alexa:
My answer. . .
>>Of course there were terrible social pressures that made the workers captives of there employers, so it was in no way the sort of free arena for men to bargain fairly for employment and to realize the value of their labor.<<
Are you aware, alexa, that this is the Marxist view of capitalism? Are you aware that it is the mind that creates wealth? Coercion does not. American workers earned up to 5X their European counterparts in the 19th century. Why? Europe had very powerful, coercive labor unions, Americans had little or none.
>>You can say "men who produce own the value" but when it comes down to it how do you really value every man's labor fairly? If it is the market that determines this, and all markets have swings, then the value placed on a man's labor may, or may not be fair at any given time, unless you believe that value for value is whatever the market will bear. This sounds nice but doesn't create a very harmonious society.<<
The same way as free markets arrive at valuations every day. Markets such as housing, stocks, commodities, etc. Only the man who has nothing of value need fear such a system, for "fair market value" is always fair. It creates a fair, equitable and HONEST society where none rise above their true value to other men in the open trading of values. If you take a close look at all the evils "credited" to capitalism, you will see they were created when capitalism was abandoned by political connection, pull, or government interference or edict. Monopolies come to mind here, or "restraint of trade" of which the only truly guilty party has been the USA.
>>While you may believe what you say, what would you do with people who can't or won't work? Let them starve? That doesn't make for a comfortable society.<<
There are very few people who actually can't work. Those few who truly cannot (mental or physical infirmities, etc.), will be taken care of -- but not by the government. You see, I am advocating the abolishment of the immoral concept of altruism, not the abolishment of compassion or charity. There's a big difference. In a freer society these would flourish as well. In a truly free society based on the value of men who cherish freedom, honor their individual rights, rejoice in existence and hold happiness, not suffering, as the supreme moral purpose, many will be charitable. No one needs to coerce people (as they do now to achieve their real goal "power," attained by the subversion of individual rights -- your rights. My rights.
People who won't work and CAN work will starve. A is A. It is immoral to give value for nothing to those who only have a basket of excuses (non-valid) for why they willfully will not support themselves! The can beg -- but you know that even begging for alms IS a form of work.
>>What about a factory in an area so depressed people are willing to work for 25› an hour and work 12 hour days?<<
An area so economically depressed obviously has been under the yoke of government controls. Remove the controls.
>>What about a producer of value who decides it is worth it to him not to have safety equipment, that the cost of putting such equipment in is greater than the cost of compensating a workers family for death or injury?<<
1. Any potential employee should know as much about the company that is hiring him as possible.
2. If a person agrees to work there and has knowledge of the lack of safety, he becomes responsible for his safety. The individual has accepted the risk and bears full responsibility.
3. If the unsafe condition was hidden from the employee and there is an accident, the employer is fully responsible. Redress is available in court. In fact, in such a case, the employer has violated the rights of the employee through dishonesty, criminal negligence, the criminal fraud of endangerment, etc. The employer would rightly face criminal and civil litigation. Justice would demand severe punishment. He would probably be charged with manslaughter if an employee were killed.
>>Or a producer of value who decides to pollute groundwater because it is the most expedient way to do something and the fines, if there are any, will be minuscule compared to his benefit. Would these things not happen in your truly free society?<<
Polluters are violating individual rights and property rights. They would be answerable directly to local and state authorities, plus the entire population of the area affected. They may be sued, divested of property (if the violation was proven to be intentional), etc.
>>I submit these things and other problems would crop up, and am curious as to how your philosophy deals with such things.<<
They happen now. They would happen less in a free society based on the values I've outlined and the code of morality the country would operate under (affecting its laws, and how individuals were treated under the system). You seem to think a freer society would have no justice, yet it would actually have objective, better justice. There would be no unobjective laws as there are now, all laws would be defined most exactly.
Believe me, if we can make this a reality (as it almost once was), you yourself would pick that society hands down over any other, including our current one!
Father Terrence |
