[Eran]

Your choices as to what you can buy can be extremely limited. A representative democratic system is the only tool we have to keep business from running amok.

This is so wrong as to baffle the mind.

It is one thing to argue that top-down control has some merits (though I don't see any). But to suggest that it somehow enhances choice?

The more power you give government, the less choice you have. Because government's business is to make choices on your behalf. Whether it is about how to use up to 50% of your income, which products to purchase, or which job offers to accept. Every single government action has the effect of limiting choice.

The problem is the tendency of the market left alone toward concentration of wealth.

Wealth without government is not power. Wealth allows the wealthy to make tempting offers to other property owners, but not to force anybody to do anything.

Let's try this. Start with a socialist utopia in which every person has an equal amount of wealth, but in which property rights are respected. Contemplate, for example, a farming community in which each farmer owns a comparable lot of land.

Now imagine that, somehow, one person in your utopia becomes incredibly wealthy. They just inherited billions of dollars.

Please explain how that "concentration of wealth" in any way hurts the other farmers.

If you don't like my scenario, please set your own scenario, with the following simple rules:
1. Private property is respected
2. Wealth accumulation and concentration is done through wealth creation, rather than at the expense of others.

[grassroots1]

The more power you give government, the less choice you have. Because government's business is to make choices on your behalf. Whether it is about how to use up to 50% of your income, which products to purchase, or which job offers to accept. Every single government action has the effect of limiting choice.

Public education, libraries, working traffic lights, safe roads, police and fire services, health care... all serve to increase the amount of choice a person has by establishing a baseline. All you have to do is look at the conditions of work in a 19th century coal mine to see where the real lack of choice comes from.

Wealth without government is not power. Wealth allows the wealthy to make tempting offers to other property owners, but not to force anybody to do anything.

Wealth does absolutely translate to power. The worker is not the powerful party in this negotiation. If the means of life are controlled by only a few people, the worker has no choice but to sell his or her labor to those people, and since unskilled labor is plentiful and the worker must work to survive, the company has the bargaining power. That's only one form of power. Companies have historically hired organizations that use physical, used physical force themselves, influenced politics, influenced courts, etc. they of course aren't invincible but the relationship between business and worker will inevitably be one of exploitation and resistance.

In your example, the wealthy farmer could produce crops much more cheaply using more land and improved techniques, he could put his neighbors out of business, buy up their land, and monopolize agricultural production there. That is power.

[Eran]

Public education, libraries, working traffic lights, safe roads, police and fire services, health care... all serve to increase the amount of choice a person has by establishing a baseline.

You could do much better by giving poor people money (or vouchers). At the moment, a poor family has no choice with respect to any of the above. Sure - they can use whatever public facilities are available in their neighbourhood. But they have no choice.

By privatizing all of the above, and giving poor people vouchers (or simply money), you would be greatly increasing their choice availability without taking anything away.

All you have to do is look at the conditions of work in a 19th century coal mine to see where the real lack of choice comes from.

Poverty.

since unskilled labor is plentiful and the worker must work to survive, the company has the bargaining power

We have been through this before. When wages are allowed to be at their market-clearing price, by definition there is exact equality of supply and demand of labour. At that point, no side has any bargaining power advantage.

Companies have historically hired organizations that use physical, used physical force themselves, influenced politics, influenced courts, etc.

And I, with you, reject any use of physical force (except, of course, in defence of legitimate property) by any power, be it individuals, corporations, labour unions or governments.

the relationship between business and worker will inevitably be one of exploitation and resistance.

Why is that? Why is the relationship between business and customers rarely characterized as one dominated by "exploitation and resistance", while that between business and labour is?

In your example, the wealthy farmer could produce crops much more cheaply using more land and improved techniques, he could put his neighbors out of business, buy up their land, and monopolize agricultural production there. That is power.

Let's examine that a little more slowly.

1. The wealthy farmer can produce crops more cheaply using "improved techniques". Not clear, but let's grant you that is the case. In other words, the wealthy farmer can invest in capital goods (e.g. machinery) that improve the efficiency of food production.

2. The wealthy farmer then undersells his neighbours. In other words, he can offer food products to food buyers at lower prices. He thus benefits those buyers who can now afford more food. This is a good thing.

3. Given the availability of more efficient food production techniques, the other farmers need to look for a different line of employment. They could be stuck with their farms. However, the wealthy farmer offers them money for their farms. None of them is forced to sell. They choose to sell. Hence, the wealthy farmer improved their situation relative to the one in which they are stuck with their farms without being able to sell.

So your wealthy farmer used his wealth to do good in at least two ways:
1. Providing the market with less expensive food
2. Offering his neighbours deals that they found appealing.


Now admittedly, those other farmers would have loved it if nobody could produce things more efficiently then them. And producers everywhere and at all times attempted (mainly by using government) to block their competitors from offering less expensive products by increasing their efficiency.

But if we succumbed to the temptation to block progress, we would never see the huge improvement in standard of living of the past couple of centuries, an improvement from which everybody, but particularly poorer people, benefited greatly.

Remember those 19th century mines?

[grassroots1]

By privatizing all of the above, and giving poor people vouchers (or simply money), you would be greatly increasing their choice availability without taking anything away.

Public education serves people free of charge and does not have to factor the profit motive into their cost benefit analysis. They are not making a profit so their initial intention is to educate. In a private school, everything including the service provided is secondary to the need to cover costs. Handing people a lump sum only forces them to function in the same exploitative system, and without some checks on wealth concentration, worker safety, the extent to which wages can reduce, the system only becomes increasingly concentrated and exploitative. A lump sum 500 dollars is meaningless if you still can only work for or obtain the means of life from a few different companies. This is not freedom of choice, it's tyranny.

Poverty

.

A natural consequence of a system whose natural tendency is to squeeze the most productivity out of labor as possible.

When wages are allowed to be at their market-clearing price, by definition there is exact equality of supply and demand of labour. At that point, no side has any bargaining power advantage.

If the employer controls the means of life, the worker has no option. They have to work. The "market-clearing price" in 19th century coals mines incidentally was mighty close to zero. Not to mention those little things called health and safety.

And I, with you, reject any use of physical force (except, of course, in defence of legitimate property) by any power, be it individuals, corporations, labour unions or governments.

You might theoretically, rhetorically reject it but the system you promote is built around exploitation and therefore violence. It is a mental feat of the highest order to look at the system of wage labor and see fairness and equality between worker and employer.

Why is that? Why is the relationship between business and customers rarely characterized as one dominated by "exploitation and resistance", while that between business and labour is?

The company is always working to maximize labor productivity to increase surplus value. A more fierce form of exploitation allows for a company to increase the rate of surplus value so it's a tactic regularly employed by business.

1. The wealthy farmer can produce crops more cheaply using "improved techniques". Not clear, but let's grant you that is the case. In other words, the wealthy farmer can invest in capital goods (e.g. machinery) that improve the efficiency of food production.

He can also buy unused land and develop it to supplement production. If he has a large area he can use more advanced equipment and create a final product more cheaply than his competitors. This is more possible in manufacturing than agriculture but lets stick to the example anyways.

2. The wealthy farmer then undersells his neighbours. In other words, he can offer food products to food buyers at lower prices. He thus benefits those buyers who can now afford more food. This is a good thing.

In the short term for those individual consumers, yes, but it is a part of the general trend toward accumulation and exploitation that must necessarily occur if the capitalist hopes to continually profit. If the price of his product is always dropping (and barring disaster, it does), then he will need to continue to increase the productivity of labor and exploit that labor effectively to make a profit.

3. Given the availability of more efficient food production techniques, the other farmers need to look for a different line of employment. They could be stuck with their farms. However, the wealthy farmer offers them money for their farms. None of them is forced to sell. They choose to sell. Hence, the wealthy farmer improved their situation relative to the one in which they are stuck with their farms without being able to sell.

Well this is semantic at this point, but it makes no difference because I believe I've made the point that the capitalist can use his wealth to create a favorable outcome, whether or not this falls under your strict definition of force.

But if we succumbed to the temptation to block progress, we would never see the huge improvement in standard of living of the past couple of centuries, an improvement from which everybody, but particularly poorer people, benefited greatly.

Capitalism in its early stages was a productive force. You are arguing for the system at a time when it is observably collapsing, as the rate of profit continues to fall, wealth continues to accumulate, and workers are more and more feverishly exploited.

[Eran]

Public education serves people free of charge and does not have to factor the profit motive into their cost benefit analysis.

True.

They are not making a profit so their initial intention is to educate.

False.

Who are "they"? If you are talking about teachers and principles, they are in either system because they get paid. Ideally, they also want to educate, but there is no difference, at this point of the analysis, between the two systems.

If you are talking about "management", it is answerable to politician (in the public system) or shareholders (in the private). Politicians are motivated by the need to get re-elected, while shareholders are, as you correctly point out, motivated by profit.

While the two systems have different motivations, neither one is directly motivated by the need to educate.

What we need to ask ourselves next is about their indirect motivations.

In the private sector, one increases profit by either (1) cutting cost, (2) charging more, or (3) having more customers.

No matter how much you cut your cost, you won't be able to make any profit if you have no customers. Private firms work hard to attract customers. The customers in this case are parents. It is the parents who are interested in education.

In a private school, everything including the service provided is secondary to the need to cover costs.

It is true that without covering costs, a private company will go under. And that is an excellent thing. When you don't cover your cost, that is because the value of what you produce (to the only people who matter - your customers) is less than the value of what you consume. In other words, you are destroying wealth.

In the public system wealth can also be destroyed. If, for example, we paid each teacher $1,000,000/year, the value of education we would get would be lower than the cost we put in. We would be destroying wealth. However, unlike the private system, the public system has no way of even knowing whether it is or isn't destroying wealth.

Handing people a lump sum only forces them to function in the same exploitative system, and without some checks on wealth concentration, worker safety, the extent to which wages can reduce, the system only becomes increasingly concentrated and exploitative.

I am not sure I understand your logic. The same "exploitative system" provides us with food, housing, clothing, entertainment, transportation, etc.

Merely by empowering poor people to choose the school to which they want to send their children we have not (yet) done away with worker safety, for example.

A lump sum 500 dollars is meaningless if you still can only work for or obtain the means of life from a few different companies. This is not freedom of choice, it's tyranny.

A lump sum of 500 dollars with which to choose what you want gives you more freedom than you had before.

Compare the following two scenarios:
1. A poor family is given $1,000/month with which to buy food
2. A poor family is handed $1,000-worth of food items each month.

Clearly, the family has more choice (the subject under consideration) in the first case than in the second, don't you think? How is education different than food?

A natural consequence of a system whose natural tendency is to squeeze the most productivity out of labor as possible.

Except people were much poorer before the system started operating, and much wealthier afterwards.

Capitalism didn't create poverty - capitalism alleviated it. The natural state of humans is one of (deep) poverty.

If the employer controls the means of life, the worker has no option.

The worker has an option of which employer to choose.

The "market-clearing price" in 19th century coals mines incidentally was mighty close to zero. Not to mention those little things called health and safety.

Except that population grew rapidly in the 19th century. So those people managed both to survive and pay for their children. More, by the way, than can be said for their ancestors before those had an opportunity to work in the mines.

It is a mental feat of the highest order to look at the system of wage labor and see fairness and equality between worker and employer.

I never said there was equality. People are not equal, and there is nothing "unfair" about that. It is a fact of life.

What I will say is that there is nothing wrong with a system in which people contract with each other voluntarily, as long as no person initiates force against another.

As for "exploitation", I no longer know what you mean by that term.

The company is always working to maximize labor productivity to increase surplus value. A more fierce form of exploitation allows for a company to increase the rate of surplus value so it's a tactic regularly employed by business. This is simply historical fact.

You didn't answer my question about the difference between employer-employee and business-customer relations. The company, to follow your lead, is always working to maximize prices while minimizing costs. That would seem to put it on a collision course with the interests of customers no less than with employees.

He can also buy unused land and develop it to supplement production. If he has a large area he can use more advanced equipment and create a final product more cheaply than his competitors. This is more possible in manufacturing than agriculture but lets stick to the example anyways.

Agreed.

If the price of his product is always dropping (and barring disaster, it does), then he will need to continue to increase the productivity of labor and exploit that labor effectively to make a profit.

Not necessarily. Prices could drop because of improved efficiency due to better technology or more capital goods. Profit is based on the difference between income and cost. One can increase profits by selling more, or cutting cost with efficiency and capital.

Further, capital accumulation increases labour productivity, and thus allows increased wages. At the end of the day, if you make shoes by hand, and it takes you a whole day to make a shoe, you will not earn more than one shoe's worth per day. If, on the other hand, you use equipment to make 100 shoes per day, you might not get 100 shoe's worth per day (because some will go to the owner of the equipment), but it is easy to see that you could make much more than you did when you had to do everything by hand.

Increased productivity due to capital accumulation is a win-win change, with both owners and workers making more.

Well this is semantic at this point, but it makes no difference because I believe I've made the point that the capitalist can use his wealth to create a favorable outcome, whether or not this falls under your strict definition of force.

He can use his wealth to create a favourable outcome, but that outcome is at nobody's expense!

He uses his wealth to purchase machines that allow him to produce stuff more cheaply. We all benefit from such changes. So what if he also benefits? Who cares?

Capitalism in its early stages was a productive force. You are arguing for the system at a time when it is observably collapsing, as the rate of profit continues to fall, wealth continues to accumulate, and workers are more and more feverishly exploited.

Except that are not - workers make more and more money, and are able to afford more and more stuff for each hour they are working.

[grassroots1]

Who are "they"? If you are talking about teachers and principles, they are in either system because they get paid. Ideally, they also want to educate, but there is no difference, at this point of the analysis, between the two systems.

If you are talking about "management", it is answerable to politician (in the public system) or shareholders (in the private). Politicians are motivated by the need to get re-elected, while shareholders are, as you correctly point out, motivated by profit.

While the two systems have different motivations, neither one is directly motivated by the need to educate.

The school system is managed by principals and superintendents, not politicians. Issues like funding are worked out through the democratic process, which is a good thing. But every bit of that funding, ideally, goes toward the education of students. It doesn't fuel the profits of a company. Furthermore the service is free if a person chooses to use it, and because of this we have a certain standard of education.

Privatization of education means that less wealth is being redistributed in order to create a public good, an thus it would accelerate exploitation. Our 19th century coal miners did not have the capability to receive a proper education because of the nature of their relationship to the employer. When you suggest that education should be ledt up to "choice" within the context of capitalism, you're invotim this exploitation. When you suggest that these people should not unionize in this type of situation, you are saying that they should accept misery and early death for the sake of this particular form of fairness. The type of exploitation that existed in 19th century America still exists all over the world still today. Your entire image is intentionally ignorant of the existence of this inherent contradiction in interests.

In the public system wealth can also be destroyed. If, for example, we paid each teacher $1,000,000/year, the value of education we would get would be lower than the cost we put in. We would be destroying wealth. However, unlike the private system, the public system has no way of even knowing whether it is or isn't destroying wealth.

You think public institutions like schools don't have budgets and a whole system of allocation? Of course they know what they are spending most of their money on.

I am not sure I understand your logic. The same "exploitative system" provides us with food, housing, clothing, entertainment, transportation, etc.

That's true, it does. It doesn't change the fact that labor is exploited in the production of the clothing, cars, iPods, whatever.

Clearly, the family has more choice (the subject under consideration) in the first case than in the second, don't you think? How is education different than food?

Aside from the cost question addresses above, your question fails to consider the broader scope. If you get $1000 a month but the only place you can both work and buy food is a single location (an extreme example for the sake of simplification), you are no better off than you were before. You're still essentially enslaved. If you choose through a democratic process to tax everyone in the community including the owners and operators of the company, and then use these funds to establish schools and libraries and basic needs of life, then you have significantly increased the quality of life in this situation.

Except people were much poorer before the system started operating, and much wealthier afterwards.

Capitalism didn't create poverty - capitalism alleviated it. The natural state of humans is one of (deep) poverty.

I don't deny that it has resulted in cheap goods, and that is the problem with capitalist production. The more productivity is gleaned from each worker and the more the means of production are developed, the less additional surplus value can be obtained through further technological advance or exploitation. They'll be left with commodities but no market to sell them in. That's how extreme wealth can exist alongside extreme poverty, because of its distribution.

Except that population grew rapidly in the 19th century. So those people managed both to survive and pay for their children. More, by the way, than can be said for their ancestors before those had an opportunity to work in the mines.

Because population grew, the lives of those workers were decent? No.

I never said there was equality. People are not equal, and there is nothing "unfair" about that. It is a fact of life.

I don't view individuals in a hierarchy, and I don't view capitalism as a meritocracy.

You didn't answer my question about the difference between employer-employee and business-customer relations. The company, to follow your lead, is always working to maximize prices while minimizing costs. That would seem to put it on a collision course with the interests of customers no less than with employees.

They work to maximize profits. The customer needs to be pleased (if their are other options for them to choose), this is true. Because of this companies utilize asymmetry of information, illusion, or other strategies to cut costs in that way.

Increased productivity due to capital accumulation is a win-win change, with both owners and workers making more.

First, how does capital accumulation in itself create productivity? And second, developments in the productive forces rarely translate into increased wages for workers, instead they translate into momentarily increased profits for employers.

He uses his wealth to purchase machines that allow him to produce stuff more cheaply. We all benefit from such changes. So what if he also benefits? Who cares?

If the business has monopolized the industry in the region there is a reason to care. Concentration of control of the productive forces is a form of power.

Except that are not - workers make more and more money, and are able to afford more and more stuff for each hour they are working.

Last I checked workers have been making less and income inequality has been increasing rapidly for at least the past 40 years.

[Eran]

The school system is managed by principals and superintendents, not politicians. Issues like funding are worked out through the democratic process, which is a good thing. But every bit of that funding, ideally, goes toward the education of students. It doesn't fuel the profits of a company. Furthermore the service is free if a person chooses to use it, and because of this we have a certain standard of education.

Compare a system in which a for-profit corporation owns many schools, with principals and regional managers (equivalent to superintendents). The private school system would be managed by principals and superintendents, not Capitalists or shareholders.

In the current environment, not every bit of funding goes to the education of students. Most of it is wasted on bureaucracy and over-paid, under-performing teachers. If you over-pay a teacher, you might have the illusion that the money went towards the education of students, but you would be fooling yourself.

Profits of a company are just another word for "what is left over after all the bills have been paid". Profit is not set aside as an expense.

As for the "standard of education" the public system gives us, if you are so confident about its merits, what have you to lose by giving parents vouchers, while still keeping the public schools open?

To your system, here is what will happen:
1. Private schools, since they have to produce profit, would have to cut on cost, thereby resulting in inferior educational results
2. Parents will prefer keeping their children in the public schools
3. Therefore, no harm will be caused.

But in the unlikely event that you are wrong, and a private provider can both extract profit AND provide better educational result, everybody wins - the parents and children get better education, and the profit can be used to expand the offering of superior education to additional children.

You think public institutions like schools don't have budgets and a whole system of allocation? Of course they know what they are spending most of their money on.

I'm not sure they do. Public systems often become incredibly obfuscated so as to hide what is actually going on. For example, the true economic cost of retirement benefits is always hidden, with unrealistic return assumptions on funds set-aside.

But this is not my main point. How do you know that we are paying teachers the right wage in the public system? We might be underpaying them, or we might be overpaying. More likely, we are underpaying some teachers (talented, energetic but will short tenure) and overpaying others (lazy, unmotivated but with long tenure). We just don't know.

The more productivity is gleaned from each worker and the more the means of production are developed, the less additional surplus value can be obtained through further technological advance or exploitation.

It is sometimes hard to believe you and I live in the same world. We have been living under Capitalism for at least 200 years. Surely, its dire effects should have had time to work themselves out. Yet innovators and entrepreneurs continue to come up with better and better way of producing more and more stuff for lower cost, with everybody winning. Set aside your mantras, and tell me how your view reconciles with the world around you, a world in which ordinary people with minimal amount of application can afford cars, specious homes with air-conditioners and dish-washers, vacations around the world, etc., whereas before the advent of Capitalism, they counted themselves lucky to have enough to eat.

Because population grew, the lives of those workers were decent? No.

Not decent by modern standards, but better than those of their ancestors. Ask yourself why it is that population didn't grow as quickly previously. It isn't because people didn't like having sex, or used contraceptives. Rather, it was because they died in droves. Many in childhood, but, not infrequently, due to starvation or disease. Until recent cultural changes, a growing population was a sign of prosperity.

I don't view individuals in a hierarchy, and I don't view capitalism as a meritocracy.

Neither do I. But neither do I view individuals as interchangeable, "equal" ants. We are each different. We are not equal. The capitalist system is not a meritocracy. It is a very system whereby people succeed due to a large number of factors, including luck, talent, application and environment. Capitalism is not a system in which the results, taken as a snapshot, can be viewed as "just". Rather, it is a just system because the results are derived using just means.

The customer needs to be pleased (if their are other options for them to choose), this is true.

And the very same holds with respect to the employee.

First, how does capital accumulation in itself create productivity? And second, developments in the productive forces rarely translate into increased wages for workers, instead they translate into momentarily increased profits for employers.

"Capital" is the value of capital goods - machines, tools and other products designed to enhance productivity. Capital creates productivity almost by definition. If an item doesn't enhance productivity, it shouldn't count as capital.

As for your second point, how do you account for the much higher standard of living of ordinary workers in the US vs. China or India? If you think it is due to government intervention, why doesn't the Indian government simply adopt the practices of the US government? If it did, do you think India would be transformed to another America overnight? If not, what is missing, if not capital?

If the business has monopolized the industry in the region there is a reason to care. Concentration of control of the productive forces is a form of power.

What does it mean for a business to "monopolize" the industry? Since the business cannot (legitimately) use force, it can only "monopolize" by providing better products and lower price than any potential competition. What is wrong with that? If the business tries to abuse its position, competition will quickly move in. It happens all the time.

Last I checked workers have been making less and income inequality has been increasing rapidly for at least the past 40 years.

Check again. Workers make more and more income. As for inequality, it hasn't actually risen that much, but even if it did, it is beside the point. The workers are better off (in fact, much better off) than they were 40 or 20 years ago.

[grassroots1]

Compare a system in which a for-profit corporation owns many schools, with principals and regional managers (equivalent to superintendents). The private school system would be managed by principals and superintendents, not Capitalists or shareholders.

The ultimate motivation of that management is still to function in the way that will best benefit the shareholders and the bottom line, whereas the motivation of public servants is to serve the public. At cost, free, with the best interests of students in mind. There are problems with overpaid bureaucracies and misadministration (though teachers are often underpaid and overworked), but there are public school systems in existence that are far superior to our own. We should emulate these systems and maintain this base of knowledge that everyone receives, not scrap the system and leave it up to the market. This would inevitably mean that people go uneducated, children could go into work before they can receive an education, and the wealth hierarchy would be maintained. Public education is a source of social mobility even if it does not function ideally at the present moment.

As for the "standard of education" the public system gives us, if you are so confident about its merits, what have you to lose by giving parents vouchers, while still keeping the public schools open?

I wouldn't have any problem with that, so long as public schools remain open.

To your system, here is what will happen:
1. Private schools, since they have to produce profit, would have to cut on cost, thereby resulting in inferior educational results
2. Parents will prefer keeping their children in the public schools
3. Therefore, no harm will be caused.

I imagine the results would be much different than that though I don't see how it proves anything. My concerns here are with the general effects of wealth concentration and so-called 'privatization of education,' which actually would mean the disappearance of education for many. The corporatization of education but at the rate we're going there won't be a market for education. We can start working as early as we can pick up a burger king paper hat.

But this is not my main point. How do you know that we are paying teachers the right wage in the public system? We might be underpaying them, or we might be overpaying. More likely, we are underpaying some teachers (talented, energetic but will short tenure) and overpaying others (lazy, unmotivated but with long tenure). We just don't know.

You pay them a reasonable amount, so that they can survive reasonably as a human being in that time and place. What a strange concept, that supply and demand somehow determine the intrinsic value of people.

It is sometimes hard to believe you and I live in the same world. We have been living under Capitalism for at least 200 years. Surely, its dire effects should have had time to work themselves out. Yet innovators and entrepreneurs continue to come up with better and better way of producing more and more stuff for lower cost, with everybody winning. Set aside your mantras, and tell me how your view reconciles with the world around you, a world in which ordinary people with minimal amount of application can afford cars, specious homes with air-conditioners and dish-washers, vacations around the world, etc., whereas before the advent of Capitalism, they counted themselves lucky to have enough to eat.

You're ignoring the extent of exploitation that is the necessary cost of this production, and you're ignoring the general trend toward concentration of wealth and the ill effects that this has had and will continue to have over our lives. You ignore the existence of extreme contradictions between labor and business. I have said before, capitalism is a productive force, but that doesn't mean it is inherently good and something we should wholeheartedly adopt. Capitalism has also given us extreme human abuses, environmental destruction and the devastation of the commons, and war. We need democratic control to counter the effects o unbridled capitalism and without that control humanity simply will not survive on this planet in the form that we now know it.

Not decent by modern standards, but better than those of their ancestors. Ask yourself why it is that population didn't grow as quickly previously. It isn't because people didn't like having sex, or used contraceptives. Rather, it was because they died in droves. Many in childhood, but, not infrequently, due to starvation or disease. Until recent cultural changes, a growing population was a sign of prosperity.

On the other hand, kids in the wild didnt lose arms in coal mines. Capitalism has brought the concept of exploitation to a whole new level where extremes of human misery can exist despite the simultaneous existence of extreme wealth.

Rather, it is a just system because the results are derived using just means.

My belief is that collective action can and should be utilized to improve the human experience and the quality of our thinking. I don't see these means as so just as to rule out an other possible form of social organization.

And the very same holds with respect to the employee.

But jobs are few and far between, while labor is plentiful, not to mention the need of the worker to survive in the short term. This means power weighted in the direction of the capitalist.

As for your second point, how do you account for the much higher standard of living of ordinary workers in the US vs. China or India? If you think it is due to government intervention, why doesn't the Indian government simply adopt the practices of the US government? If it did, do you think India would be transformed to another America overnight? If not, what is missing, if not capital?

I don't know the reason for the higher quality of life here, I think it is simply because we are a more advanced economy and have gone through the struggles establishing a basis for a decent quality of life, such as public schools and health system, pensions, a decent workday, a weekend, etc. I imagine big companies would prefer we were willing to live like poor Chinese do.

What does it mean for a business to "monopolize" the industry? Since the business cannot (legitimately) use force, it can only "monopolize" by providing better products and lower price than any potential competition. What is wrong with that? If the business tries to abuse its position, competition will quickly move in. It happens all the time.

How can you explain situations where egregious violations of basic human rights have existed as a result of business wielding power over the individual? A monopoly can block competition and hold an essential resources over the head of people. Water, food, housing, whatever. This is why situations could exist where people were paid in company scrip, could only be used at company stores, to pay rent for company housing, etc. That is called slavery.

Check again. Workers make more and more income. As for inequality, it hasn't actually risen that much, but even if it did, it is beside the point. The workers are better off (in fact, much better off) than they were 40 or 20 years ago.

Real wages have been stagnant at best over the last 40 years. Given the responsiveness of our government to business I imagine we'll continue in that direction.

[Eran]

The ultimate motivation of that management is still to function in the way that will best benefit the shareholders and the bottom line, whereas the motivation of public servants is to serve the public.

Why? If you are drawing a parallel between the two systems, you have to be fair and pick one of the following two options:
1. In both systems, teachers, principles and superintendents can effectively ignore the desires of those above them, and dedicate themselves to the selfless education of children, or
2. In both systems, teachers, principles and superintendents must take into account the priorities of those above them - shareholders in the private system, politicians in the public system.

Otherwise, please explain why share-holders can influence teachers and principles in a private system, but politicians cannot do the same in the public system.

there are public school systems in existence that are far superior to our own.

How come? Didn't you just state that the motivation of public servants is to serve the public? If the current public system is less than perfect, and can be improved-upon, how can you be confidence that private for-profits couldn't deliver such improvement?

From where we are now, it is no good to fantasise about how wonderful Finnish public schools are. We are not in Finland. We can certainly try and learn from the Finnish system, but it is far from obvious that its features can be replicated in the US.

not scrap the system and leave it up to the market. This would inevitably mean that people go uneducated

I really don't see why. We are leaving food production and distribution to the market, and very few people go hungry. We leave TV manufacturing to the market, and very few people don't own a TV. We are leaving clothing production and distribution to the market, and very few people go naked.

You pay them a reasonable amount, so that they can survive reasonably as a human being in that time and place. What a strange concept, that supply and demand somehow determine the intrinsic value of people.

Who said anything about the "intrinsic value of people"? I don't even know what that means. No, people are not paid based on their intrinsic value. Rather, people are paid based on how much others are voluntarily willing to pay them. They are paid, in other words, not based on their "intrinsic" value, but based on their "external" value to others - those who are doing the paying.

As for paying people a "reasonable amount", that is such a vague notion as to be meaningless. Worst, it will inevitably lead to some people (or teachers) being over-paid, while others are being under-paid.

Capitalism has also given us extreme human abuses, environmental destruction and the devastation of the commons, and war

Only when coupled with governments. Governments, of course, have given us all of the above, whether working with capitalists or not.

On the other hand, kids in the wild didnt lose arms in coal mines. Capitalism has brought the concept of exploitation to a whole new level where extremes of human misery can exist despite the simultaneous existence of extreme wealth.

No, "kids in the wild" starved to death. Can you demonstrate a single case, period or events that show how Capitalists, without resorting to their political friends, and without acting in ways that I reject (i.e. initiation of force) have made anybody's lot worse than it would have been without those Capitalists? A single case please.

My belief is that collective action can and should be utilized to improve the human experience and the quality of our thinking. I don't see these means as so just as to rule out an other possible form of social organization.

There is nothing wrong with collective action. The contrast is not between Capitalism and collective action. Rather, the contrast is between aggression (i.e. initiation of force) against just property owners, and purely voluntary action.

That distinction crosses Capitalist/worker lines. Capitalists, when working with government, are often responsible for aggression (and are thus unjust in my book). Many dedicated libertarians firmly believe that the main effect of government is to repress the lower classes as a tool of the Capitalist elite. They may well be right.

Voluntary action, on the other hand, always improve the lot of all involved. That voluntary action can take the form of collective action, mutual aid, charity or other forms of social cooperation amongst workers. It can also take the form of commercial cooperation between different people and companies, including the taking of or offering of employment.

But jobs are few and far between, while labor is plentiful,

Why is that the case? If wages are allowed to drift to their market-clearing level, the number of jobs offered and the number of willing workers will, by definition equalize. At that point, the "jobs are few" mantra will cease to be true.

How can you explain situations where egregious violations of basic human rights have existed as a result of business wielding power over the individual?

There are three possibilities:
1. The business in question cooperated with government to oppress the workers
2. The business in question was criminal, and I wouldn't support it
3. No human rights were violated. Rather, workers choose voluntarily to work under conditions you disapprove of, but which they felt were superior to any alternative available to them.

A monopoly can block competition and hold an essential resources over the head of people. Water, food, housing, whatever.

This is true and very common, even routine, when government is involved. However, there isn't a single documented case of private monopoly over water, food, housing whatever, except over people who voluntarily chose to subject themselves (temporarily) to such monopoly.

When you go on a cruise, or into Disneyland, for example, you accept the cruise company or Disney as the private monopoly provider of water, food, etc. You do that because those companies have good reputation for not charging excessively (though they obviously charge more than they would in a competitive market).

This is why situations could exist where people were paid in company scrip, could only be used at company stores, to pay rent for company housing, etc. That is called slavery.

Only if they were forcibly prohibited from leaving. If they were, the company's behaviour was criminal, and wouldn't be held in a proper ancap society. It was, please note, allowed to take place under government, further showing the latter's inferior ability to resolve social problems.

If they were not forcibly prohibited from leaving, it wasn't slavery.

Real wages have been stagnant at best over the last 40 years.

Wrong. Real wages have dramatically improved over the past 40, 30 and 20 years.

People can now afford to buy much more with their wages than they were able to in the past.

[Someone5]

This is so wrong as to baffle the mind.

It is one thing to argue that top-down control has some merits (though I don't see any). But to suggest that it somehow enhances choice?

The more power you give government, the less choice you have. Because government's business is to make choices on your behalf. Whether it is about how to use up to 50% of your income, which products to purchase, or which job offers to accept. Every single government action has the effect of limiting choice.

This is a general principle of all hierarchies, public or private.

Wealth without government is not power. Wealth allows the wealthy to make tempting offers to other property owners, but not to force anybody to do anything.

Wealth without governments doesn't exist; you can't have property without governments. But even assuming that you mean a government that does nothing but enforce property rights, wealth provides power--because it allows you to narrow people's options by changing their circumstances.

Let's try this. Start with a socialist utopia in which every person has an equal amount of wealth, but in which property rights are respected. Contemplate, for example, a farming community in which each farmer owns a comparable lot of land.

You cannot have a socialist state that "respects property rights". Property and socialism cannot coexist.

Now imagine that, somehow, one person in your utopia becomes incredibly wealthy. They just inherited billions of dollars.

Please explain how that "concentration of wealth" in any way hurts the other farmers.

It drives price inflation.

If you don't like my scenario, please set your own scenario, with the following simple rules:
1. Private property is respected
2. Wealth accumulation and concentration is done through wealth creation, rather than at the expense of others.

All wealth accumulation and concentration is done at the expense of others, through the privation of public resources.

[Eran]

This is a general principle of all hierarchies, public or private.

Indeed. However, one puts one's self as part of a private hierarchy by choice. One similarly has a choice of leaving a private hierarchy at will.

By voluntarily placing themselves within a private hierarchy, people are expressing their preference. They value the benefits of the hierarchy more than the lost choice.

With public hierarchy, on the other hand, there is no individual choice.

Wealth without governments doesn't exist; you can't have property without governments.

Wrong. You can have property as long as it is accepted by the bulk of society. Enforcement of property rights can take place through a poly-centric legal order, i.e. without a monopoly organisation.

But even assuming that you mean a government that does nothing but enforce property rights, wealth provides power--because it allows you to narrow people's options by changing their circumstances.

You are thinking exclusively about land. After all, how are my choices limited because Bill Gates has many billions of dollars?

Land, btw, is very plentiful. Most land in most countries in the world (even the likes of Hong Kong) is undeveloped. Without government, it would be available for use by anybody.

You cannot have a socialist state that "respects property rights". Property and socialism cannot coexist.

To my understanding, most socialists accept rights in non-productive property such as food and clothing. Or do you think that in a socialist society, anybody is allowed to snatch food from my hands or tear the shirt off my back?

If they are not allowed to do that, how would you characterise my relation to the food in my hand and the shirt on my back other than as my property?

It drives price inflation.

Reasonable point. If the inheritance is merely of money.

If the inheritance is of assets that other people value, it might drive up some prices, while driving down others, but won't affect overall price level.

Regardless, in the context of a large economy such as that of the US, a few billion dollars won't make a dent in inflation.

All wealth accumulation and concentration is done at the expense of others, through the privation of public resources.

Public resources are not wealth. Wealth is resources converted to useful form. Through conversion, wealth is created. The world today is much wealthier than it was 30, 100 or 200 years ago, even though no new resources have suddenly appeared.

[Someone5]

Indeed. However, one puts one's self as part of a private hierarchy by choice. One similarly has a choice of leaving a private hierarchy at will.

That is an incredibly naive and unrealistic viewpoint on the relationship between employers and employees. Most employees have little choice; continue work or face the mercies of the market. The middle and upper class people may have the luxury of being able to go a few months while jobless, but not people living from paycheck to paycheck. In practice, they have no real choice at all. At best they might be able to choose from among a small set of employers--which isn't really much of a choice at all when all of them operate similarly.

By voluntarily placing themselves within a private hierarchy, people are expressing their preference. They value the benefits of the hierarchy more than the lost choice.

My, what thick glasses you have on, are they very strongly tinted?

With public hierarchy, on the other hand, there is no individual choice.

You could always immigrate. Or go to prison. Which is about as meaningful a choice as your proposal that a person can either work in a hierarchy or starve.

Wrong. You can have property as long as it is accepted by the bulk of society. Enforcement of property rights can take place through a poly-centric legal order, i.e. without a monopoly organisation.

Having many competing governments within a territory does not make them something other than governments.

You are thinking exclusively about land. After all, how are my choices limited because Bill Gates has many billions of dollars?

Well, your chances of successfully entering the desktop operating system business are substantially lower as a result of his businesses' activities.

Land, btw, is very plentiful. Most land in most countries in the world (even the likes of Hong Kong) is undeveloped. Without government, it would be available for use by anybody.

No, it would be available for use only by its owner. Property diminishes freedom and the utility of land.

To my understanding, most socialists accept rights in non-productive property such as food and clothing.

Or do you think that in a socialist society, anybody is allowed to snatch food from my hands or tear the shirt off my back?

Possessions are not property. Property is is a durable claim to exclusivity that exists even if the owner does not use it; possessions are merely items that happen to be in use by someone. There is a substantial difference there.

If they are not allowed to do that, how would you characterise my relation to the food in my hand and the shirt on my back other than as my property?

It is your possession, but not your property.

Reasonable point. If the inheritance is merely of money.

Ultimately all assets can be liquidated if there is any demand whatsoever.

Regardless, in the context of a large economy such as that of the US, a few billion dollars won't make a dent in inflation.

Individually, no, but when that represents the circumstances of a sizable class of people... then yes, it most certainly does.

Public resources are not wealth.

So what? It's still an expense that the creation of wealth imposes on everyone else. That's the fundamental lesson of the opportunity cost--and one that most capitalists are happy to ignore. When you pull a ton of iron from the ground and make it into steel, that is a ton of iron that someone else cannot make into steel. The fact that the public resources are not wealth is irrelevant.

Wealth is resources converted to useful form.

Hardly.

Through conversion, wealth is created. The world today is much wealthier than it was 30, 100 or 200 years ago, even though no new resources have suddenly appeared.

The "world" may be weather, if we include the ruling classes, but that has come at the expense of the public. Resources that were once public have been converted into capital held privately by a relatively small slice of the population; that is the only way wealth is ever "created". Which is itself a poor way to describe the accumulation of wealth. It implies that something is added, rather than simply exchanged from public hands to private hands.

[Eran]

Most employees have little choice; continue work or face the mercies of the market.

Most employers have little choice either - continue to employ or face the mercies of the market.

It is true that accumulated wealth allows one to "buy" a few months before being forced to compromise. But consider the flip side of your observation. The less choice you claim most employees have, the more important and valuable the role of the employer.

Employers are under no legal or moral obligation to start businesses and offer employment. By your contention, most employees would be in a far worse state if it wasn't for their current job. Consequently, most employees owe their lives to their employers. What an ungrateful bunch!

In reality, of course, most employees have plenty of choice. Bankruptcies or lay-offs have never been followed by episodes of starvation. New employment opportunities tend to come up, or be available for most employees.

But you are confusing material constraints with moral issues. A subsistence farmer may have very little choice regarding his daily routine if he wants to secure his family's survival. Yet he is completely free from any human constraint.

My, what thick glasses you have on, are they very strongly tinted?

Seriously. You just painted a picture whereby an employee must work to survive. Consequently, his choice is a clear one of preferring the better state of employed-survival to the inferior choice of unemployed-starvation. Since the employer is not responsible for the starvation consequence of unemployment, the employer is actually the saviour of the worker. Gratitude?

You could always immigrate. Or go to prison. Which is about as meaningful a choice as your proposal that a person can either work in a hierarchy or starve.

Immigration has not always been an available choice, especially in your more socialist nations.

However, there is a sea of moral difference between choosing your best available option, and having people use force to limit your options.

Having many competing governments within a territory does not make them something other than governments.

Yes, it does. Territorial monopoly is a definitional pre-requisite of governmenthood.

However, I don't want to waste time on semantics. Provided each of the competing organisation is committed to not violating others' property rights, I support them. Call them what you want.

Well, your chances of successfully entering the desktop operating system business are substantially lower as a result of his businesses' activities.

True. That is because of the preferences of desktop operating system clients. But you can still attempt to tempt them away from Bill Gates' clutches. Plus, you are confusing Microsoft's ongoing business, with the personal fortunes of its founder. If Bill Gates retires and lives on his estate in utmost luxury, why should I care?

No, it would be available for use only by its owner. Property diminishes freedom and the utility of land.

I am suggesting a system in which ownership of undeveloped natural resources can only go to the first person who actually develops them. Undeveloped land (as is most land in most countries) is unowned, and free for the taking.

Possessions are not property. Property is is a durable claim to exclusivity that exists even if the owner does not use it; possessions are merely items that happen to be in use by someone. There is a substantial difference there.

Of course. Are you suggesting that I can take a comrade's shirt from his washing line, because he isn't using it at the moment?

It is your possession, but not your property.

So when I go to visit my mother, anybody can legitimately enter my house, eat my food and wear my cloths, as, at that moment, I wasn't using them?

Individually, no, but when that represents the circumstances of a sizable class of people... then yes, it most certainly does.

The point is that wealth can be created. When a person creates wealth, it is not done at anybody else's expense. Would you like me to come up with a simple example?

"Wealth is resources converted to useful form."

Hardly

Oh? How would you characterise wealth (as opposed to money)?

The "world" may be weather, if we include the ruling classes, but that has come at the expense of the public.

Oh? Can you point to any group of people who are probably worse off today than they were 100 years ago?

[houndred]

Oh? Can you point to any group of people who are probably worse off today than they were 100 years ago?

I can! The Clergy!

[Eran]

Not so.

Clergy members today enjoy a much higher standard of living then they did 100 years ago.

They have access to flights, modern medicine and iPads.

[Someone5]

Not so.

Clergy members today enjoy a much higher standard of living then they did 100 years ago.

They have access to flights, modern medicine and iPads.

Technological advancement occurs with or without capitalism; in what was has capitalism, rather than technological development, improved their lives?

[Nunt]

Technological advancement occurs with or without capitalism; in what was has capitalism, rather than technological development, improved their lives?

You should check the rate of technological advancement in the 2000years before capitalism. It wasn't much.

[KlassWar]

Capitalism is more progressive than Feudalism, sure. Economically, it's more efficient than Tribalism.

That doesn't mean that technological advancement requires capitalism. IIRC, Socialist Countries also developed lots of technology (at a pretty much comparable rate).

[Someone5]

You should check the rate of technological advancement in the 2000years before capitalism. It wasn't much.

Technology builds on itself; there is nothing to suggest that capitalism is any better at promoting that. If anything intellectual property gets in the way of technological development in capitalist societies.

[Eran]

Capitalism drives progress by motivating innovation.

In addition, much of the progress of the past 200 years has to do with increased efficiency of doing business and greater benefits from division of labour and trade, rather than technology in the narrow sense. All that efficiency gain is again driven by the incentives of the Capitalist system.

Finally, Capitalism is the only system which effectively channels technological (as well as other types of) innovation in the direction of meeting consumer preferences. Government-based research projects (e.g. military or space) can achieve technological innovation without effectively improving the lives of ordinary consumers.

If anything intellectual property gets in the way of technological development in capitalist societies.

Agreed. IP is not an essential part of Capitalism. It is rejected by growing fraction of libertarians (self included).