We were discussing this in History class today, and I have to say that it somewhat shook my belief in free markets. Besides the abysmal conditions in inner cities(orphaned children everywhere, dead horses and raw sewage in the street, racial violence, etc.), the working conditions were awful. One case in particular stands out: The Triangle Shirtwaist Co. I'm sure many of you have heard of it. The workforce was mainly populated by young teenage girls. Before the incident happened, the ladies went on strike for 13 weeks, but actually ended up getting a pay CUT because the owners of the company sent out thugs to beat the shit out of the woman to get them to come back to work.
In a free society, what would stop the owners from doing this? The woman were without pay for 13 weeks so obviously could not pay for security.
The women worked 60-72 hours a week for around 6-7 dollars. On the infamous day, a fire broke out with piles of flammable fabric littering the ground. The woman ran for the doors to find that they were locked in from the outside. They tried to climb down the fire escape but it collapsed. Eventually 62 women leapt from the 8th story to their death to avoid the fire.
Now, at this point, I'm thinking, "Well, the government, like the free market, is reactive. The free market would react and fix this problem, just like the government." But, weeks after the fire, when Triangle reopened, fire inspectors found sewing machines stacked in front of the fire exits.
Any thoughts on this?
Economic progress and competition would allow workers to choose between different workplaces, so then every employer will have to offer better working conditions.About the incident of the thugs, the girls would legally demand the employer.
Do you want to force these young women and teenage girls to starve because unions and government raise the cost of hiring for businesses?
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
First of all, I really doubt your history class utilized those statistics as anything other than a justification of the progressive politics that "solved" those "issues". Second of all, life is not all chocalate and daisies, there is suffering, there is pestilence, there is avoidable deaths, and no system can truly solve all of the problems of the world. In fact, it is thanks to capitalism, and free-enterprise that such tragedies have been eliminated from the world as much asd they have. Also, the government likes to claim responcibility for banning things like child labor, increasing working conditions, ect.; however, most of these laws were passed when the free-market had already done it.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
The bad conditions in the inner cities weren't the result of the market but the government, so that shouldn't shake your faith in the free market.
I think people fall into the trap of chasing utopia when talking about their beliefs. The way I see it is this: If the Triangle Shirtwaist incident was one of the worst incidents due to no regulation or under regulation* in history, then how can you not side with free markets? Look at all the deaths caused by government action to prevent people from smoking marijuana, or the four people killed two months ago when a government plane slammed into a house in San Diego, or the young man executed on the train platform by BART. This isn't even getting into the wars and genocides. I'll take my chances with the all the Rockefellers and Carnegies in the world to prevent the possibility that someday somebody in my blood line will live under a Stalin or Mao.
People may say "some regulation" but the problem with some regulation is that it undoubtedly leads to more, which leads to more, then more...Just ask those proponents of regulation "where does it stop and who stops it?" and the follow up "is a legislator's work ever done?"
___________________
* I don't know what sort of regulation was in place before nor do I know if inspections were carried out at all or properly if there were any.
As for beating any employee or anyone else. The employee or anyone else has legal recourse to demand FULL restitution. This is lacking in the civil justice system today. If we had a real private justice system then arbitrators would decide the merits of the claim. The employer or the insurer would lose money as they would be ultimately responsible for the claim of the victim.
As for the fire, Jesse Jackson has friends who owned a night club that had a locked door and several folks were killed. This happened despite all the government goodness we have today. Oh yeah, these folks who owned the club did not have to pay full restitution either.
As for working conditions, people worked in factories because they choose to so and employers hire people because they choose to do so. Unions and government force only make it worse for the people as they make it more expensive for the employers to hire people. Because the workers choose to work at the factory can only mean one thing: The are more satisfied working at the factory than someplace else.
Because in a voluntary world people are free to sell labor as people are free to buy it, the better course of action by government is to not do anything except maintain individual rights to life, liberty and happiness/contract/property and let free individuals manage their own lives.
None of us where there to say or not say anything about it.
Would you say we dont need police to patrol the streets, control traffic and suff like that???
If you do..........you are nuts. Without police patrolling and watching streets nobody would there to drive.
Govt is just authority for the players.................govt mess things up when it becomes a player.
Thank you.
Luna:Govt is just authority for the players.................govt mess things up when it becomes a player.
There is no way to seperate the two. The "authority" is a player as well.
Something sounds missing from the story. The girls were able to strike for 13 weeks? Thats a really long time, we need more background on this event.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
ok now the fact that your missing here is that the reason the women went on strike for so long was because they were backed by charities. It was 146 that died all together in the fire. Men back then had a minimum wage where as women didnt. Free trade is like communism it looks great on paper but in practice it totally sucks for a large amount of people. In this time period you had men like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie come to power and it was they that ran this country not the government. One bad apple spoils the bunch that is why things like free trade that rely on the honesty system never work. Now do i approve of the government becoming a major player no. I believe that there should be some guidlines like working conditions and hours, pay, etc. But on all other things let the businesses have there way. Balance is the key .
p.s. theres a link you can go to
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/
texanhottie:In this time period you had men like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie come to power and it was they that ran this country not the government.
And who do you think runs the government now? lol
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
texanhottie:Free trade is like communism it looks great on paper but in practice it totally sucks for a large amount of people.
Communism looks bad on paper. Free trade does not. To oppose free trade, is to oppose freedom. I hope you hang out here long enough to get the Austrian perspective on this. We're big on social justice, we just understand that it doesn't come from coercive government.
oh well who ever has the highest contributions of course but at least these men have some guidlines and arent allowed to get away with murdering 146 teenage girls and young women with nothing but a slap on the wrist
and that was just a little piece of info everyone was missing bc that one dude said that they were missing some info
texanhottie: ok now the fact that your missing here is that the reason the women went on strike for so long was because they were backed by charities. It was 146 that died all together in the fire. Men back then had a minimum wage where as women didnt. Free trade is like communism it looks great on paper but in practice it totally sucks for a large amount of people. In this time period you had men like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie come to power and it was they that ran this country not the government. One bad apple spoils the bunch that is why things like free trade that rely on the honesty system never work. Now do i approve of the government becoming a major player no. I believe that there should be some guidlines like working conditions and hours, pay, etc. But on all other things let the businesses have there way. Balance is the key . p.s. theres a link you can go to http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/
And who were these charitable beings? Couldn't have been the capitalists, because they were greedy. Coulnd't have been the workers of world, they were poor.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
they were middle to upper class women who had sensitive dispostions and nothing better to do with there time than to find a cause and run with it
texanhottie: they were middle to upper class women who had sensitive dispostions and nothing better to do with there time than to find a cause and run with it
So they were charitable, because they were enabled by capitalism.
So they weren't the government.
yes they were able to do this through capatalism and no they werent the government but these women didn't even make a dent in the laissez faire machine it was the government that ultimately shut these practices down these charities that supported these women didnt gain anything in the walk out except to lose money because the women went back to work with pay cuts. so in short the charities didnt really do a damn thing except bring the problems to the fore front it was the government that fixed them. and now dont get me wrong im not a democrat im republican and i believe that in this day and time where america is at we can have a laissez faire economy because we are a service economy and we are a stronger more developed nation than we were back in the 1900's back then we were not an economic power so we did not fair so well in a capitalistic society but now that we are more serviced oriented i say go for it. the only problem is is that our government now sees it fit to take over companies that aren't doing "so well" and i say let them collapse and crumble they should have made a better product. but do i believe in capitalism now yes for back then no.
America has never had a laissez-faire economy. You misunderstand the problem with the relationships between these women, and their employers.
Where the employers used force, or the threat of force they were engaging in immoral behaviour. But where the women choose to go to work each day, then their conditions could only be alleviated by
(1) taking a better job somewhere else
or
(2) competing directly against the people gave them jobs.
The corporatist system, prevents people from freely competing (as in #2), and thus, the women had limited options.
The government has always been complicit with big business, and special interests, then and now.
Government cannot solve problems, it is the problem.
nibbler491:Before the incident happened, the ladies went on strike for 13 weeks, but actually ended up getting a pay CUT because the owners of the company sent out thugs to beat the shit out of the woman to get them to come back to work.
Free society version:
- the owners send out thugs to beat the sh!t out of the women to get them to come back to work,
- the workers sell their claim on restitution for the violence to a justice investor,
- a private judge orders a compensatory payment, agreed to by the owner's insurance company in order to avoid negative reputational effects, which bankrupts the owners,
- the justice investor gets a sweet return,
- the women get nice sums also, and get new jobs in a world in which business owners know there will be no coercive government to backstop or any tacitly approve such abusive actions
texanhottie:One bad apple spoils the bunch that is why things like free trade that rely on the honesty system never work.
Free trade doesn't rely on honesty at all, it just requires that actors aren't shielded from the cost of their actions. This tends to encourage, but not guarantee, honest transactions. The lack of major overhauls to the risk budgets of banks following the recent economic meltdown shows what happens when there is a dearth of such organic accountability.
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