Marxist's Apartment A Microcosm of why Marxism Doesn't Work

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ned
Ozzie, this post seems to suggest that you believe air traffic controllers were somehow working for the airlines. In fact they were working for the US government. I also believe that they were prohibited by law from striking against the US government.

Now think about this. Should any union have a right to strike against the people of the United States? This is not a private matter between two private entities negotiating fair wages or fair working conditions. What the union was proposing to do was an assault on America itself.

Ok, I was mistaken over who the air traffic controllers were working for. Of course as David Floyd noted the government shouldn't be running that in the first place. So in light of this I suppose I don't have a problem with the government, as employer, bringing in other employees to respond to a strike. But striking in general shouldn't be illegal, no matter what industry it is in.

As for your second point, I find it humorous the short exchange you and Che are having. You said the strike was against "the people" sounds like a very communist concept, that people should be forced to work for the good of society or "the people." Che on the other hand is talking about enforcing contract law and such, sounds capitalist to me. Hehe.

Beyond pointing out the humor, I disagree with the idea Ned. It wasn't an assault against America, no more than a Pepsi strike is an assault against Pepsi drinkers everywhere. Its a matter between the employees and employers. Not to say the consumers aren't involved, they certainly are, and if the actions of either side piss off the consumers then the entire industry is in jeopardy.

Look at the damage done to baseball caused by the strike in '94. Now people can argue over whether it was the fault of the players or the owners, I don't know nor do I care. Both sides should be smart enough to realize that not resolving their labor disputes will hurt everyone.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Agathon
But it isn't a legal question. If we are talking about which is the just system to institute then questions of morality will be prior to questions of law. Otherwise, we have no way of comparing the situations since each system will have its own laws.

All I am claiming so far is that offering someone the choice to work or starve is just as coercive as actively threatening harm to get them to work. In each case the demander has the power over the situation.

Well I meant it shouldn't be a legal question. The moral decision to help the person in need shouldn't be enforced by law. It is moral to help your brother in need, but it is immoral to force someone to do so. That is why voluntary charity is the solution, not forced government wealth exchange programs.

The demander only has the power over the situation if the demander is the one administering the punishment. If I am an employer I cannot demand someone work or starve. My employee would just tell me to f_ck off and go find a different job. I have no control over the person, only over my own business and property.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

Well I meant it shouldn't be a legal question. The moral decision to help the person in need shouldn't be enforced by law. It is moral to help your brother in need, but it is immoral to force someone to do so. That is why voluntary charity is the solution, not forced government wealth exchange programs.

This isn't true. If someone lets someone else die, when they could have easily prevented it at no cost to themselves, they have committed a moral wrong.

Are you telling me that if someone saw your son drowning in a pond and could have saved him at the cost of nothing other than wet trousers, but does nothing and watches him drown, that you think this is morally acceptable behaviour?

The demander only has the power over the situation if the demander is the one administering the punishment. If I am an employer I cannot demand someone work or starve. My employee would just tell me to f_ck off and go find a different job. I have no control over the person, only over my own business and property.

If there is scarcity of employment, or available employment is unsafe or objectionable for other reasons, the employer can offer the same opportunity and it will be just as coercive.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Identifying responsibility with causality leaves out all sorts of cases of negligence. People have this dream that if they didn't do anything they aren't responsible. I mean that's dumb - my forgetting to put on the parking brake is me failing to do something, but my failure can result in death or injury.

It would be your car you parked on a slope and didn't secure that caused the death. If you did secure your car and I broke into it and hotwired it and went for a joyride running over pedestrians, you're not morally culpable. Virtually all deaths from starvation result from the direct actions of others whether it be warlords in Somalia starving non-supporters or ideologues like Stalin and Mao "re-educating" the masses.

Trying to say that "work or starve" is somehow different from "work or be flogged" commits the same fallacy.

Not based on your example of negligence. You don't starve because I compelled you to eat, nature does that. That isn't analogous to flogging someone for refusing to work in a communist system. But it is interesting that you're trying to equate communsim with capitalism when I thought your position was that the former is superior and the latter is immoral.

[Berzerker]

Agathon - read his post again, he agrees with you.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon - read his post again, he agrees with you.

Sorry, that's my fault.

My position goes a bit further and claims that the law ought to be used to enforce helping others in extreme cases. At least, this moral position provides justification for a minimalist welfare system funded by compulsory taxation (and perhaps more).

Berz - I disputed the notion that being the direct physical cause of an action makes one responsible for it in a previous post.

After all I can think of consequences where an action of mine is part of the causal chain leading to a bad result, which I am not responsible for, and cases where I am not causally involved and am responsible.

[Berzerker]

My position goes a bit further and claims that the law ought to be used to enforce helping others in extreme cases. At least, this moral position provides justification for a minimalist welfare system funded by compulsory taxation (and perhaps more).

You've gone from extreme situations to a welfare state. Why not compel us to help people throughout the world? If you follow your argument, your welfare state won't be minimalist, it will be worldwide with wealthier nations footing the bill for everyone. This "might" have validity (at least in your system of morals) if welfare wasn't destructive in how it creates dependency, increases out of wedlock births, and institutionalises poverty. Besides, how is it moral to threaten the lives of people to obtain their money - with jail or death as a consequence of non-compliance - to provide for this welfare system?

After all I can think of consequences where an action of mine is part of the causal chain leading to a bad result, which I am not responsible for, and cases where I am not causally involved and am responsible.

If we're still talking about the car example, you were the direct cause just as I would be if I randomly fired a gun into the air and a bullet struck someone.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Agathon
This isn't true. If someone lets someone else die, when they could have easily prevented it at no cost to themselves, they have committed a moral wrong.

Are you telling me that if someone saw your son drowning in a pond and could have saved him at the cost of nothing other than wet trousers, but does nothing and watches him drown, that you think this is morally acceptable behaviour?

No, as I said it is very immoral to watch him drown, and immoral in general to not help someone in need when you are able. We agree on this. I feel however it is *also* immoral to force someone to help.

If there is scarcity of employment, or available employment is unsafe or objectionable for other reasons, the employer can offer the same opportunity and it will be just as coercive.

Well those are all ifs, and factors of the environment that are beyond the control of the employer. You can't blame me because you can't find another job.

However there is some sense in your argument that libertarians often ignore. It is the problem of choice that I haven't resolved in my own mind yet. In the practical sense there is almost always other choices the employee can make, and communists just ignore or belittle this fact. But in theory it would be possible for literally all options to be restricted but working for 1 employer or starving. Again this is very unlikely to happen, and one would have to look *very* hard to see it anywhere currently, but in principle it could. What does David and Berz and others say then?

Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. But if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true.

For example it is ok for a private company to charge you whatever fees it wants, because if you don't like it you can always switch companies. Libertarians maintain that it is wrong for governments to charge taxes because it is force. But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country.

They seem to me to be identical situations. Unless the government is stopping you from leaving the country, then you always have the option to leave, just as we always have the option to switch companies.

The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.

How does a libertarian get out of this trap?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

No, as I said it is very immoral to watch him drown, and immoral in general to not help someone in need when you are able. We agree on this. I feel however it is *also* immoral to force someone to help.

But is it immoral to force criminals to pay back what they owe, or to require people to help when it costs them nothing. We don't need to force this person to help, just make sure that punishment is due. After all we don't force people to refrain from stealing either.

Well those are all ifs, and factors of the environment that are beyond the control of the employer. You can't blame me because you can't find another job.

No one is saying that they are under the control of the employer. Indeed, it doesn't matter whether they are or are not. It is just as coercive in either case.

However there is some sense in your argument that libertarians often ignore. It is the problem of choice that I haven't resolved in my own mind yet. In the practical sense there is almost always other choices the employee can make, and communists just ignore or belittle this fact. But in theory it would be possible for literally all options to be restricted but working for 1 employer or starving. Again this is very unlikely to happen, and one would have to look *very* hard to see it anywhere currently, but in principle it could.

Well that's because we have a welfare system. If you look at pre-welfare state societies you will find a host of examples.

You are right, Libertarians often ignore it.

Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. But if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true.

Because merely having options is not enough. Some attention has to be paid to the quality of those options.

For example it is ok for a private company to charge you whatever fees it wants, because if you don't like it you can always switch companies. Libertarians maintain that it is wrong for governments to charge taxes because it is force. But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country.

Exactly, wrongful coercion needs to be defined in a way such as to avoid this problem, if Libertarianism is to work. The problem is that once you start doing this, you lose much of what they find attractive about it.

They seem to me to be identical situations. Unless the government is stopping you from leaving the country, then you always have the option to leave, just as we always have the option to switch companies.

But what if we don't. I may not have enough money to leave?

The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.

Yep. The quality of options offered to someone matter, not just the fact that there is an option.

How does a libertarian get out of this trap?

I don't know. Dump Libertarianism for an extreme right version of welfare liberalism, I suppose.

[OzzyKP]

I think this is a bigger question that is a divergion from the current topic, so I made a new one. Agathon, send your reply over there. Thanks

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Agathon
But is it immoral to force criminals to pay back what they owe, or to require people to help when it costs them nothing. We don't need to force this person to help, just make sure that punishment is due. After all we don't force people to refrain from stealing either.

Well thats the same thing though. Punishment for doing or not doing something is the same as forcing someone. I think it is am impractical policy to have since it would be impossible to determine whether someone is capable of helping or not. A lot of my friends claim to be incapable of doing things that I think they could easily do, but how could I prove it?

But assuming this problem were resolvable I might be amenable to a good samaritan law thing. Holding people criminally negligent for not helping someone who's life is in danger. But ugh, once I make that allowance I discredit my moral stance against welfare and communism. Changing my objection to a matter of degrees rather than some universal anti-coercion principle.

Not that I've ever been much of a dogmatic libertarian. I'm not sure I'd want to see the ideal libertarian world, but I deffinately want the world to be much more libertarian.

But I dunno. Berz and David, pull me back I'm dangerously near the edge.

[Ned]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Ok, I was mistaken over who the air traffic controllers were working for. Of course as David Floyd noted the government shouldn't be running that in the first place. So in light of this I suppose I don't have a problem with the government, as employer, bringing in other employees to respond to a strike. But striking in general shouldn't be illegal, no matter what industry it is in.

As for your second point, I find it humorous the short exchange you and Che are having. You said the strike was against "the people" sounds like a very communist concept, that people should be forced to work for the good of society or "the people." Che on the other hand is talking about enforcing contract law and such, sounds capitalist to me. Hehe.

Beyond pointing out the humor, I disagree with the idea Ned. It wasn't an assault against America, no more than a Pepsi strike is an assault against Pepsi drinkers everywhere. Its a matter between the employees and employers. Not to say the consumers aren't involved, they certainly are, and if the actions of either side piss off the consumers then the entire industry is in jeopardy.

Look at the damage done to baseball caused by the strike in '94. Now people can argue over whether it was the fault of the players or the owners, I don't know nor do I care. Both sides should be smart enough to realize that not resolving their labor disputes will hurt everyone.

Point taken. Che has previously argued that unions are not required in communist countries because the people own the means of production. I have argued the opposite. So we are both inconsistent, are we not?

But still the point remains. When you have a government monopoly on an essential service, it is critical that the service remain in operation. Just as a strike in the military is mutiny, so a strike by the ATC's was mutiny. Now, you might want to argue distinctions between the military and the ATC's, but as to being important to the United States, both are critical that they continue to function.

If there was breach of contract by the Govt., there is a court in Washington to handle the claim. The union was not without remedy. If they think overall working condidtions are unfair, they can petition Congress. There is absolutely no reason to strike when there are alternatives available.

So Che, have you recognized the errors of your support of the ATC union, or do you change you position on communism?

[Berzerker]

Ozzy -

But in theory it would be possible for literally all options to be restricted but working for 1 employer or starving. Again this is very unlikely to happen, and one would have to look *very* hard to see it anywhere currently, but in principle it could. What does David and Berz and others say then?

It can't happen, but if it did, then work or starve or rely on the charity of those who do work.

Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. But if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true.

Theory has to be able to exist or it's irrelevant and this can only happen under communism, not capitalism. But it's not because there are or are not options, options are just the reality. It's force and who is using it and why. The employer doesn't force me to do anything I don't want to do.

But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country.

What contract? If we want these benefits, we should pay for them. If we don't want these benefits, then don't offer them. This is not about paying for a sheriff, it's about the massive forced "re-distribution" of wealth. Those who want this re-distribution will mention sheriffs to distract from what they really want - other people to pay for what they want. If I want a sheriff's protection, I should pay for it. If I don't pay for it, the sheriff is not obliged to protect me.

The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.

How does a libertarian get out of this trap?

Morality. I have no moral obligation to pay for services you want from government. Forcing me to pay is immoral. Libertarians only bring up the fact that governments are everywhere in response to people who say we can move if we don't like it. Is that a moral response to the victims of Mafia extortion/protection rackets? Of course not, so why is it a moral response to the victims of government? When leftists here complain about Bush and Ashcroft, do supporters of the administration tell them to move if they don't like it? I haven't seen such a crass response, but if it was offered, the left wouldn't like it one bit.

[OzzyKP]

Berz, repost all that good stuff in the force, liberty and choice thread i made.

[David Floyd]

But still the point remains. When you have a government monopoly on an essential service, it is critical that the service remain in operation. Just as a strike in the military is mutiny, so a strike by the ATC's was mutiny. Now, you might want to argue distinctions between the military and the ATC's, but as to being important to the United States, both are critical that they continue to function.

Well now hang on for a second. Forcing someone to do a job they no longer want to do is getting pretty close to slavery, now isn't it?

I understand if there is a contract clause making it a breach of contract for you to strike - if you sign that, then you are locked into the job. But even then there are going to be exceptions with regards to contract law.

But in any case, I don't care how critical the "service" is - no one should be able to force you to do it against your will, in the absence of some sort of contractual agreement on your part.