Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

The workers aren't slaves, they are getting paid

Slaves are paid by their owner in kind. Also slaves could save money and "buy their freedom" from ancient to modern times. Doesn't change the fact that slavery is illegitimate.

and I assume that they weren't coerced into taking the job.

There are three types of slaves- by birth, by being taken as a PoW, and by selling oneself. Third one is voluntary. Doesn't change the fact that the self (body and it's actions) are inalienable (making slavery, serfhood and employment illegitimate).

which automatically makes the working class hate the people who were able to rise up through hard work.

Or through inheritance. Even if it's hard work, I don't see how my hard work makes your ownership of self alienable.

Papirius, you believe that the self is inalienable, I agree with this. You further believe that selling oneself into slavery is illegitimate, which I always found odd, allow me to explain why. (The oddity is in describing employment as "selling" oneself.) If I own myself, you own yourself, then we should be able to do whatever we like with ourselves, for if we couldn't then we wouldn't truly own ourselves. If you own a car, which you no longer want, and no one wants to buy it, then you should be able to destroy the car if you so desired. Granted a car doesn't have the same "owned" status as your body. But if a person wishes to commit suicide, seeing as how they own their self, they should be allowed to kill themselves, even if we personally believe they are wrong, we have no right to tell them they can't, because they own themselves. Claiming a person can't kill themself, would be akin to saying the person doesn't own theirself, resulting in a contradiction, since all people own themselves.

Bob wants to "sell" his self into slavery, his brother doesn't approve, and he stops Bob from doing so. Jeff, Bob's brother, doesn't care what Bob wants, he firmly believes that Bob will be making a terrible mistake. Bob may actually be making a mistake, just like a person who commits suicide, but stopping Bob from doing what he wants violates Bob's self-ownership. Bob, owning himself, has the right to choose to do whatever he likes, whether others approve or not. Slavery, the kind found in Ancient Greece, Rome, and in America's early years, obfuscates a important point. Bob, having chosen to "sell" himself into slavery, can't surrender complete control over himself, Bob still has control over his body, even if he's doing what his master wants. In a way Bob never sold himself, it is more like rent than selling, when it comes to one's body, because one can never surrender complete control over oneself. Just like a rent contract, it can be terminated, the master can't force Bob to stay in the arrangement, doing so will be violating the NAP. Thinking about it in terms of rent, you can see how the same applies to employment, you aren't "selling" yourself, you are renting yourself out, and can terminate the rent arrangement at any time. (Note: If the person has paid you up front and you later chose not to fulfill the agreement, you would need to first pay back any cash you were paid, however.)

You may further consider "renting" yourself out illegitimate, but again, it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the person choosing to "rent" himself out thinks. If he chooses to "rent" himself out in the form of employment, he has every right to do so, we can't stop him, I'd even go so far as to say he can't pass moral judgement on him, in that his actions are only affecting himself and no one else, seeing as how he owns himself it his his right to do whatever he likes with himself just as he is free to do whatever he likes with his car. It would be absurd to say that Bob can't destroy or damage his own car after all. (We can say it would be unwise but that's all that can be said on the matter.)

I hope this has cleared this issue up.

Serpentis-Lucis:

Papirius, you believe that the self is inalienable, I agree with this. You further believe that selling oneself into slavery is illegitimate, which I always found odd, allow me to explain why. (The oddity is in describing employment as "selling" oneself.) If I own myself, you own yourself, then we should be able to do whatever we like with ourselves, for if we couldn't then we wouldn't truly own ourselves. If you own a car, which you no longer want, and no one wants to buy it, then you should be able to destroy the car if you so desired. Granted a car doesn't have the same "owned" status as your body. But if a person wishes to commit suicide, seeing as how they own their self, they should be allowed to kill themselves, even if we personally believe they are wrong, we have no right to tell them they can't, because they own themselves. Claiming a person can't kill themself, would be akin to saying the person doesn't own theirself, resulting in a contradiction, since all people own themselves.

Bob wants to "sell" his self into slavery, his brother doesn't approve, and he stops Bob from doing so. Jeff, Bob's brother, doesn't care what Bob wants, he firmly believes that Bob will be making a terrible mistake. Bob may actually be making a mistake, just like a person who commits suicide, but stopping Bob from doing what he wants violates Bob's self-ownership. Bob, owning himself, has the right to choose to do whatever he likes, whether others approve or not. Slavery, the kind found in Ancient Greece, Rome, and in America's early years, obfuscates a important point. Bob, having chosen to "sell" himself into slavery, can't surrender complete control over himself, Bob still has control over his body, even if he's doing what his master wants. In a way Bob never sold himself, it is more like rent than selling, when it comes to one's body, because one can never surrender complete control over oneself. Just like a rent contract, it can be terminated, the master can't force Bob to stay in the arrangement, doing so will be violating the NAP. Thinking about it in terms of rent, you can see how the same applies to employment, you aren't "selling" yourself, you are renting yourself out, and can terminate the rent arrangement at any time. (Note: If the person has paid you up front and you later chose not to fulfill the agreement, you would need to first pay back any cash you were paid, however.)

You may further consider "renting" yourself out illegitimate, but again, it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the person choosing to "rent" himself out thinks. If he chooses to "rent" himself out in the form of employment, he has every right to do so, we can't stop him, I'd even go so far as to say he can't pass moral judgement on him, in that his actions are only affecting himself and no one else, seeing as how he owns himself it his his right to do whatever he likes with himself just as he is free to do whatever he likes with his car. It would be absurd to say that Bob can't destroy or damage his own car after all. (We can say it would be unwise but that's all that can be said on the matter.)

I hope this has cleared this issue up.

*eyeroll*

How many times.  Do I need to make a meta-thread just for this single topic alone?

See here.  And here.  And here.  And ultimately here.

 

If I own myself, you own yourself, then we should be able to do whatever we like with ourselves, for if we couldn't then we wouldn't truly own ourselves.

This starting premise of yours is a contradictory line of reasoning because self-ownership is an axiom. How is it contradictory? Because the rejection (in practice selling or renting) of  self-ownership is being justified by self-ownership, and if you reject self-ownership you have rejection the very justification for your rejection, making the situation contradictory. With property of external things this is not the case, because it follows from ownership of labor, which is a part of self and thus falls under self-ownership, but because self-ownership is an axiom, it is not based on something more fundamental then it, but is itself the base and the fundament, and it has to be inalienable because if you reject or deny it in any way, it collapses in itself leaving nothing. As I said a few times on this forum- rejecting or denying an axiom is neither applying nor confirming it, to say otherwise is a most obvious contradiction.

Fine, self-ownership is a axiom, so what? If I can't do what I want with myself (like being employed) then why bother to call it self-"ownership"? You need to break it down, showing me how the self-ownership axiom some how makes it morally impossible, because in your above post you seem to ignore a very basic fact, that if I own myself which I do, no other person can tell me I am morally wrong to engage in employment. (Reason being because I own myself and am free to do whatever I want with myself.) What your doing is basically saying no matter what I want, I can't work for someone, morally speaking, yet I still somehow "own" myself. That's like a parent that tells their child, "You're your own person", then tells them they can't do X, because they don't approve, but offer a fancy excuse as to why.

(FYI: My post never denied self-ownership. I gave you a choice, either self-ownership is indeed a axiom, in which case I can do what I want, including "renting" myself out, or I don't actually "own" myself. It was meant to show how you can't hold self-ownership as a axiom and at the same time say a person can't do something with his body or his labor, and how it is contradictory to make both claims at the same time.)

Reason being because I own myself and am free to do whatever I want with myself.

Except not own yourself. Because that would invalidate your justification form being free to do whatever you want.

That's like a parent that tells their child, "You're your own person", then tells them they can't do X, because they don't approve, but offer a fancy excuse as to why.

No, that's like a parent telling their child "you're your own person" an then tells them- "therefore, you can't be anyone other's person".

I gave you a choice, either self-ownership is indeed a axiom, in which case I can do what I want, including "renting" myself out, or I don't actually "own" myself.

That is a choice between 1) self-ownership being a axiom that is self-contradictory (meaning then that it's not an axiom) and 2) self-ownership not being an axiom. Tough choice.

It was meant to show how you can't hold self-ownership as a axiom and at the same time say a person can't do something with his body or his labor

And my writing meant to show how you can't hold self-ownership as an axiom and at the same not hold it as an axiom.

When you justify rejection (in practice selling or renting) of self-ownership by self-ownership, and in rejecting self-ownership you have rejected the very justification for your rejection, making the situation contradictory, therefore- self-ownership is inalienable.

Except not own yourself. Because that would invalidate your justification form being free to do whatever you want.

why? Is it because I might violate my ownership rights over myself, and then have a claim against myself that would cause me, myself, and I to have a three-way dispute?

why?

You cannot justify rejection of self-ownership by that self-ownership. If you reject it, there's no justification for the rejection so you can't actually reject it. So you if can reject, you can't. That's called a contradiction and implies that you just can't reject self-ownership.

There are three types of slaves- by birth, by being taken as a PoW, and by selling oneself. Third one is voluntary. Doesn't change the fact that the self (body and it's actions) are inalienable (making slavery, serfhood and employment illegitimate).

Is farming or hunting illegitimate? (That is, the immediate action required to at a later time satisfy your hunger)

John James, do you honestly believe that your comment was a positive contribution to the question at hand?

If any of us knew everything we wouldn't come to mises to discuss things and search for truth. 

Clearly your definition of "boss" is "business owner" and that does not reflect what many people are experiencing in medium-large businesses. 

The owner/CEO is the boss, but most people are working under managers who are being paid in full and who might actually be worthless/lazy. 

Kylio, I hope that we can find an economic/societal model that is just and plausible.

kylio27:

It's about how the market works. Capitalism is exploitation of people, in the same way statism is.

Exploitation requires an element of coercion.

Markets have no coercion.

Thus, capitalism cannot be exploitative, by definition.

Now, if you have governments colluding with businesses, and businesses using the law to capture markets, then you have the mixed economy where everything changes and you may be right in your assessment--especially in poorer parts of the world. But, a liebrtarian system where law could not be captured by business would not be exploitative at all.

Is farming or hunting illegitimate?

which has nothing to do with the topic.

Exploitation requires an element of coercion.

Fraud doesn't entail coercion. Capitalists defraud workers of the product of their labor by laying to them that it's legitimate to alienate themselves (concretely, their labor) which is what happens in employment.

kylio27:

The boss hardly does anything while his workers sweat for him. He makes the highest profit. How is that fair?

First of all, both enter into the agreement voluntarily. So, morally it's fair. There's no fraud going on. Both are benefitting from the employment contract, so it's a moral arrangement necessarily.

Now, let's talk about why each side is willing to enter into this agreement.

I'll give you the example out of Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty as best as I can recount it.

Employer A hires workers B and C to ship logs down the river where they'll be sold to D.

A pays 40g for the logs, and pays each worker 20g also, then sells the logs for 100g, making a 20g profit.

Now, the workers could have bought the logs upstream if they had the 40g, but they don't. A had saved up previously earned wages in order to invest them.

B and C therefore are willing to sell their labor services for two reasons, because they don't have enough savings to invest in raw logs, and they may not be willing to take the risk that the logs can be sold profitably at the end of the line.

A pays them wages up-front, profit or not, and transfers all risk to himself.

So, the utility to B and C is risk transferrence and the ability to profit from capitali that they did not own. They were able to make a wage because A had saved up his own wages previously.

---

The idea that A makes the highest profit is also a bit wrong I think. Most firms spend the vast majority of their income on labor, some 85% is paid out in wages. Most firms are delighted to make a 1 or 2% profit, if that, once all costs have been paid for.

I think you're guilty of looking purely at gross income and ignoring net profit.

The worker every day sees thousands of dollars coming through his store in sales, and sees only a few dollars coming to him in his paycheck, and figures the owner must be pocketing the difference. However, he doesn't see rent, debt service, insurance, health-costs, and a host of other costs the owner pays to keep things running.

Many firms don't actually achieve profitability until the year's end holiday sale. Yet all year long they've been paying wages to employees.

You say the boss "hardly sweats" yet all the money that he's invested in the firm had to be previously earned by physical labor and then saved to later be put to productive use in the business. The boss and investors all did sweat for that money, by being productive with their own labor services in the past.

Papirius:

Exploitation requires an element of coercion.

Fraud doesn't entail coercion. Capitalists defraud workers of the product of their labor by laying to them that it's legitimate to alienate themselves (concretely, their labor) which is what happens in employment.

Fraud does too entail coercion, just indirect coercion. If all the fact were known, party A would not have transferred title to party B, thus party B has coerced A into giving up property under false pretenses rather than through force. In both cases, an illegitimate transfer of title has occurred. It is non-physical theft, and thus a form of coercion.

If that's really the heart of your objection to employment you should really look into it more deeply.

My position is that all laborers can as a matter of fact alienate their labor services. They can do something for someone else. This is obviously and concretely possible in the real world. You just saying it isn't legitimate really means nothing without supporting rationale.

A worker can do labor that doesn't achieve any of their own ends but achieves someone else's ends, in exchange for being paid. That is possible in reality and there is no fraud there.

I don't know why you stand here like a child saying "it's not legitimate. it's not legitimate." without a single explanation of WHY alienating your labor service is not legitimate. Until you address that directly you're nothing more than a socialist parrot.