if the right to improve ones own conditons are not there,it does not mean that individual can not try to improve things.
What assertion do you want me to prove?
If it has nothing to do with rights, why bring the objection up? If one does not have a right not to be murdered, your objection rings hollow. Hence what I said. It is implicit in the very concepts you're availing yourself of. As for what I want you to prove click on "In reply to" in that post.
Lisa Hayes:Ok lets pretend that employers have somehow gained the right to mistreat there workers. I geuss some people are allowed to do whatever they want,but is right that workers are murdered or employed to work under poor conditons?
Depends. Did the workers consent to it?
Lisa Hayes: I think workers should be allowed to form unions and go on strike without having to worry about there employer getting involved. Even if the right to improve ones own conditons are not there,it does not mean that individual can not try to improve things.
Does that extend to the employer being able to hire better workers who aren't ingrates?
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Since when does anyone have the right to not be murdered? I Will concede that point. Perhaps rights are non-exsistent unless someone or a group makes them.
I would say that humanity has certain values. For example some people value life,and do not want to end it.
In any event i do not think you have answered my qeustion.
Since When does someone have the right to tell someone to get off my property with the threat of force.
Lisa Hayes:Who Is Willing to Defend the Robber Barons
DiLorenzo wrote an article specifically on that topic: http://mises.org/story/2317
<Did the workers consent to it?>
Not exactly. The workers may have agreed with the idea of working for someone,but they did disagree with the working conditions. Even if the workers did agree with what was in the contract it does not mean the worker can not attempt to change the contract if he or she suddenly disagrees.
In any event what makes you so sure that the employer will honour there end of the bargain. Who says that the employer has to honour his end of the bargain?
What gives you the right to defend your body against invasion? Precisely the same principle applies in the case of private property. Using force to repel others from using it in ways you do not consent to is perfectly legitimate, as it is self-defence. But again, can I just come to your room and do as I please? Or will you have me removed from the premises?
//DiLorenzo//
Why should i trust someone who has consistently made many errors in his writings?
in any event i am going to claim that you are making an appeal to authority.
<What gives you the right to defend your body against invasion?>
Just because i am able to do something does not make it so that i have the right to do so?
For example i may want to murder someone,but since when do i have the right to threaten or kill someone else?
Lisa Hayes:For example i may want to murder someone,but since when do i have the right to threaten or kill someone else?
Since when are you able to tell me that I can not threaten someone else?
Since when did you start refuting your own arguments?
You may do whatever you like,and do it as much as you want.
If you go around killing people or treating them poorly i would be pretty surprised if someone or a group of people did not come along in order to try and stop you.
Lisa Hayes:Since when does anyone have the right to not be murdered?
I was refering primarily to being "employed under poor conditions" but the same principle applies: if A consents to be killed by B, then yes, B may kill A (though legally I suppose this is not murder, but I never studied law).
Lisa Hayes:Perhaps rights are non-exsistent unless someone or a group makes them.
We at LvMI aren't too keen on such ideas.
Lisa Hayes: In any event i do not think you have answered my qeustion. Since When does someone have the right to tell someone to get off my property with the threat of force.
I answered well enough, as did BAAWA, Chase, and Jon.
JonBostwick:Since when are you able to tell me that I can not threaten someone else? Since when did you start refuting your own arguments?
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?
The conditions under which you work are under the control of the empolyer since the employer owns your workspace. Example, he owns the mill, he decides what it's like in there.
Lisa Hayes: <Did the workers consent to it?> Not exactly. The workers may have agreed with the idea of working for someone,but they did disagree with the working conditions.
Not exactly. The workers may have agreed with the idea of working for someone,but they did disagree with the working conditions.
This is praxeologically impossible. The fact that they signed on at all implies that they were willing to tolerate the working conditions (assuming they were made aware of them).
Lisa Hayes:Even if the workers did agree with what was in the contract it does not mean the worker can not attempt to change the contract if he or she suddenly disagrees.
Agreed, but the key word here is attempt, isn't it.
Lisa Hayes:In any event what makes you so sure that the employer will honour there end of the bargain.
If the employer does not uphold his end of the contract, then the worker contest it in court, just as with any other contract.
Anyway, I recommend that you read Block's Defending the Undefendable (on the literature page), especially the sixth and eighth sections.
I think the two sides on this debate have had a critical failure to communicate, or at least one side has been unable to listen to another.
to "workers rights challenger": Property rights are what is being discussed here, "mistreatment" of which you speak does not exist in the form that you try to use it. When workers are murdered for going on strike, I do believe this is an instance of rights violation, since individuals own their own bodies and can do with them as they wish. This is of course null if the workers are causing damage to legitimate property, they can and maybe should be "put down". However, from my understanding, this isn't what happened in many of these situations, not only were these workers not harming anyone, but they were attacked by the state. Philosophically consistanct libertarians see this as unjust.
You confuse rights-violation and mistreatment. Mistreatment is more along the lines of a baseless subjective standard, while rights are absolute and logical, and can usually be quite easily discerned in any given instance. Libertarians don't see sucky working conditions as a rights violation, and they see mistreatment as irrelevent to the issue of enforcability, although they may find it personally atrocious, they understand that since it isn't an explicit rights violation, one cannot act with just force to "correct" it.
Hi Lisa and everyone else. I haven't been following this thread very closely, but the "robber baron defenders" might want to read Elizabeth Anderson's thought-provoking essay, "Values, Risks, and Market Norms." Lisa, you might be interested in Section 2 of Ludwig von Mises' book, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality.
Ultimately, I think it's clear that workers can be mistreated in certain conditions, and it can be difficult for them to negotiate for what they deserve. Finding a new, better job can be difficult or impossible, especially if one is unable to absorb the transactions costs associated with moving between jobs. Accordingly, even if the market does provide better jobs, employees can still get "stuck" in unfair working conditions.
Further, it's also possible that a culture of disrespect for employees, coupled with barriers to entry or transactions costs associated with starting up a company, can mean that the jobs available on the market do not offer compensation with a market value effectively equivalent to the marginal product of labor. Where workers are being treated poorly, or worse than they may deserve, there is an entrepreneurship opportunity for anyone who can attract those workers with better terms of employment. As a result, the market system is characterized by a constant upward pressure on wages as new firms attempt to enter markets and attract the best employees away from their current underpaying jobs. But of course, the existence of an incentive is not the same thing as a solution. The nature of the market structure leads us to expect that wages will be bid up as economic productivity and efficiency increases, but that doesn't mean that wages will reflect the marginal product of labor as a law of nature. In fact, the existence of transaction costs gives us every reason to expect that this will not be so.
At the end of the day, however, it's unclear that there is a remedy to this problem which can be found through centralized State coercion. Wage setting policies are subject to all of the same hurdles that are faced by price setting policies of any kind, and inevitably produce distortions and perverse incentives somewhere down the line. If there's any role for collective action (not necessarily government action, of course), it might be in trying to lower the transaction costs for employees who would be better served in another line of work to switch jobs, in informing workers about the other options available to them in the marketplace, or in researching ways that businesses can economically improve their employees' working conditions. None of these policies would necessarily be coercive in nature, and they could be perfectly in line with libertarian ideals (assuming, of course, that they were not funded through taxation, but that's another discussion).
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Donny with an A: Hi Lisa and everyone else. I haven't been following this thread very closely, but the "robber baron defenders" might want to read Elizabeth Anderson's thought-provoking essay, "Values, Risks, and Market Norms." Lisa, you might be interested in Section 2 of Ludwig von Mises' book, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. Ultimately, I think it's clear that workers can be mistreated in certain conditions, and it can be difficult for them to negotiate for what they deserve. Finding a new, better job can be difficult or impossible, especially if one is unable to absorb the transactions costs associated with moving between jobs. Accordingly, even if the market does provide better jobs, employees can still get "stuck" in unfair working conditions. Further, it's also possible that a culture of disrespect for employees, coupled with barriers to entry or transactions costs associated with starting up a company, can mean that the jobs available on the market do not offer compensation with a market value effectively equivalent to the marginal product of labor. Where workers are being treated poorly, or worse than they may deserve, there is an entrepreneurship opportunity for anyone who can attract those workers with better terms of employment. As a result, the market system is characterized by a constant upward pressure on wages as new firms attempt to enter markets and attract the best employees away from their current underpaying jobs. But of course, the existence of an incentive is not the same thing as a solution. The nature of the market structure leads us to expect that wages will be bid up as economic productivity and efficiency increases, but that doesn't mean that wages will reflect the marginal product of labor as a law of nature. In fact, the existence of transaction costs gives us every reason to expect that this will not be so. At the end of the day, however, it's unclear that there is a remedy to this problem which can be found through centralized State coercion. Wage setting policies are subject to all of the same hurdles that are faced by price setting policies of any kind, and inevitably produce distortions and perverse incentives somewhere down the line. If there's any role for collective action (not necessarily government action, of course), it might be in trying to lower the transaction costs for employees who would be better served in another line of work to switch jobs, in informing workers about the other options available to them in the marketplace, or in researching ways that businesses can economically improve their employees' working conditions. None of these policies would necessarily be coercive in nature, and they could be perfectly in line with libertarian ideals (assuming, of course, that they were not funded through taxation, but that's another discussion).
Have to say you put it better than I did.
lol
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap