Can you explain to me the economic mechanism that ensured, as you say, no major crashes took place during this period, and why we are not utilizing this mechanism today? — Tzeentch

There was government regulation of the financial sector. The banks were highly regulated. That’s why I referred to Bretton Woods. You’re free to Google those various regulations.

I truly hope you don't view classical liberalism as espousing such a view. — Tzeentch

Classical liberalism — in the example of Adam Smith — developed in a radically different world. What Smith describes is often completely ignored, particularly about markets. It’s not like Friedman or Sowell or Von Mises or Hayek or Rand or any of these other people you’re undoubtedly influenced by.

There was government regulation of the financial sector. The banks were highly regulated. — Xtrix

Sure. But you won't get off that easily. You quite confidently proclaim that the lack of market troubles in this time period was due to the measures government took, and not, as I suggested, may also be attributed to the United States' position in the world as the only country that wasn't in complete ruins.

What makes you so confident about that? What mechanisms do you believe were at play that caused this success? Why were these successful policies later abandoned?

"Figure it out yourself" won't do.

Classical liberalism — in the example of Adam Smith — developed in a radically different world. What Smith describes is often completely ignored, particularly about markets. It’s not like Friedman or Sowell or Von Mises or Hayek or Rand or any of these other people you’re undoubtedly influenced by. — Xtrix

I'm not familiar with Von Mises, and Rand is a bit of an oddball. She was more a philosopher than an economist, and I tend to read her works as such. Kind of like how one may read Nietzsche, but not to get ideas on how to model society.

I am of course familiar with the others, and I think your observation that these ignore the core ideals of classical liberalism is incorrect.

What flows forth from the idea that man has inherent moral value and rights, is that he should be, as much as is feasible, free from coercion and should to the greatest degree be able to pursue his own goals in life. Most, perhaps all, liberal thinkers recognize government as a form of coercion, therefore it stands to reason that a central question in liberal thought is what is the legitimate role of government.
Further, one of the greatest tools with which governments exert power over people is economic means, which is why almost every liberal thinker believes in the importance of economic freedom.

You suggest to view these men as inhuman monsters that reduce human beings to cogs in a market machine, but nothing could be further from the truth. While you may disagree with their ideas, I honestly don't know how someone could read their work and come to that conclusion - that seems to me the result of preconceptions of 'the enemy' so to speak.

I think classic liberal thought and the many schools of thought that sprang from it attest to a great degree of respect for the individual and his sovereignty, however that also includes to grant him freedom to sin and freedom to fail, and freedom to pursue his own goals insofar he does not infringe upon the rights of others. It also means that it doesn't go without saying that A's misfortune justifies the coercion of B by C.

____

We know from history that smaller government leads to worse abuse by capitalists (exploitation). — Benkei

And similarly that big government leads to worse abuse by politicians. it's up to you to decide which of the two you find more appalling, but my position should be clear.

Especially in light of modern corporate power, the state is the only entity capable of being a counterveiling force to capitalist power. Trust in the Dutch governments was highest with "vadertje Drees", a social Democrat. The last politician we had that was respected across party lines when the ontzuiling wasn't even fully accomplished. Because back then his breed of politicians at least tried to do what was best for most citizens, instead of catering to special interests. — Benkei

The Netherlands and perhaps the world at large is in dire need of people who can wield power responsibly. When I look at the Dutch government and parliament today, I see the exact opposite. I'm not hopeful, but perhaps I would feel differently if such individuals were around today.

I don't see the trend towards corruption reversing any time soon, if at all. Though they might exist, I can't think of any examples in which such a trend was successfully reversed.

Since then we've seen the slow erosion of the welfare state due to liberal theory's narrow idea of freedom (as only negative freedom). — Benkei

Perhaps you can elaborate this erosion of the welfare state. I've always thought Dutch social security to be fairly extensive.

I'm also not sure whether this erosion, if there truly is such a thing, isn't the result of it becoming unaffordable under the weight of our aging population.

Further, if in a country with social security like the Netherlands has, there still is a problem with poverty (which I may agree there is, to some extent) perhaps there is merit to the idea that it isn't within the government's capability to alleviate poverty even if it is given the power and resources to do so.

Lastly, liberal theory does not collectively reject all forms of social spending. For example, this is what Hayek said about it:

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

____

Without financial solidarity, there's no social solidarity. And when a government isn't seen to combat social injustice, you get distrust of the government. — Benkei

I don't think solidarity that's forced at gunpoint is solidarity at all.

Additionally, I think it's up to individuals to combat social injustice, and not up to governments to define ideas of justice to this end.

The current distrust we see in government, I believe, is due to the arbitrariness of the rule of law, the way laws are taken from their intended context and abused to suit the needs of the government, and the speed with which laws are passed whenever it suits the government. All the while the government has itself has proven to be the worst perpetrator of injustice. True injustice. Literally having ruined innocent people's lives to an extent even the most malignant individual could not conceive and having taken zero responsibility for it. It genuinely makes me sick to think of it.

I think it's no longer about party ideology but personal character. We need representatives that can ignore party politics, set aside their ego and sincerely think about "what is best" instead of technocratic adjustments and I don't really care if he's a liberal or a socialist deep down. Both ideologies brought a lot of good and probably reflect in a sense a basic human contradiction: that of belonging (socialism) and being yourself (liberalism). — Benkei

I agree. The current problems of our political system go deeper than differences based on ideology.

I consider capitalism as it's ordered at this point in time to be an affront to both. Wage slavery, attacks on labour unions in the US, liberalisation of international markets meaning that people are slowly all become flex workers with related deterioration in labour protections and room and freedom for personal development, etc. — Benkei

I struggle to see how capitalism is responsible for all of that, or how a departure from capitalism would solve it. But I'm open to hearing ideas.

What makes you so confident about that? What mechanisms do you believe were at play that caused this success? Why were these successful policies later abandoned?

"Figure it out yourself" won't do. — Tzeentch

There’s plenty of reasons. Google Bretton Woods. Do the minimal amount of work. This system was abandoned in 71, and the financial sector has grown since then, being deregulated and creating
complex financial instruments that makes no contribution to the real economy.

I will mention one specific policy which changed in 1982 which I’m particularly interested in. That’s the SEC rule about stock buybacks. Rule 10(b)-18, more specifically. This was repealed my Shad, a Reagan appointee. William Lazonick has done great work on this and its effects on corporations and the economy. The effects have been massive and awful. Only one of many examples, but an especially important one.

You suggest to view these men as inhuman monsters that reduce human beings to cogs in a market machine — Tzeentch

Nope. I’ve said many times that I respect Friedman, for example, and take him seriously— however wrong or misinterpreted I think he is.

Nope. I’ve said many times that I respect Friedman, for example, and take him seriously— however wrong or misinterpreted I think he is. — Xtrix

I'm glad we've cleared that up then.

I will have a look at the policy you named.

There was government regulation of the financial sector. The banks were highly regulated. That’s why I referred to Bretton Woods. — Xtrix

Observation:

Financial regulation of the financial sector was done after the '29 crash and usually referred to laws like the Banking act of 1933 (the Glass-Steagal act). Bretton Woods refers to a currency system where the dollar was pegged to gold and other currencies to the dollar and was done after WW2.

Financial deregulation meant that the Glass-Steagal act was overturned in 1999 and, as usually happens with financial deregulation, things ended up in a speculative bubble, a crash and a banking crisis in 2008.

But luckily the underlying problems were not addressed, the market's natural response of deflation wasn't allowed and ...we are here were we are now.

I struggle to see how capitalism is responsible for all of that, or how a departure from capitalism would solve it. But I'm open to hearing ideas. — Tzeentch

That's too much to write online, particularly at this time, but it's already interesting to me that what is obvious to me, isn't to you. At the same time, I think we agree on quite a few issues about what's wrong in our country so an important part of our moral intuitions are aligned. We differ in our assessment what caused them and therefore differ in what we think it would take to solve them. We're going all over the place (kind of by necessity, but still). I'm not sure how to get this back to a manageable subject for discussion.

I don't think solidarity that's forced at gunpoint is solidarity at all. — Tzeentch

These statements always rub me the wrong way. You see force, I see democratic cooperation/social contracts and contracts need to be enforced. What we saw in the 70s was a strong government that had broad support from society and not just the parliamentary coalition partners.

As an aside, coalition agreements back then fitted on an A4 - certainly part of the problem as the coalition agreement is a non-democratic instrument now used to lock-in voting behaviour of the coalition parties' members.

Financial regulation of the financial sector was done after the '29 crash and usually referred to laws like the Banking act of 1933 (the Glass-Steagal act). Bretton Woods refers to a currency system where the dollar was pegged to gold and other currencies to the dollar and was done after WW2. — ssu

Bretton Woods was intentional in scope, and the financial industry is global. But yes, perhaps emphasizing Glass-Steagal is better. Although it’s claimed that 1999 was the year of its repeal, it was essentially destroyed long before that.

Although it’s claimed that 1999 was the year of its repeal, it was essentially destroyed long before that. — Xtrix

I would suspect that with the financial deregulation in the 1980s.

The Savings & Loans crisis still went along "the old" lines with people actually ending up in jail. But they weren't Wall Street. Financial markets have for a long time (if not always) been like the henhouse guarded by foxes.

You see force, I see democratic cooperation/social contracts and contracts need to be enforced. — Benkei

I see both, honestly.

I see a certain need for government, and a certain need to enforce rules that allow people to live together in cooperation, but I also see that at its essence government is predicated on violence and coercion.

Under circumstances, I can accept that as a necessary evil. However, I will never be able to step over the fact that it is a deeply flawed method of organizing human coexistence. When carried out by an individual we recognize the use of violence as almost universally wrong, yet when carried out by a collective we don't bat an eye. I don't hold such a double standard, and will advocate minimization of the use of force at every opportunity.

at its essence government is predicated on violence and coercion — Tzeentch

it is a deeply flawed method of organizing human coexistence — Tzeentch

Any system of organizing society is based on rules, which are useless without enforcement of those rules. If you murder, which is against the rules in most societies throughout history, you suffer the consequences as determined by that society.

Our principle shouldn't simply be against the use of force, it should be against illegitimate power. We should all come down much harder on private power, especially in the hands of the few owners of multinational corporations (which, incidentally, own the government), rather than the government. Those in government are elected leaders, and so are somewhat accountable to their constituents -- the voters. It's weak, but it's still there. Private power has no such accountability. Corporations are run undemocratically.

Human beings are fundamentally social creatures. Just look at families. Care for others, concern for peoples needs, friendship, kinship, community involvement, etc., are just as much a part of human nature as tendencies of violence, hatred, and competition. For all the libertarian talk about the failure of government, what's conspicuously missing is a critique of private power -- of plutocracy, for example. Or of corporate governance. I think because, ultimately, they're in favor of private power and anti-democracy.

Here I agree with Chomsky:

So here, the term 'libertarian' means the opposite of what it always meant in history. 'Libertarian' throughout European history meant 'socialist-anarchist.' The worker's movement--the socialist movement--sort of broke into 2 branches, one statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky and so on; the anti-statist branch, which included left-Marxists like Rosa Luxumberg, kind of merged with a big strain of anarchism into what was called 'libertarian socialism.' So 'libertarian' in Europe always meant 'socialist.' Here, it means ultra-Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that. But that's a special US usage...

It's easy to talk in generalities of states and power and endlessly repeat phrases like "monopoly of violence" or "taxation is theft," but that's not what's interesting to me. What's interesting is where this general view, and the basic principles comprising this view, lead people in terms of real policies and real issues. If they lead, say, to voting for someone like Donald Trump, or being consistently opposed to climate action, or the defense of racism and xenophobia, or to successful programs like social security, etc., then I think that tells you a lot. It tells me, anyway, that despite the perhaps well-intended clinging to "libertarian" principles, the application in the real world is an absolute disaster. (Ironically, this is exactly the critique leveled at socialism.)

I see both, honestly.

I see a certain need for government, and a certain need to enforce rules that allow people to live together in cooperation, but I also see that at its essence government is predicated on violence and coercion. — Tzeentch

Ending it with "predicated on violence and coercion" doesn't sound like seeing it both though but I'll take your word for it and think that you probably have a much lower limit for what should be the government's job than I and consider the current setup too broad.

What kind of government activities are you against? I seem to recall you thought the lock downs were inappropriate. (We'll not rehash that discussion here, I disagree with that position during the immediate pandemic but agree the current permanent change is unacceptable as it removes the case-by-case oversight of Parliament). Any other things?

Private power has no such accountability. Corporations are run undemocratically. — Xtrix

Ownership creates that accountability. If you have started a business, invested in it and operate it, it's success or failure depends on you. Even in an cooperative it's the members of the enterprise, not others, who have this accountability. What is collective (effects others) should regulated the laws your business operates in.

Besides, government ownership means that power is in the hands of a managerial class and the citizens have their few representatives to act as owners.

Ownership creates that accountability. If you have started a business, invested in it and operate it, it's success or failure depends on you. Even in an cooperative it's the members of the enterprise, not others, who have this accountability. What is collective (effects others) should regulated the laws your business operates in. — ssu

I don't know where to start. This quite frankly sounds insane.

I don't know where to start. This quite frankly sounds insane. — Benkei

If you own something, you are responsible for it. What's insane about that?

Any system of organizing society is based on rules, which are useless without enforcement of those rules. — Xtrix

I believe the best mode for humans to coexist is voluntary. That's how I and most people (including most business!) conduct themselves every day. I don't desire to live in a society in which voluntariness cannot be achieved, but alas I have little choice.

That is not feasible for a modern state. It needs violence and threat of violence.

Our principle shouldn't simply be against the use of force, it should be against illegitimate power. — Xtrix

I disagree.

Violence, threat of violence and coercion are all clearly definable along the lines of physical force.

Illegitimate power is essentially undefinable, so I could never agree to trusting governments, as flawed and corrupt an instrument as they are, with defining such a term.

We should all come down much harder on private power, especially in the hands of the few owners of multinational corporations (which, incidentally, own the government), rather than the government. — Xtrix

Private power and multinational organisations are two seperate things, though. I might agree with you that the power of multinational organisations may need to be curbed. I would do so specifically on the grounds that their power is now seeping into governments - an instrument of force - putting an instrument of force in the hands of private individuals.

We need to delineate, and we need to delineate clearly.

To point at the power of multinationals and conclude therefore private ownership (capitalism) needs to go (I'm not sure if you're arguing that, but I certainly have seen it suggested on this forum) is several bridges too far for me.

For all the libertarian talk about the failure of government, what's conspicuously missing is a critique of private power — Xtrix

I'm not defending libertarianism here, but I don't think that's missing at all in liberal thought.

Friedman certainly never spared the robber barons, and at the same time he questioned whether government coercion was the right way to change that situation. Sometimes it was!

Ending it with "predicated on violence and coercion" doesn't sound like seeing it both though but I'll take your word for it [...] — Benkei

Government being predicated on those things is an unfortunate yet inescapable reality in my mind - our entire work of thought pertaining to government should be thoroughly drenched in that understanding, lest we forget its evils.

What kind of government activities are you against? — Benkei

I'm not sure if you're asking what I believe the role of government should be in general terms, or in more specific terms in what recent policies I object to. Both would be very lengthy subjects.

During the covid epidemic I believe we saw the Dutch government bend, stretch and manipulate our system of law to a degree that is far beyond the scope of the problems we have discussed so far. A government that does not follow the rule of law both in spirit and in action, is an entirely different beast.

Ownership creates that accountability. — ssu

No it doesn’t. Unless you’re talking about some co-ops - but that’s not what I’m talking about.

Corporations have zero accountability to the public. They’re run undemocratically. Ownership doesn’t change that. The workers could own the enterprise and run it democratically, if they so desire.

government ownership — ssu

I’m not talking about government ownership either, although it’s preferable to private tyranny - at least the public has some input.

I believe the best mode for humans to coexist is voluntary. That's how I and most people (including most business!) conduct themselves every day. I don't desire to live in a society in which voluntariness cannot be achieved, but alas I have little choice. — Tzeentch

But you do: you can leave the country. Just like you can quit your job— totally voluntary. Or, you can try to change the institution. In the former case, you have the power to vote, to protest, to petition, to speak with your elected leader (in the case of local and state reps, this is fairly easy -- obviously not as easy with federal representatives), run for office yourself, etc. In the latter case, there are no democratic means -- you have no vote in the board of directors or who your boss or CEO is. You can advocate for yourself or form a union, but you can be fired for nearly any reason, at any time. They tell you what to wear, what's being produced, what time to show up, when to eat lunch, etc. -- and then, after you and all of your fellow coworkers have run the machines or done the paperwork, generating loads of profit, they will decide what to do with it. You have no say in it.

Voluntary cooperation is of course desirable. That doesn't negate the need for rules.

That is not feasible for a modern state. — Tzeentch

It's not really feasible anywhere, really. It's good to have rules we can all agree on, but there's bound to be instances where not everyone does.

Anyway -- long term, I'm in favor of the dissolution of the state. So I'm not here to defend it. There's plenty to criticize.

Our principle shouldn't simply be against the use of force, it should be against illegitimate power.
— Xtrix

I disagree.

Violence, threat of violence and coercion are all clearly definable along the lines of physical force. — Tzeentch

Just replace "power" with "illegitimate use of force," then. Same thing. If "power" is too abstract for you.

Illegitimate power is essentially undefinable, so I could never agree to trusting governments, as flawed and corrupt an instrument as they are, with defining such a term. — Tzeentch

Who's asking you to? I said OUR principle should be looking for structures of power, dominance, control, etc., and checking for their legitimacy. I think use of force, for example, can be justified at times.

I might agree with you that the power of multinational organisations may need to be curbed. I would do so specifically on the grounds that their power is now seeping into governments - an instrument of force - putting an instrument of force in the hands of private individuals. — Tzeentch

Then we are in agreement, because that's exactly what's happened.

To point at the power of multinationals and conclude therefore private ownership (capitalism) needs to go (I'm not sure if you're arguing that, but I certainly have seen it suggested on this forum) is several bridges too far for me. — Tzeentch

I don't think we have to go that far. I would much prefer workers own and run where they work, and do so democratically. You can have private ownership and not have the institution or organization or corporation be run as an oligarchy. Just as you can have a political system not run as a plutocracy.

Friedman certainly never spared the robber barons, — Tzeentch

Really? He repeatedly claims they're a myth.

In the latter case, there are no democratic means -- you have no vote in the board of directors or who your boss or CEO is. You can advocate for yourself or form a union, but you can be fired for nearly any reason, at any time. They tell you what to wear, what's being produced, what time to show up, when to eat lunch, etc. -- and then, after you and all of your fellow coworkers have run the machines or done the paperwork, generating loads of profit, they will decide what to do with it. You have no say in it. — Xtrix

In the case of work you do have a say. Isn't your choice to sign a contract with an employer completely voluntary? You may even start your own if that is unappealing to you. And if that fails too, you can even be unemployed.

My 'social contract' with my government has no such voluntary elements. In fact, they never had me sign anything!

Just replace "power" with "illegitimate use of force," then. Same thing. If "power" is too abstract for you. — Xtrix

I distinguish between the use of physical force - violence, coercion, etc., and other kinds of power.

To me, while both can be problematic, physical force is more clearly visible and definable, and easier to argue against on the basis of fundamental human rights.

So illegitimate use of physical force I can agree with. Illegitimate use of any kind of force (which is essentially as fuzzy as the word 'power'), I cannot.

I said OUR principle should be looking for structures of power, dominance, control, etc., and checking for their legitimacy. I think use of force, for example, can be justified at times. — Xtrix

I don't think the use of physical force is ever just. Justice implies an element of goodness - I don't believe violence possesses any such quality. Though, sometimes its use may be excused (self-defense) or begrudgingly accepted as an evil necessary to prevent worse (government).

I agree that we may look beyond the use of physical force, and also be critical of other power structures. However, I cannot in principle agree with using physical force as a means to tackle power structures that do not rely on physical force. Sometimes we must accept it as the only way, but I cannot accept it as a conscious method.

Then we are in agreement, because that's exactly what's happened. — Xtrix

Some common ground at last. :smile:

Friedman certainly never spared the robber barons, — Tzeentch

Really? He repeatedly claims they're a myth. — Xtrix

Not exactly. He discusses the relationship between the 19th century capitalists and the ordinary worker, and claims that it was not strictly exploitative, but to a large degree mutually beneficial.

A second argument he has made is that 'robber barons', those who seek to exploit others, are not avoidable. Our choice is whether such individuals function through capital or through government coercion, and he views the former to be the lesser of two evils.

No it doesn’t. Unless you’re talking about some co-ops - but that’s not what I’m talking about. — Xtrix

A co-opt or a stock company are far closer to each other than you think.

Corporations have zero accountability to the public. — Xtrix

They have to abide to the existing laws. You cannot deny that.

I’m not talking about government ownership either, although it’s preferable to private tyranny - at least the public has some input. — Xtrix

Look, there is either private ownership or public ownership. A cooperative, an association and even a non-profit organization are private. If you aren't a member of them, you have no democratic say their actions.

The workers could own the enterprise and run it democratically, if they so desire. — Xtrix

Yeah, that's called being an entrepreneur.

As this is a philosophy forum, the underlying theory should be considered. Just what are you talking about here with "democracy". And there otherwise is this seemingly huge divided between owners/entrepreneurs and workers.

Let's understand what a company / a business is. It actually is just a longer contract of a service. This is crucial to understand:

Let's say you go a get a haircut from a barber. Now, what is your responsibility to the barber? Many would say nothing: you just pay for the service of the barber and everything rest the barber takes care himself or herself. But hold on, what if you would be the barber's only customer? The income of the barber would depend only on you coming to get a haircut. Would it be the same? Actually no. If the barber only cuts your hair, somehow doesn't have the option to take any other customers, then the barber is like a worker to you, even if you don't have the contract of service like when a company hires an employee. You might try to act like it's just a normal service when actually you have a private barber. The barber can only opt to cut your hair or find a totally new job.

Hence every business enterprise can basically outsource everything: a business doesn't need employees as it can use hired workers, entrepreneurs or other companies and just buy their services. Yet you can see the obvious downside here: after every contract, the service provider can just walk away and opt to give its services to another customer. And this is why the need for longer contracts, where the service provider is an employee.

When you understand the above, then think just what is the question that you have mind when you argue that there isn't "democracy" in a business enterprise.

In the case of work you do have a say. Isn't your choice to sign a contract with an employer completely voluntary? — Tzeentch

Your choice to work anyone is, technically, voluntary. You can quit.

Your choice to stay in the country is, technically, voluntary. You can leave.

My 'social contract' with my government has no such voluntary elements. In fact, they never had me sign anything! — Tzeentch

Most jobs don’t have contracts. My job is at-will, for example. Never signed anything. So what? It’s still an agreement. Remaining in a country, same thing. If you don’t like it, you can try changing it or you can leave. No one is forcing you to be here. No one has a gun to your head. It may be a pain in the ass to leave, sure. It’s often a pain in the ass to quit a job, too.

A co-opt or a stock company are far closer to each other than you think. — ssu

They can be the same, in fact. A co-op can issue stock. What’s your point?

They have to abide to the existing laws. You cannot deny that. — ssu

Yes— and they wouldn’t exist without the law. They also use their power to shape those laws.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing anymore. The Fortune 500 companies I’m talking about are run undemocratically. They’re run by the board of directors and the CEO. The board is chosen by major shareholders (the “owners”). These people — a small group of 20-50 — make all the major decisions. That’s the structure of most corporations, and it is NOT democracy — your talk of “accountability” notwithstanding.

Look, there is either private ownership or public ownership. A cooperative, an association and even a non-profit organization are private. If you aren't a member of them, you have no democratic say their actions. — ssu

There are private-public partnerships. The non-profit I worked for was a mix.

Regardless, what’s the relevance of this remark? I’m talking about the internal structure of corporations: corporate governance.

A worker-owned enterprise is not Government-owned. I wanted to emphasize that point. Workers owning and running their workplace is my preference.

Yeah, that's called being an entrepreneur. — ssu

It has nothing to do with entrepreneurship.

Just what are you talking about here with "democracy". — ssu

Rule by the demos.

When you understand the above, then think just what is the question that you have mind when you argue that there isn't "democracy" in a business enterprise. — ssu

See above. I’m talking about corporate governance. If you’re in favor of an undemocratic, top-down way of organizing companies, that’s your issue. I’m in favor of democratizing the workplace. Co-ops are often a good example. Having the ability to fire your boss; deciding the appropriate levels of wages; deciding together what to produce, where and how much; and crucially, deciding what to do with the profits of the enterprise. There’s no reason business can’t be run this way, and in fact have been. It’s stifled in this current system we live in, at least in the US, but it’s possible. That’s what I want to see more of.

The norm, which I outlined above, is destroying businesses — and the planet — and is a form of tyranny. I’m not in favor of that.

Your choice to work anyone is, technically, voluntary. You can quit.

Your choice to stay in the country is, technically, voluntary. You can leave. — Xtrix

Your use of the word "technically" implies you yourself see the issue with that statement.

Most jobs don’t have contracts. My job is at-will, for example. Never signed anything. So what? It’s still an agreement. — Xtrix

In the case of government there was never even any agreement. Man is simply press-ganged into coming along. By the time they are able to question it, they have spent decades firmly rooting themselves into that society.

Remaining in a country, same thing. — Xtrix

You cannot in one sentence reel against capitalist exploitation of workers, implying their labour is performed involuntary, and in the next imply that switching jobs is the same as switching countries.

If you want to use such an uncompromising standard in discussing human affairs then I'm afraid we'll have to start the conversation over, and we'll see where that uncompromising standard brings us.

The Fortune 500 companies I’m talking about are run undemocratically. They’re run by the board of directors and the CEO. The board is chosen by major shareholders (the “owners”). These people — a small group of 20-50 — make all the major decisions. That’s the structure of most corporations, and it is NOT democracy — your talk of “accountability” notwithstanding. — Xtrix

As many of the owners today are institutional investors and mutual funds, the role of the employed managerial class is the most important. The owners of a corporation, which is represented by the board, which that the CEO's and other employed managers report to, are themselves similar managers. Hence you have a true managerial class, where the few rare Bill Gates / Elon Musk types are more of an oddity. This is the world we live in: few large oligopolies in every market segment and then thousands of small companies.

The definition of accountability is "an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions".

Whatever you say, the responsibility of one's actions are defined in law. You can have an effect on many thing, but it's another thing to be responsible for them. Corporations can increase the wealth of the society and also when the stop their activities, those effects can be detrimental to the region where they in the past have been a large employer.

But just where do you draw the line for accountability? The law defines it. If the management does poor business decisions and the corporation goes bankrupt, that in itself isn't a crime. If the technology changes and the corporation is unable to cope with the change, is that a crime? It's poor management, lousy work. But not something that breaks the law.

You simply have to define more accurately just where do you see the problem of accountability.

Ah, I see your mistake where you confuse legal accountability with moral accountability.

Your choice to work anyone is, technically, voluntary. You can quit. — Xtrix

Your use of the word "technically" implies you yourself see the issue with that statement. — Tzeentch

You’re right: the choice to feed your family or starve isn’t really much of a choice at all. So in reality, most jobs aren’t voluntary. People are forced to work them by pressures beyond physical force.

In the case of government there was never even any agreement. — Tzeentch

In the case of language there was never agreement either. You acquire what’s around you.

There’s much more freedom with the government and the law of the land. Don’t like the laws? Work to change them, or leave. No one is forcing you to stay in the country.

You cannot in one sentence reel against capitalist exploitation of workers, implying their labour is performed involuntary, and in the next imply that switching jobs is the same as switching countries. — Tzeentch

Staying at a job is as “voluntary” as staying in the country, yes. No one is physically forcing you to do either. Leaving either could involve a lot of work and hardship, true— but that’s life. Here I’m just applying conservative/libertarian logic. Personally I think it’s complete nonsense, but what’s good for one is good for another.

If you want to use such an uncompromising standard in discussing human affairs then I'm afraid we'll have to start the conversation over, and we'll see where that uncompromising standard brings us. — Tzeentch

What uncompromising standard?

You wish to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary activities, aligning the former with job agreements and the latter with laws/government. I’m simply pointing out the silliness and simplicity of this interpretation.

Better to stick with what Friedman says about corporations versus government regarding money. This “voluntary” stuff holds no water.

As many of the owners today are institutional investors and mutual funds, the role of the employed managerial class is the most important. — ssu

Asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard own decent amounts of shares in many corporations. They’re major shareholders, but not controlling shareholders.

Still, I do agree that the CEO and a handful of other executives is generally more important. They themselves are hired and answer to the board. Sometimes the chairman is also the CEO, sometimes he or she is also the controlling shareholder — or all three in some cases (Zuckerberg, for example). Makes no real difference to my argument.

But just where do you draw the line for accountability? The law defines it. If the management does poor business decisions and the corporation goes bankrupt, that in itself isn't a crime. If the technology changes and the corporation is unable to cope with the change, is that a crime? It's poor management, lousy work. But not something that breaks the law. — ssu

The laws and regulations have changed a great deal over time. In some eras you have better laws, more tightly regulated business; in others, looser or non-existent regulations— or outright regulatory capture. All of that is worth discussing.

But none of it is relevant to my point. Even in the golden age of capitalism, in the 50s, when corporations were better regulated and better run — before the neoliberal assault — they were still run undemocratically. Still just a handful of people — owners, managers, etc., maybe 20-50 people, making all the important decisions. That is what I’m arguing against.

I’m not talking about accountability in that sense. Accountability is everywhere— businesses are accountable to law and to shareholders; they have, in the past, taken some responsibility towards their employees and communities and customers. But, again, that’s a red herring.

The public has no input on the decisions of the corporation. Workers have no input either. None are allowed a seat at the table. Decisions on what to do with the profits that all employees helped generate are ultimately in the hands of a oligarchy. They are not accountable to their workers, or the community, or the government. There is no vote, no election, no forum for public feedback, nothing.

You’re right: the choice to feed your family or starve isn’t really much of a choice at all. — Xtrix

You're comparing apples to oranges. When one lives in absolute poverty and those are your only options I might agree that employment isn't voluntary, but there's not a modern country in the world in which those are your only options, and the free market is largely to thank for that.

There’s much more freedom with the government and the law of the land. Don’t like the laws? Work to change them, or leave. No one is forcing you to stay in the country. — Xtrix

"Much more freedom" how?

How is it easier to migrate to another country, which essentially implies one also needs to find different employment, than it is to find only different employement? (Ironically, the only time this point of view might have had some merit is in 18th - 19th century America, in which immigration was completely unregulated.)

And the idea it is easier to change the law than it is to change employer is equally something I cannot imagine you genuinely believe.

Staying at a job is as “voluntary” as staying in the country, yes. No one is physically forcing you to do either. Leaving either could involve a lot of work and hardship, true— but that’s life. Here I’m just applying conservative/libertarian logic. — Xtrix

I’m simply pointing out the silliness and simplicity of this interpretation. — Xtrix

What you're doing is departing from all sense of proportion - something which is absolutely necessary to have a constructive debate about human affairs.


Also, how come you ignored about 75% of my earlier post?

You're comparing apples to oranges. When one lives in absolute poverty and those are your only options I might agree that employment isn't voluntary, but there's not a modern country in the world in which those are your only options, and the free market is largely to thank for that. — Tzeentch

There is no free market. Another myth.

Those are not your only options. Yeah, tell that to the millions of people in near poverty in the United States, living paycheck to paycheck. You may want to gloss over it, but that's your own deal.

In any case, it matters not: you're still free to leave the country just as someone is "free" to leave their job if they don't like the conditions. As long as we're being unsympathetic, let's be consistent.

There’s much more freedom with the government and the law of the land. Don’t like the laws? Work to change them, or leave. No one is forcing you to stay in the country.
— Xtrix

"Much more freedom" how? — Tzeentch

You can leave; you have no choice about what language you acquire.

How is it easier to migrate to another country, which essentially implies one also needs to find different employment, than it is to find only different employement? — Tzeentch

I was referring to the acquisition of language.

But regarding the ease of leaving the country -- sometimes it's easier, sometimes it isn't. Depends on the situation. Mostly it's going to be a hassle, I'm sure. But it's still an option. Thus, living in the country is voluntary. As voluntary as staying in a job.

And the idea it is easier to change the law than it is to change employer is equally something I cannot imagine you genuinely believe. — Tzeentch

I didn't say that. It can be just as easy, or at times harder, to leave the country than it is to leave an employer. Laws are hard to change; corporate bylaws are also hard to change.

What you're doing is departing from all sense of proportion — Tzeentch

No, I'm not. You -- and every other advocate of "free markets," small government, etc. -- always like to raise the idea that jobs are voluntary, and make voluntary agreements a crucial component of what's considered an ideal, or close to ideal, condition. You point to contracts with employers as voluntary, and that no such contract exists with the government. But you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're welcome to leave the country -- no one is forcing you to stay. So by staying and living in this country -- just as staying and working in a corporation -- you consent to the rules. Don't like the rules and conditions? Sorry, but you can leave.

If we're going to apply simplistic notions of "voluntary" behavior to work, there's no reason not to apply it to governments.

Also, how come you ignored about 75% of my earlier post? — Tzeentch

Which? Point me to the relevant passages -- perhaps I did miss something. I scrolled through a few but didn't notice.

There is no free market. Another myth. — Xtrix

Those are not your only options. Yeah, tell that to the millions of people in near poverty in the United States, living paycheck to paycheck. You may want to gloss over it, but that's your own deal. — Xtrix

Of course there is a free market. Perhaps not absolutely free, but that's besides the point. It's exactly the low level of regulations of and interference with the market one finds in a free capitalist society that provides people with a certain degree of choice, and I will maintain that it gives even the poorest some degree of freedom when it comes to choosing their employer and employment.

But regarding the ease of leaving the country -- sometimes it's easier, sometimes it isn't. Depends on the situation. Mostly it's going to be a hassle, I'm sure. But it's still an option. Thus, living in the country is voluntary. As voluntary as staying in a job. — Xtrix

Obviously when something incurs a sufficiently high cost, it can no longer said to be voluntary. I've already said that for someone living in dire poverty, choice of employment may not be voluntary.
However, in what world is an impoverished worker freer to leave the country than he is to find a different employer? Again, you're throwing all sense of proportion out of the window, and that will make reasonable debate impossible.

You -- and every other advocate of "free market," small government, etc. -- always like to raise the idea that jobs are voluntary, and make voluntary agreements a crucial component of what's considered an ideal, or close to ideal, interaction. — Xtrix

The vast majority of people have plenty to choose from when it comes to employment, even unskilled workers.

I don't believe there are so many people who can truly be said to have no alternatives whatsoever, even by reasonable standards, but to the degree that there are I can agree that they are in a precarious situation and their relationship with their employer isn't entirely voluntary.

But you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're welcome to leave the country -- no one is forcing you to stay. So by staying and living in this country -- just as staying and working in a corporation -- you consent to the rules. Don't like the rules and conditions? Sorry, but you can leave. — Xtrix

You don't apply this standard yourself, so why would I take this argument serious?

By the time one even has the chance to leave a country, usually several decades into one's life, one has become firmly rooted in that society. Not to mention it would require a considerable investment of time and money. Where does your impoverished worker get that? Or is the impoverished worker only the norm when it suits your argument?

And ultimately, this isn't even a choice you can make on your own. You need the approval of both your country of birth and your country of destination, in other words, you need to conform to laws, and laws are enforced through violence, so you're not 'free to leave' at all.

This attempt at making a change in employment the same as migrating is just silly.

Which? — Xtrix

These:

I distinguish between the use of physical force - violence, coercion, etc., and other kinds of power.

To me, while both can be problematic, physical force is more clearly visible and definable, and easier to argue against on the basis of fundamental human rights.

So illegitimate use of physical force I can agree with. Illegitimate use of any kind of force (which is essentially as fuzzy as the word 'power'), I cannot. — Tzeentch

____

I don't think the use of physical force is ever just. Justice implies an element of goodness - I don't believe violence possesses any such quality. Though, sometimes its use may be excused (self-defense) or begrudgingly accepted as an evil necessary to prevent worse (government).

I agree that we may look beyond the use of physical force, and also be critical of other power structures. However, I cannot in principle agree with using physical force as a means to tackle power structures that do not rely on physical force. Sometimes we must accept it as the only way, but I cannot accept it as a conscious method. — Tzeentch

_____

Not exactly. He discusses the relationship between the 19th century capitalists and the ordinary worker, and claims that it was not strictly exploitative, but to a large degree mutually beneficial.

A second argument he has made is that 'robber barons', those who seek to exploit others, are not avoidable. Our choice is whether such individuals function through capital or through government coercion, and he views the former to be the lesser of two evils. — Tzeentch

Ah, I see your mistake where you confuse legal accountability with moral accountability. — Benkei

I don't confuse the two. I think that usually those think that capitalism is immoral and a world without private property would be moral. Yet all we have is laws. Furthermore, that "moral" world without private property has been tried again and again, with absolutely horrible results.

The laws and regulations have changed a great deal over time. In some eras you have better laws, more tightly regulated business; in others, looser or non-existent regulations— or outright regulatory capture. All of that is worth discussing. — Xtrix

That is a good topic to discuss, I agree.

Still just a handful of people — owners, managers, etc., maybe 20-50 people, making all the important decisions. That is what I’m arguing against. — Xtrix

And now the idea of a stakeholder is widely accepted. And you have here, just to give an example, Nordic corporatism

So what democracy do you have in mind?

The public has no input on the decisions of the corporation. — Xtrix

And just what ought to be the input of people who don't have a clue what the corporation does?

Workers have no input either. — Xtrix

:roll:

Have you had a job? I would disagree here.

They are not accountable to their workers, or the community, or the government. — Xtrix

Well, I guess if they don't pay the workers, the workers will not work. If they don't follow the laws the government has given, they will be in trouble quickly anywhere.

For you this "oligarchy" seems to be part of some kind of "Illuminati".

Of course there is a free market. — Tzeentch

Not free in the least. Created, maintained, regulated, and intervened in on every level by the state. The idea of a free market is a fantasy.

What it really means is: "free markets" for working people, massive state intervention for corporate America. We have a state-capitalist system, sometimes described as a bailout economy. It's rigged for the wealthy and monopolies. Nothing free about it.

It's exactly the low level of regulations of and interference with the market one finds in a free capitalist society that provides people with a certain degree of choice — Tzeentch

Sorry, but this is like listening to a fairytale. So much has been written about it that I don't know where to begin other than to refer you to Ha-Joon Chang, David Harvey, Lynn Stout, William Lazonick, Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Gary Gerstle, etc. -- just off the top of my head.

The state subsidizing and bailing out industries, from defense contracts and Big Ag to publicly funded research/development to tax breaks, the state is there constantly. They lobby the state for what they want, and they know they need a very large corporate nanny state to survive. Free markets serve as a great cover for everyone else, as they run to pick up their government bailouts. A nice story.

The "certain degree of choice" is also an illusion. The "choice" between a Ford and a Chevy, or a thousand brands of toothpaste. That's supposed to demonstrate the wonders of the "free market" -- all the wonderful choices we have. Little is said about the fact that what people actually need, and want, is public transportation for example. Reminds me of the "choice" between democrats and republicans -- that's supposed to demonstrate we have a robust debate and real choice. If you buy into all of that, I don't know what else to do for you. It's really a joke when you look at it a little more.

Obviously when something incurs a sufficiently high cost, it can no longer said to be voluntary. I've already said that for someone living in dire poverty, choice of employment may not be voluntary.
However, in what world is an impoverished worker freer to leave the country than he is to find a different employer? Again, you're throwing all sense of proportion out of the window, and that will make reasonable debate impossible. — Tzeentch

No, you're just not listening. I'll say it once more, and number the points for clarity:

(1) You stated that voluntary association is a key difference between employment and government.
(2) I'm saying that one also has the choice to leave a country if one does not like the laws.
(3) Both are voluntary. No one has a gun to your head. You're free to choose.

Now, you say when there's "sufficiently high cost," it's no longer voluntary -- even without the threat of violence. Yes, that's my point, and this situation is much more prevalent in the case of employment than you let on.

I haven't once said that a worker is "freer" to leave the country than find a different employer. Not once. So I'd argue making things up is also an impediment to "reasonable debate."

The vast majority of people have plenty to choose from when it comes to employment, even unskilled workers. — Tzeentch

And you have plenty of countries to choose from if you don't like this one. Is that an argument?

To be absolutely clear: if you understand the absurdity of my claim, you should understand the absurdity of yours. "Plenty to choose from" is irrelevant. If slaves had plenty of masters to choose from, is that a point in favor of the system of slavery?

I don't believe there are so many people who can truly be said to have no alternatives whatsoever, even by reasonable standards, but to the degree that there are I can agree that they are in a precarious situation and their relationship with their employer isn't entirely voluntary. — Tzeentch

Oh, there's plenty of alternatives. Be a wage slave at Wal Mart, or at Cosco, or at Target, or at McDonalds, or at Burger King, or at an Amazon warehouse. Lots of options. What about the option NOT to be a wage-slave? Or to work at a worker-owned/run enterprise? Those choices simply aren't presented in this system. You have this master or that master -- or starvation. That's the choice. (I'm waiting for the "start you own business" claim here.)

Sure, you can refuse to work...and I guess that's an argument. In that case, you're also free to leave the country if you don't like the rules. In place of this kind of thinking, I encourage people to change the rules -- whether in the workplace or in society.

For all the talk about being "free to choose," free to leave your job, etc., there's very little discussion about why they have to leave in the first place. How about simply improving conditions? We wouldn't say that taking kids away from abusive families is the only solution to child abuse -- we want to end child abuse.

And I want to end private tyrannies and wage slavery. I want workers to control their workplaces and to make decisions together. Bezos doesn't run the Amazon warehouses, the workers do. The Waltons don't run any WalMart store you go to, the workers do. At the bare minimum, I at least want to see workers receive a livable wage.

But you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're welcome to leave the country -- no one is forcing you to stay. So by staying and living in this country -- just as staying and working in a corporation -- you consent to the rules. Don't like the rules and conditions? Sorry, but you can leave.
— Xtrix

You don't apply this standard yourself, so why would I take this argument serious? — Tzeentch

I absolutely apply it to myself. I'm in this country voluntarily. I'm simply demonstrating how little that actually means, outside academic discussion.

By the time one even has the chance to leave a country [leave a job], usually several decades into one's life, one has become firmly rooted in that society [job]. Not to mention it would require a considerable investment of time and money. — Tzeentch

I fixed your statement. I'm glad you see the point. Having a job is about as voluntary as leaving the country. True, you can argue that it's technically voluntary -- and that's true -- but it overlooks so much as to be callous.

And ultimately, this isn't even a choice you can make on your own. You need the approval of both your country of birth and your country of destination, in other words, you need to conform to laws, and laws are enforced through violence, so you're not 'free to leave' at all. — Tzeentch

You're still free to leave. No one said it was easy, and no one is coercing you through threat of violence to stay. You complain that it's difficult; yeah, so's leaving a job. In every case? No. Plenty of people can leave their jobs easily. Plenty of people can leave the country easily too.

This attempt at making a change in employment the same as migrating is just silly. — Tzeentch

I never once said it was the "same." They're very different things. But according to your standards, they're both VOLUNTARY: No one is forcing you to stay. I'll keep repeating this until you decide to read it, I guess.

I distinguish between the use of physical force - violence, coercion, etc., and other kinds of power.

To me, while both can be problematic, physical force is more clearly visible and definable, and easier to argue against on the basis of fundamental human rights.

So illegitimate use of physical force I can agree with. Illegitimate use of any kind of force (which is essentially as fuzzy as the word 'power'), I cannot. — Tzeentch

You're missing the point. My point is the determine whether the use of force/power/authority/control/domination is legitimate or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Mostly it isn't -- it's a hard test to pass -- but it's possible.

I don't think the use of physical force is ever just. Justice implies an element of goodness - I don't believe violence possesses any such quality. Though, sometimes its use may be excused (self-defense) or begrudgingly accepted as an evil necessary to prevent worse (government). — Tzeentch

I didn't say just, I said legitimate. So take "just" out of it if you prefer, it really doesn't matter to the point I was making.

Not exactly. He discusses the relationship between the 19th century capitalists and the ordinary worker, and claims that it was not strictly exploitative, but to a large degree mutually beneficial. — Tzeentch

Which is mostly nonsense. But I skipped this one because I don't want to have a length debate on Friedman here. I intend to start a thread about the man in the future.