Libertad wrote:"Not all companies are rational actors, and if they can get away with paying people less than they're worth then they'll do so."It's part of why so many companies hire immigrants from war-torn and poverty-stricken nations, and can threaten them with deportation if they try to bargain or argue for increased pay union-style. Many politicians are in the pocket of big business,
and ICE is more concerned with going after poor immigrants than the business owners and managers which hire them, so businesses with no moral scruples can and do get away with paying people below what their labor's worth."
Two things immediately spring to mind: 1) It is entirely rational for a company or employer who is looking to maximize profits to try to pay workers as little as possible (among other things, like maximizing efficiency and cutting costs by using time- and labor-saving technologies.) By the same token, it's entirely rational for workers to seek employment where they will be highly paid, or receive the best benefits or retirement plans, etc. 2) You suggest that the businesses are "getting away with" paying people below what their labor is worth. But here's the thing: no one is forcing those immigrants to work for 4$ an hour and the immigrants are
willing to work for that amount. It is a mutual consenting agreement between two parties. In fact, that's why they come here: they agree to work for less than minimum wage, be paid in cash (thus avoiding the income tax most Americans and businesses pay), and despite earning so little, they've still earned 20x per 1$ what they would have made for the same work in Mexico (assuming they're Mexican.)
@MGuy:
"The idea that two consenting parties in the imagined libertarian world would even meet on terms that would allow both parties to be able to come to a mutual agreement about the value of one's labor is a fantasy. It doesn't account for externalities like having to eat, rent-seeking, monopolies, etc etc. It imagines that all workers will be able to interact with markets in ways that don't reflect reality. This isn't even up for debate. We have a capitalist market and we can see how things just don't work well, especially with disparities between wealth an resources."
It happens all the time in this reality. If you agree to work at McDonald's for 8$ an hour, then you've agreed that your labor is worth 8$ an hour. If you think your labor at McDonald's is worth 30$ an hour, and McDonald's disagrees, then you can negotiate to reach whatever $/hour you both agree is fair, or you agree to go your separate ways: you will seek an employer that values your labor to the extent you do, and McDonald's will seek an employee who agrees to work for a price they're willing to pay. But it's funny you say we have a capitalist market and "things just don't work well" but then go on to list rent-seeking and monopolies - two forms of businesses using the Govt apparatus for special exceptions and privileges. Are you for Govt intervention in the market, or against it? Most Libertarians would hold that the reason things "just don't work well" is because the Govt is not limited to its proper sphere and function, which brings me to...
FrankTrollman wrote:AC0 wrote:Nope. Not sure where you got this 'fact' from, but the Law, relegated to its proper purpose and sphere, applies to everyone equally.
Sure dude.
Anatole France, 1894 wrote:The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
Frank flippantly dismisses my response because he doesn't understand it (which, to be fair, I left vague and undefined) and then gives me a witty rebuttal by a French poet and author, notably NOT an economist or economic thinker, and a self-described Socialist and Communist sympathizer at that. So let me explain myself by quoting a Frenchman whom I adore:
Frederick Bastiat, 1848 wrote:"The Law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [...] Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?"
But Frank goes on:
Libertarians constantly claim that they are being strawmanned because people crush their arguments so easily. But the reason people crush Libertarian arguments so easily is that Libertarian arguments genuinely are that weak. We aren't cherry picking bad arguments to laugh at, or restating arguments as worse and weaker, the entire corpus of Libertarian thought is simply a cardboard fortress unable to withstand the assault of "How does such a society function for those who cannot already count upon the protections of privilege?" And that's not a particularly difficult argument to make.
Notice the question intended to demolish the "cardboard fortress" of Libertarianism is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions. What "protections of privilege"? You mean money and wealth that was earned through hard-work and foresight and luck, either through an individual or his or her forebears and ancestors? How does a society function for those without said privileges and protections, you ask? How did any society function before the rise of the welfare state and social security blankets and social safety nets? People suffered. Yes, that's the truth. Life is hard, nature is merciless and she doesn't play favorites. And people endured. They played the hand they were dealt. They made the most of the their lot. They struggled to provide a better future for their posterity. And you know what the result was? The gradual accumulation of material wealth and knowledge. Rising living standards. Improvements in the human condition.
But I see this sort of thinking too often from Leftists/Liberals/Progressives, and it reveals the base assumption they're working from: that poverty is caused by people wealthier than others,
rather than being the natural state of human affairs.
"The Libertarian argument against civil rights legislation is comically bad, since even committed Libertarians will generally agree that we are collectively worse off in a segregated society than in an inclusive one. And you know, it's just obviously historically true the pure carrot approaches are not and have never been sufficient to banish injustices of that nature from our lands. And yet, here AC0 is, rehashing that same tired bullshit in defense of segregated lunch counters. "
So you think groups of people who do not want to live alongside other groups people... should be
forced to do so? I actually think segregation is completely legitimate, as every group of people, just like every individual, has the right to pursue their own happiness, destiny, etc. free from the coercion of other groups. And of course, most of the world is segregated: we call the divisions "nations" but there are also districts, counties, states, etc. Unfortunately, the word has a negative connotation. I'm not sure a segregated society would be worse than an inclusive one, but it would depend on whether the segregation was mutually agreed upon by consenting parties.
"But it goes beyond that. Not only is he arguing for an outcome that he admits is bad, but the underlying assumptions are absurd. It isn't just that you might get less dollar bills in your bank account by excluding certain customers or that people might organize boycotts of your business because they hate your hatefulness - it's that dollar bills aren't inherently a thing of value. The statement "all debts public and private" isn't just empty words, that's both a promise and a threat backed up by force of arms. The only reason the "$" is interchangeable with wealth and profit is that the government guarantees that. Society has an interest in forcing you to accept dollars in exchange for goods and services because if you don't there's no money to have more or less of.
I wasn't arguing for an outcome I "admitted" was bad. I was arguing for a principle i.e. you have the right to exclude anyone from your private property for any reason you wish, and doing so for [whatever your reason is] is you taking the stance that you value that reason over financial gain. And it was followed by my acknowledgment that societal forces may or may not work against you, but either way said societal forces would rise to meet the wants / needs / demands of any group AKA "the invisible hand" of the market. And then you talk about the "underlying assumptions" of the Libertarian view and go on about how dollars have no inherent value, which I agree with, but you seem to think it invalidates my view? Or I disagree that statement? And you say society has an interest in forcing you to accept dollars in exchange for goods and services but... that flies in the face of gifts, charity, trading, and SAVING, none of which is illegal. So what are you going on about?
Neither green pieces of paper nor blobs of yellow metal have any inherent value. Such things have value because society says they have value. Assuming you value having an economy at all, rebellions such as "Your money is no good here" are just as much a rebellion as "I don't recognize your ownership of [thing]" or "Your decision to not have sex with me is not valid.""
And here you talk about "an economy" as though it is a thing, or practices,
that exist because of Govt, and not something that is a naturally occurring phenomenon given a name, which is what it is. And I'm sorry but "Your money is no good here," is not on par with "I don't recognize your ownership of [thing]" and "Your decision to not have sex with me is not valid," both of which imply violating a person or person's property. The Govt cannot (justly) force me to spend my money. The Govt can (justly) defend my person or property, and as stated earlier, this is the only legitimate use of the force.
But I expect responses that argue about, or ignore entirely, the terms "justice", "force", "freedom", "rights", etc. as I've defined in accordance with the Libertarian philosophy.