- 27 Jan 2004 06:34
#86861
You are not right. There would be no public property. They can dump it on their own property. But if in so doing it even slightly damages another person's private property, it will be stopped (which is almost always if it happens on the scale your are implying).
Then all the workers die. And the producer has no one to sell goods to, and no workers to even produce those goods. Doesn't seem like a good plan for the producer, now does it?
Companies compete for workers to work for them in the same way that they compete to sell their products. If a type of worker is in low supply, then he is in high demand. For example, a rocket scientist is in low supply, so he will get a higher pay. Anyone can dig a ditch, so naturally the ditch-diggers will be in much higher supply, and will receive lower pay.
I've read plenty about it. The working condition, by today's standards, were almost horrific. By the standards of those days, though, they were not bad at all. That's why so many people came to America. They didn't say "let's go to America so we can live miserable lives and be exploited." As much as the people of today abhor those conditions, it was a great improvement of the previous conditions of those days.
Plus, the market was just forming in that time. Capitalism achieves the greatest good by competition and production. It takes time, a lot of time. Hell, it took over 200 years for America to be where it is today, as far as living standards. Through constant competition to please the consumer (mostly working-class people), prices of products and services are driven down and are consequently made available to a more massive number of people.
Is that any different than highering somebody else while the union workers strike? You should read "Do Unions Really Raise Wages" by Henry Hazlitt.
Here's some of it:
There's no real way to totally prevent this. But making the assumption that it doesn't already happen with the FDA (to a worse extent) is quite hard-pressed.
False advertising, however, would be illegal and punishable under laissez faire capitalism. If such action is discovered, it will be dealt with.
Edric O wrote:But enough of that - let's get to the point. From what you just said, Smashthestate, I conclude that in your Libertarian Paradise it would be perfectly ok for companies to dump tons of toxic waste on public land where no one lives - like Antarctica, for example. Am I right?
You are not right. There would be no public property. They can dump it on their own property. But if in so doing it even slightly damages another person's private property, it will be stopped (which is almost always if it happens on the scale your are implying).
Edric O wrote:And what if ALL workplaces have equally bad conditions? What if ALL employers treat their workers like dirt and don't waste a penny over their safety? What "choice" do you have then?
Then all the workers die. And the producer has no one to sell goods to, and no workers to even produce those goods. Doesn't seem like a good plan for the producer, now does it?
Companies compete for workers to work for them in the same way that they compete to sell their products. If a type of worker is in low supply, then he is in high demand. For example, a rocket scientist is in low supply, so he will get a higher pay. Anyone can dig a ditch, so naturally the ditch-diggers will be in much higher supply, and will receive lower pay.
Edric O wrote:You should study 19th century history a bit more, and learn about the working conditions that were forced upon the people by their employers during those times.
I've read plenty about it. The working condition, by today's standards, were almost horrific. By the standards of those days, though, they were not bad at all. That's why so many people came to America. They didn't say "let's go to America so we can live miserable lives and be exploited." As much as the people of today abhor those conditions, it was a great improvement of the previous conditions of those days.
Plus, the market was just forming in that time. Capitalism achieves the greatest good by competition and production. It takes time, a lot of time. Hell, it took over 200 years for America to be where it is today, as far as living standards. Through constant competition to please the consumer (mostly working-class people), prices of products and services are driven down and are consequently made available to a more massive number of people.
Edric O wrote:Also, I see you neglect to mention that Libertarians want to give employers the right to fire any workers on the spot. Thus, anyone who goes on a strike is immediately fired.
Is that any different than highering somebody else while the union workers strike? You should read "Do Unions Really Raise Wages" by Henry Hazlitt.
Here's some of it:
The belief that labor unions can substantially raise real wages over the long run and for the whole working population is one of great delusions of the present age. This delusion is mainly the result of failure to recognize that wages are basically determined by labor productivity. It is for this reason, for example, that wages in the United States were incomparably higher than wages in England and Germany all during the decades when the "labor movement" in the latter two countries was far more advanced.
[…]
Let us say that these six groups of workers consist of (1) farm hands, (2) retail store workers, (3) workers in the clothing trades, (4) coal miners, (5) building workers, and (6) railway employees. Their wage rates, determined without any element of coercion, are not necessarily equal; but whatever they are, let us assign to each of them an original index number of 100 as a base. Now let us suppose that each group forms a national union and is able to enforce its demands in proportion not merely to its economic productivity but to its political power and strategic position. Suppose the result is that the farm hands are unable to raise their full wages at all, that the retail store workers are able to get an increase of 10 percent, the clothing workers of 20 percent, the coal miners of 30 percent, the building trades of 40 percent, and the railroad employees of 50 percent.
On the assumption we have made, this will mean that there has been an average increase of wages of 25 percent. Now suppose, again for the sake of arithmetical simplicity, that the price of product that each group of workers makes rises by the same percentage as the increase in that group’s wages. (For several reasons, including the fact that labor costs do not represent all costs, the price will not quite do that—certainly not in any short period. But the figures will nonetheless serve to illustrate the basic principle involved.)
We shall then have a situation in which the cost of living has risen by an average of 25 percent. The farm hands, though they have had no reduction in their money wages, will be considerably worse off in terms of what they can buy. The retail store workers, even though they have got an increase in money wages of 10 percent, will be worse off than before the race began. Even the workers in the clothing trades, with a money-wage increase of 20 percent, will be at a disadvantage compared with their previous position. The coal miners, with a money-wage increase of 30 percent, will have made in purchasing power only a slight gain. The building and railroad workers will of course have made a gain, but one much small in actuality than in appearance.
smashthestate wrote:And what happens when drug companies start bribing these private organizations to give favourable reports?
There's no real way to totally prevent this. But making the assumption that it doesn't already happen with the FDA (to a worse extent) is quite hard-pressed.
False advertising, however, would be illegal and punishable under laissez faire capitalism. If such action is discovered, it will be dealt with.