• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Distribution of Wealth [W:446] (2 Viewers)

I understand you believe it to be a fallacy, just as others believe that it is a fallacy to think that property is NOT a natural right. When one starts with different premises, one will reach different conclusions.

Which is why I made a bunch of arguments to say it is NOT a natural right.

Yes, I understand that you don't believe that property is a natural right. Obviously, that is your belief and there's nothing I can do to change your fundamental premises that lead you to this conclusion. So I have come to realize that there's really no point in continuing to argue the point.

However, while your beliefs don't impact my life, the law does. So my primary concern is what sorts of legislation you propose and support based upon your belief that people have no natural right to property.

The conclusions I come to could be different dispite not believing property is a natural right, if I was convinced that capitalism was the best way to organize society then I'd switch over ... has nothing to do with property being a natural right, I've just never been convinced of that.

Again, you are certainly free to hold whatever opinions your wish regarding property rights. You have laid out your argument and I have done likewise. Neither of us has convinced the other. Therefore, my only concern now is what action you intend to undertake that will effect me and my property.

I don't think you've argued that property rights are a natural right ... only that they are traditional.
 
Which is why I made a bunch of arguments to say it is NOT a natural right.

Yes, you have. And others have made a bunch of arguments that it IS a natural right. Both sides obviously think their argument is correct, most likely because they are basing their arguments upon different sets of premises.

The conclusions I come to could be different dispite not believing property is a natural right, if I was convinced that capitalism was the best way to organize society then I'd switch over ... has nothing to do with property being a natural right, I've just never been convinced of that.

I don't think you've argued that property rights are a natural right ... only that they are traditional.
I'm pretty sure that I stated earlier that I agreed with the Lockean homesteading principle and that it is wrong for anyone to take the property of another. I am in the camp of those that regard private ownership of property as a natural right.

However, our own personal opinions are less important than any proposed change to legislation as it pertains to property. You appear to be advocating for a different legal system in which property and capitalist production are eliminated. I am less interested in our respective philosophical beliefs than I am in the ramifications of your policy proposals.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, you have. And others have made a bunch of arguments that it IS a natural right. Both sides obviously think their argument is correct, most likely because they are basing their arguments upon different sets of premises.

Alright, although, honestly, I don't think the other side has been able to defend their premises at all, but we arn't convincing anyone :p, that's not really what debate forums are for.

Federalist said:
I'm pretty sure that I stated earlier that I agreed with the Lockean homesteading principle and that it is wrong for anyone to take the property of another. I am in the camp of those that regard private ownership of property as a natural right.

I see, well, there are TONS of problems with the Lockean honesteading principle as a natural right (as opposed to just a utalitarian social institution) which I've brought up before, such as its arbitraryness, its non universal application, its self contradiction (such as why mixing labor with land equals right in only the first instance but not after), and so on.

Federalist said:
However, our own personal opinions are less important than any proposed change to legislation as it pertains to property. You appear to be advocating for a different legal system in which property and capitalist production are eliminated. I am less interested in our respective philosophical beliefs than I am in the ramifications of your policy proposals.

Thats a whole different issue, that we can talk about, I don't have any universal solutions or universal policies, but I think in these times strong Co-Determination laws, which change the corporate structure would be very very positive, but keep in mind this is an economics forum, not a constitutional forum, so if you want to discuss it, lets talk the economics of it.
 
but I think in these times strong Co-Determination laws, which change the corporate structure would be very very positive,
On what do you base this belief? Very very positive? Sounds like your emotions are talking. Or, you must mean there is strong evidence out there that a nations economy (not just a single corporation) would receive very very positive performance improvements as a result of these co-determination laws? I applaud you for being very specific (Finally?), on what change you champion. Assuming you're not looking to just get a foot in the door and slipper-slope it over to your other goals.

To support your position, I'd approach it as follows. If a co-determination law applies to only larger companies, and only gives a voice and some authority, but majority authority still resides with owners/board (whatever the current system is), there is some merit to it in my opinon. The issue is that right now we're free to do that, but employees naturally would feel their job was at risk if they were to organize in any way, which is probably true in enough cases that matter. Which is why you'd need a law to protect them, and to attempt to make it the culture of the business community overall. But it's not necessarily about efficiency first, it's about some amount of adequate representation by labor, that doesn't approach union corruption and power, but also isn't only a token gesture. The real issue that this can be claimed to address is inadequate feedback from labor to management. Systems as complex as business with people involved, must have healthy feedback mechanisms. If employees are too robotic (or worse, fearful) and as a result never raise issues, champion changes, etc., that feedback loop is for practical purposes, missing. The business leaders may enjoy that, I mean, it's like a family where the kids don't speak until spoken to, and the wife never questions the husband...there is a certain primal euphoria in that. And a certain number of people in every nation that pine for that old family structure, and no doubt likely prefer it in their business "Family" as well. But I think best business practice always points to feedback systems being essential for overall improvement.

Today, employees may enjoy exactly what you want, but its at the whim of their employer. Making it the norm and a requirement, rather than whim, appears to be your goal.

Or to put it another way that strums the heartstrings of American business sentiment...if decentralization is good, if central authority and power consolidation leads to inefficiency and inflexibility, and the public school system should be decentralized, why not corporations as well?
 
Glad to see you write something I can agree with Mach :) ...Though I guess it is pretty far off subject from the OP (just an observation not a critique).
 
Mach, I've written over and over again about what I support, and specific solutions over and over again, and I've defended them.

But the thing is, workers are NOT free to organize that way, since they have to work within the corporate structure, which is a state institution. The way things are set up now its not even REALLY the owners, its the executives and the board, since the owners are dispersed and extremely liquid, meaning they don't really have a long term interest in the company, and will put short term profit above re-investment, limiting negative externalities (which they won't look at at all), and the future of the company or community at large.

If factory was run mainly by the workers, they would'nt outsource, they would'nt dump waste in their rivers, they would'nt fire people when the company was in hard times, nor would they give giant rediculous bonuses to executives.

We have examples of this in Sweden and Germany and other places, although Sweden's version is a bit weaker, and there we have empirical evidence that it works.

What I would propose is that half of the votes for the board go to the workers and half to the stockholders, and that the candidates are not only selected by the executive (as they are now), but also by representatives of the workers.

As we know nowerdays people buy and sell stocks mainly for capital gains, not because they want to be part of a company.

Now this is not just to make the company run better, because the question is run better "for whome" and "by what measure," right now its ONLY for the Capitalists and ONLY by the measure of profit, these kinds of law changes change the dynamic, change the incentives and change the measure by which companies run.

I have a post a while back about what to do about unemployment, I've always posted specifics.
 
But the thing is, workers are NOT free to organize that way, since they have to work within the corporate structure, which is a state institution.

They have to work within a corporate structure IF they CHOOSE to work for a corporation. No one is FORCING them to do that. Plenty of people start their own business, work for co-ops, non-profits, etc. More than twenty million people work for government at some level.
 
They have to work within a corporate structure IF they CHOOSE to work for a corporation. No one is FORCING them to do that. Plenty of people start their own business, work for co-ops, non-profits, etc. More than twenty million people work for government at some level.

More fantasy-land economics. Yes there are people who do not work for corporations... so what? The subject was corporations and people who work in them which most people do because well that is the way the capitalist system is structured. What is your suggestion here? That anyone working in a corporation can suddenly up and leave it?

Its so funny how any and every right-wing argument so far has had to rely on total fantasy to support their claims. I mean can't you folks make any actual solid reality-based arguments? This is starting to get tiresome.
 
Ahlevah said:
They have to work within a corporate structure IF they CHOOSE to work for a corporation. No one is FORCING them to do that. Plenty of people start their own business, work for co-ops, non-profits, etc. More than twenty million people work for government at some level.

Well, no one is holding a gun up to their head and saying "work for a corporation," but the way the institutions of capitalism are set up, most people have to work for a corporation since they don't have access to capital (which is in the hands of capitalists) to start their own buisiness, nor do they have the option of working for non-profits and so on.

This is the real world.
 
More fantasy-land economics. Yes there are people who do not work for corporations... so what? The subject was corporations and people who work in them which most people do because well that is the way the capitalist system is structured. What is your suggestion here? That anyone working in a corporation can suddenly up and leave it?

Its so funny how any and every right-wing argument so far has had to rely on total fantasy to support their claims. I mean can't you folks make any actual solid reality-based arguments? This is starting to get tiresome.

I don't see what is not reality based about leaving a place of employment and finding another place of employment. People do in fact do this all the time. They work for a place, find another place to work, and leave the other job. Some even start their own place of business with sometimes very little capital upfront. This happens everyday and there is no fantasy involved. Sorry, but you are not forced to work for your current employer or for anyone and saying you are is just hyberbole.
 
Last edited:
Well, no one is holding a gun up to their head and saying "work for a corporation," but the way the institutions of capitalism are set up, most people have to work for a corporation since they don't have access to capital (which is in the hands of capitalists) to start their own buisiness, nor do they have the option of working for non-profits and so on.

This is the real world.

You can actually start your own business with very little capital. Do you need ideas or better yet information perhaps?
 
I don't see what is not reality based about leaving a place of employment and finding another place of employment. People do in fact do this all the time. They work for a place, find another place to work, and leave the other job. Some even start their own place of business with sometimes very little capital upfront. This happens everyday and there is no fantasy involved. Sorry, but you are not forced to work for your current employer and saying you are is just hyberbole.

If you leave one employer for another in a capitalist economy, what are the chances you will just leave one corporation for another? Could everyone all at once leave their employers and start companies with this "very little"(entirely dependent on the business model) capital? In the current economic situation have you met very many people easily switching jobs? Was this so much more the case even when the economy was better off... only slightly. How about you look around at the way the real world works and how real people act rather then spouting off total fantasy?
 
You can actually start your own business with very little capital. Do you need ideas or better yet information perhaps?

With a loan, maybe ... But yeah ... I suppose the reason people don't start their own buisines is because they are just to dumb to do so, or because they love having a boss :roll:, these arguments always baffle me, its never systemic, its always individual fallacy, no matter what the trends or statistics are.
 
If you leave one employer for another in a capitalist economy, what are the chances you will just leave one corporation for another?

Do you think its actually hard to avoid working for a corporation if that is what you are trying to avoid? Why would you even assume that?

Could everyone all at once leave their employers and start companies with this "very little"(entirely dependent on the business model) capital?

Everyone doing the same thing all at once? Since when has that actually happened? Obviously what you are bringing up has no chance of occurring, let alone get to the point of worrying about the possibilities of the outcome of such an event.

In the current economic situation have you met very many people easily switching jobs? Was this so much more the case even when the economy was better off... only slightly.

I never argued that it was easy at all times or that its even easy to switch jobs but that people do it all the time. That is just an undeniable fact.

How about you look around at the way the real world works and how real people act rather then spouting off total fantasy?

You mean kind of like your scenario where people are all going to do the same thing at exactly the same time. You mean like that?
 
With a loan, maybe ... But yeah ... I suppose the reason people don't start their own buisines is because they are just to dumb to do so, or because they love having a boss :roll:, these arguments always baffle me, its never systemic, its always individual fallacy, no matter what the trends or statistics are.

Nope, no loan required actually. I'm not going to guess why people do what they do, but the fact remains you can start a business with very little down.
 
Well depends on the type of buisiness ... I can start a consultancy for alsmot nothing ...
 
With a loan, maybe ... But yeah ... I suppose the reason people don't start their own buisines is because they are just to dumb to do so, or because they love having a boss :roll:, these arguments always baffle me, its never systemic, its always individual fallacy, no matter what the trends or statistics are.


They don't start businesses due to paralyzing fear. Fear of failure, fear of success, fear of being ridiculed, fear of exposing the fact that one is not competent, fear of loss of security, fear of loss of money, etc.

Many people can be excellent employees, but are not self motivated enough to be self employed. Many years ago I had a business partner who would do absolutely nothing. Eventually I just told him to get the F*** out of MY business, I helped to arrange for him to get a job somewhere else, and he agreed to walk away from his share of the equity (and debt) of the business. He got a job with a company making jet engine parts, and worked for that company until he passed away. I'm quite sure that he bothered to get up and go to work when he worked for the jet engine company, but he just couldn't seem to do that when he was self employed.

I have known a couple of people to start or purchase bars, and all they did every night was to sit at the bar drinking. They thought that they were "managing" the bar, but they sat on the wrong side of the counter to do that, they managed only to get sloshed every night. Needless to say, they didn't make it very long. Being the owner/operator involved much more than just sitting there watching everyone else work.

I once heard a guy say "being in the military teaches self discipline", now I spent 11 years in our armed forced, and I promise that being in the military doesn't teach self discipline, it teaches discipline - there is a difference. Owning your own business teaches self discipline.
 
Last edited:
Access to Capital also has a lot to do with it, also just the markets, i.e. is there a market for something ... But even that being the case, it doesn't change the fact that having workers have a say over their own workplace and compensation and fruits of their labor is unjustified just because they have the legal possibility (even though not material) to start their own company.

Systemic issues DO matter, which is why its easier to start up a small buisiness in social democratic countries where you have a saftey net, public financial systems, as solid middle class and so on.
 
Access to Capital also has a lot to do with it, also just the markets, i.e. is there a market for something ... But even that being the case, it doesn't change the fact that having workers have a say over their own workplace and compensation and fruits of their labor is unjustified just because they have the legal possibility (even though not material) to start their own company.

Systemic issues DO matter, which is why its easier to start up a small buisiness in social democratic countries where you have a saftey net, public financial systems, as solid middle class and so on.

Everyone potentially has access to capital. All you need is to have built a great credit report, have some equity in your home, and a solid business plan and you can get a loan or find investors. I was flat broke when I started my business.

Fifteen years later when I decided to build commercial property, I was still broke, and I had a credit score of less than 600, but I managed to increase my credit score by a hundred points in less than 6 months, and borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars from a local bank. It's really not that dificil. I mean heck, look at me, I'm just a clown.
 
Everyone potentially has access to capital. All you need is to have built a great credit report, have some equity in your home

the first depends on you having a regular and good enough income to pay off all debt and have good credit, the second depends on owning a home. Also these are just loans, so you need a saftey net, some sort of economic security and a solid market to depend on.

So its not JUST to do it, you rely on all sorts of things that you may not have taken into account. For example I live in Norway, it would be a lot easier to start a buisiness here than it would be say in Los Angeles where i lived in the past.
 
The subject was corporations and people who work in them which most people do because well that is the way the capitalist system is structured. What is your suggestion here? That anyone working in a corporation can suddenly up and leave it?

The subject was that people somehow have to or are forced to work for a corporation. That's the fantasy. But, yeah, if you're that unhappy with your job you should quit. Depending on circumstances, perhaps not immediately, but I'd be planning an exit.
 
The subject was that people somehow have to or are forced to work for a corporation. That's the fantasy. But, yeah, if you're that unhappy with your job you should quit. Depending on circumstances, perhaps not immediately, but I'd be planning an exit.
Alright, I give up. Whatever you folks wanna believe. Maybe someone else can argue the point better than I. I just don't have the patience.
 
Alright, I give up. Whatever you folks wanna believe. Maybe someone else can argue the point better than I. I just don't have the patience.

If anyone wants to take up the clarion call, I'm all ears. But good luck taking a fact and turning it into a fiction. Somehow I thought all of those "isms" (Trotskyism, Leninism, anarcho-socialism, etc.) died somewhere around 1989, along with mullets, Pee-Wee Herman dolls, and The Bangles.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom