Quote from: BitterTea on March 03, 2011, 03:10:03 PM

McGruder, I think what you don't understand about the employer-employee relationship is that the employer bears the majority of the risk. The employer stands to lose his investment at any time, the employee merely loses his job. At any point the employee could take that risk upon himself and strike out on his own.

An employer only risks not making a profit. An employee always loses on his labor investment. Furthermore, an employer can always pass the risk down to the employees in the form of higher expectations, furloughs, reduced pay, and layoffs.

Quote

Now, I agree that in our current situation, this proposition is less desirable for most, but I contend that it is due to the state's interference in labor markets, not something inherent in a non-socialist society.

I contend that capitalists naturally create states to reduce risks and secure profits. A little bit of welfare helps to pacify the working class.

Quote

All that said, I don't call myself a capitalist, or an anarchist, but a voluntaryist. I found this to be a good read on the topic of the state's use of force distorting labor markets: http://c4ss.org/content/4043

Quote

My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:

Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
Without wage slavery, theres nothing most people would recognize as capitalism.

Quote

As the price of capital is diluted, the share of production that goes to the workers increases. What we would eventually see is essentially, a permanent global labor shortage. Companies would compete for workers, rather than the other way around.

Quote

Theres nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than theyd prefer. Nor is there anything the anarcho-socialists could do to prevent a community from organizing property in a more rigid or individualistic manner than theyd prefer.

That was a good read.

Quote from: kiba on March 03, 2011, 03:13:25 PM

Quote from: FatherMcGruder on March 03, 2011, 03:01:33 PM

Quote

Um... actually, poverty is a choice.

Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.

Poverty and wealth are comparison concept. It does nothing to tell us if the poor is happy with their life or not. What is certain though that the average poor person in the US today is far richer than the kings of the past.

As for me, I do not associate rich, poor, or inequality with ethics. Hence, wage-slavery don't exists to me. There's nothing to fret over.

So this whole capitalist exploiting people are total blank to me. Huh

So what? One can still be happy while under someone's subjugation. That doesn't make subjugation a good thing.

Quote from: barbarousrelic on March 03, 2011, 03:47:30 PM

Adam is losing the use of his basement for the month. He could otherwise have stored his things down there, or had a sleepover party down there, or fermented wine down there, or set up a Bitcoin mining cluster. The fact that he can't do these things for a month represents a cost to him that he recuperates in his rent.

It's unfair that Bob should pay Adam for work that Adam isn't doing. Adam can enjoy the benefits of doing those things if and when he does them.

Quote

Slaves fleeing plantations were subject to manhunts with dogs coming to forcibly return them, often accompanied by whippings and torture. A person in poverty is subject to no such manhunts.

In our society, those who refuse exploiters are subject to poverty. The poverty one experiences may or may not include such treatment, but that's irrelevant. As Siddhartha demonstrated, poverty isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, it always is if someone forces it upon you.

Quote

I will qualify the previous poster's statement "poverty is a choice" - I believe it is a choice IF:

1) the person is in an area with adequate economic opportunity
2) the person is of sound mental health
3) the person is not phyiscally handicapped

Additionally, the person may not be able to get out of poverty due to previous bad choice they have made, but that's a distinction between 'a choice a person can make right now' and 'a choice a person has already made that they can't un-choose.'

4) Others do not extort a profit from you for the resources you need to live.

Without that fourth qualification, others can force you into poverty against your will.

Quote from: myrkul on March 03, 2011, 04:20:15 PM

So, McGruder, What's your opinion on Hotels?

Here's one acceptable model: The workers own the hotel. They accept guests and only charge for the cost of house keeping, supplies, any damage they might cause, and any other services they require. The workers share these earnings according to how much they contribute. They are free to spend these funds as they please, be it on the hotel or themselves. If they buy something for the hotel, any new income associated with that investment goes to pay back the workers who contribute toward it before getting shared as normal.