Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
I know - I'm pointing out that this situation is essentially capitalism with a government-mandated monopoly on all industries. The problem with that is that it's inefficient yet in the end has the same results - because the market forces still exist.

Capitalism faces it's own peculiar inefficiencies. The underfunding of public goods being one of them.

But all talk of the efficiencies of the system is secondary. The primary question is what sort of distribution is considered to be a good one (one that does not exploit, one that does not violate natural rights, or one that maximizes welfare).

Things and people being what they are we inevitably have to make practical compromises.

Even a libertarian can accept coercion if he believes that human frailty or other economic snafus will make it impossible for us to achieve the ideal situation. Second best is better than nothing.

But those aren't philosophical questions.

[Berzerker]

Even a libertarian can accept coercion if he believes that human frailty or other economic snafus will make it impossible for us to achieve the ideal situation. Second best is better than nothing.

If murder or rape is a human frailty and theft or fraud is an economic snafu, then yes

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

If murder or rape is a human frailty and theft or fraud is an economic snafu, then yes

Well, you show me an example of any real society that has actually worked on libertarian principles and I'd be prepared to believe you.

I'm thinking in terms of dealing with externalities like pollution that don't lend themselves to a market model. For example, Libertarian societies would find it hard to deal with obnoxious residents who keep farm animals on their residential properties or noise polluters. Christ, we find it hard enough to deal with these people even when the state has mass coercive powers.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Originally posted by BeBro
I can´t believe that someone manages to bring Kant and Ron L Hubbard into the same category. What´s so bad with Kant?

You're in my least fav list now, too .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, I assume that worker-owned businesses means just that. If a business goes belly-up, the assets are sold and the proceed distributed to the workers.

This depends on the extent of state intervention in the socialist society. Just like current bankrupcy regulations are different depending on state intervention in today's capitalist societies (very different in western Europe than in the US, despite both areas being capitalist).

A socialist economy is open to be different from another one, exactly like a capitalist economy will be different from the neighbour's capitalism. The political institutions underlying socialism can be more or less democratic or police-staty, there can me more or less state intervention between businesses, there can be more or less regulation, there can be more or less planification (yes, planification even exists in capitalist societies, when the government gives a general direction for the economy and creates the conditions for these objectives to be filled by private companies looking for their interests).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The failure of coops and mutuals raises questions that you left unanswered.

Actually, my preference as an ideal system would be a system where the company speaks for itself, and where its long term survival and development is the main objective, as long as it doesn't conflict with good working conditions, respect of the employees, and satisfying wages.

However, it is impossible that a company speaks for itself. There will be always one or several people to speak for it. People with their own interest in mind, not the company's.
The owners of big companies (shareholders) have no involvement in the company they hold shares for, except when it comes to financial benefits. They are about the worst people to be put in charge of running a company, because they'll squeeze the industrial base of the company to get a higher profit margin.
See how Mannesmann has dropped all its activities except phoning when it was bought. See how Danone is dropping so many things to re-center on Yoghurts.

I think it is inherently superior to have the employees in the company's council. Because employees are more involved in their company than the shareholders. Now, I know there are corporatist concerns among the employees, looking for their own interests rather than the company's long term interests. I simply think such behaviour is less frequent from the employee than from the shareholder, in which self-interest ignoring of the company's condition is the absolute rule.

You speak about failures from cooperatives, but you don't explain what happened. Did the employee-owned companies overrule any unpopular decision from the director? Did these companies close, leaving their employees without money? Did these companies lose their clients? Or did simply these companies lose their 40% margin?

We may not weigh "success" in the same way. For me "success" is only a little connected with margin; it has mostly to do with wages, employement, and overall development of the company.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Well, you show me an example of any real society that has actually worked on libertarian principles and I'd be prepared to believe you.

I'm thinking in terms of dealing with externalities like pollution that don't lend themselves to a market model. For example, Libertarian societies would find it hard to deal with obnoxious residents who keep farm animals on their residential properties or noise polluters. Christ, we find it hard enough to deal with these people even when the state has mass coercive powers.

You're changing the issue, you didn't ask if there was a libertarian society, you asserted that libertarians would accept coercion to amend human frailties and economic snafus (some might depending on the nature of these frailties and snafus) and I pointed out the type of frailties and snafus that would require amending if libertarians had their way. Now, when anti-communists point out the communist record we're told these examples cannot be used against the communism advocated by our opponent, so why do libertarians have to provide an example of a libertarian society when communists reject the real world examples of communism rejected by communists?

As for farm animals, if I devalue your property by my behavior, that is for the courts to address if I choose to complain. The same is true for pollution as I've pointed out to you in the past. These "problems" you see are figments of your imagination and you simply ignore the libertarian responses... and I don't care to rehash what we've debated in the recent past...

[Ned]

Spiffor, worker control does not exclude huge salaries and bonuses for executives, right?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, worker control does not exclude huge salaries and bonuses for executives, right?

It does not exclude it stricly. However, it does make huge salaries and insane bonuses very unlikely, except in companies where the executive is very, very convincing

[Ned]

Spiffor, why do you say this? I assume even socialist businesses will pay for value and not overpay for lack of value. Businesses needing top scientists will pay them more. They will pay less for assembly line workers who need just a few minutes training. Etc., etc., etc.

Profits would be reinvested or distributed in the form of wage increases or bonuses, depending. In the end, I see nothing different about the wage structure of a socialist company.

I hope you would agree with this as it is obvious.

[Ned]

Spiffor, how would a socialist company deal with this situation:

Competition from a more efficient corporation will soon put the company out of business unless they cut costs. If they cut wages of the top executives, they will leave. Ditto middle management, engineers and scientists. If they cut wages of the assembly line workers, they will be paid less than the cost of living.

They could move assembly jobs to low cost areas, but that would mean firing assembly line workers who "own" the company.

What do they do?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Profits would be reinvested or distributed in the form of wage increases or bonuses, depending. In the end, I see nothing different about the wage structure of a socialist company.

There are little differences in the wage structure, except that insane wages for the top-dogs are less likely to be accepted by the company council (because as you probably know it, the work of a manager, despite being more worth than a worker's, is not 3000 times more worth).

The main difference will be the distribution of profit, which are likely to go in the employees' pockets, rather than in the shareholder's pockets. The main difference is that those who'll get the benefits of the company will also be the ones who know how it is to work in it, what working conditions allow now cost-cuts, why people should not be fired, etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They could move assembly jobs to low cost areas, but that would mean firing assembly line workers who "own" the company.

What do they do?

Simple Ned, they die. This is why worker-owned corporations won't be competitive. They can't be as efficient as those who realize that layoffs may be needed in bad times.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Competition from a more efficient corporation will soon put the company out of business unless they cut costs. If they cut wages of the top executives, they will leave. Ditto middle management, engineers and scientists. If they cut wages of the assembly line workers, they will be paid less than the cost of living.

This is why my preferred form of socialism involves a significant state-intervention, with a non-authoritative, yet present planification which prevents such situations from happening. For instance, the State could offer the weakened company help in changing activities for a new one, or it could give help to better the efficiency, with favored investment loans, technological help and so on.
Also, in my personal opinion, big companies (creating significant externalities) in a socialist country should be nationalized, but with strong commitment to the workers, and to sharing profits with the workers. This is at the cost of the theoretical purety of the model.

But this is my take on a socialist economy. Fundamentally, a socialist economy could offer as good conditions for a libertarian paradise as a capitalist one. State intervention is a variable that further defines how does the socialist economy fare.

When it comes to 'Poly posters, for example, Odin is for a minimal state intervention between worker-owned companies, while Che believes such a not-toned down system is doomed to recreate a form of capitalism in the end.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

You're changing the issue, you didn't ask if there was a libertarian society, you asserted that libertarians would accept coercion to amend human frailties and economic snafus (some might depending on the nature of these frailties and snafus) and I pointed out the type of frailties and snafus that would require amending if libertarians had their way. Now, when anti-communists point out the communist record we're told these examples cannot be used against the communism advocated by our opponent, so why do libertarians have to provide an example of a libertarian society when communists reject the real world examples of communism rejected by communists?

You've missed the connection, which is that the lack of a completely libertarian society is evidence of the compromises which have to be made, as is the lack in history of a perfect socialist society.

As for farm animals, if I devalue your property by my behavior, that is for the courts to address if I choose to complain. The same is true for pollution as I've pointed out to you in the past. These "problems" you see are figments of your imagination and you simply ignore the libertarian responses... and I don't care to rehash what we've debated in the recent past...

You still are under the delusion that markets can effectively deal with such scourges as pollution, when pollution is one of the best pieces of evidence of market failure that we have. The air is a "commons" and is subject to all the same problems that the right harp on about with regard to other "commons". Coercive state laws are the only proven method of preventing these sorts of problems - since as individuals we all have an interest in abusing the commons.

Leaving people to their own devices won't work because of collective action problems. Economists have known this for years, it isn't their fault that Libertarians are slow on the uptake.