Comments on: The Abolition of Wage Slavery as Our Moral Obligation, Part I http://wageslaverebel.com/the-abolition-of-wage-slavery-as-our-moral-obligation-part-i/ Lessons in Dismantling the Status Quo Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:13:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: jdbentley http://wageslaverebel.com/the-abolition-of-wage-slavery-as-our-moral-obligation-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-638 jdbentley Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:32:04 +0000 http://wageslaverebel.com/?p=511#comment-638 <p>The moral obligation arises from the notion that each person owns him or herself and should be at liberty to do whatever they want to do as long as it does not infringe upon any other person's liberties. Businesses, as they are, exist as owner-worker contracts in which the owners have a greater bargaining advantage (money, land, facilities, etc.) than the workers so the workers are often forced (coerced) into accepting whatever terms the owner puts forth, providing their labor and the products of their labor for whatever wages the owner sees fit without regards to the workers needs.</p> <p>What I'm proposing is for democracy to be spread into business. Business as it's most commonly done is a very pervasive and, for some reason, acceptable tyranny.</p> The moral obligation arises from the notion that each person owns him or herself and should be at liberty to do whatever they want to do as long as it does not infringe upon any other person's liberties. Businesses, as they are, exist as owner-worker contracts in which the owners have a greater bargaining advantage (money, land, facilities, etc.) than the workers so the workers are often forced (coerced) into accepting whatever terms the owner puts forth, providing their labor and the products of their labor for whatever wages the owner sees fit without regards to the workers needs.

What I'm proposing is for democracy to be spread into business. Business as it's most commonly done is a very pervasive and, for some reason, acceptable tyranny.

]]> By: jdbentley http://wageslaverebel.com/the-abolition-of-wage-slavery-as-our-moral-obligation-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-644 jdbentley Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:16:18 +0000 http://wageslaverebel.com/?p=511#comment-644 <p>More like libertarian socialism, but I wouldn't be opposed to an anti-statist brand of voluntary communism. This is outside of the scope of this post, though. When directly related to the workplace, it's much less controversial.</p> More like libertarian socialism, but I wouldn't be opposed to an anti-statist brand of voluntary communism. This is outside of the scope of this post, though. When directly related to the workplace, it's much less controversial.

]]> By: NomadicNeil http://wageslaverebel.com/the-abolition-of-wage-slavery-as-our-moral-obligation-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-643 NomadicNeil Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:11:28 +0000 http://wageslaverebel.com/?p=511#comment-643 <p>Like communism?</p> Like communism?

]]> By: jdbentley http://wageslaverebel.com/the-abolition-of-wage-slavery-as-our-moral-obligation-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-642 jdbentley Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:59:40 +0000 http://wageslaverebel.com/?p=511#comment-642 <p>The means of production (natural resources, etc.) should not be privately owned since they are necessary to the survival of the community. Since they are necessary to the survival of the community, those who claim ownership of the means of production already put the workers at a disadvantage and subject them to a system that they might not have otherwise agreed with.</p> <p>In a democratically run business, it could very well mean that those with less expertise in a certain area would have equal say as those who have more expertise in a certain area... if that's how the business decides to operate. Even in such a case, it's not likely that the less knowledgeable workers would refuse to listen to the more knowledgeable worker or that his one uninformed vote wouldn't be put in check by other informed votes. In other cases, the business may operate using a Board of Directors who are directly elected by and who directly answer to the worker-owners.</p> <p>If people want to start businesses for the purpose of profiting off of other people's work, I think we'd be much better off losing the incentive.</p> <p>I wouldn't uphold the entrepreneur's right to lord his resources and capital over the workers as a legitimate liberty. It's not so different than saying 'But what of the slave owners who paid good money for their slaves?'</p> <p>And, as I said above, the workers accept the terms because they themselves don't have the money, resources or facilities that the owners hoard. They also lack any leverage for negotiating or bargaining with the owners because they do not have the power to fire or otherwise reprimand the owner.</p> The means of production (natural resources, etc.) should not be privately owned since they are necessary to the survival of the community. Since they are necessary to the survival of the community, those who claim ownership of the means of production already put the workers at a disadvantage and subject them to a system that they might not have otherwise agreed with.

In a democratically run business, it could very well mean that those with less expertise in a certain area would have equal say as those who have more expertise in a certain area… if that's how the business decides to operate. Even in such a case, it's not likely that the less knowledgeable workers would refuse to listen to the more knowledgeable worker or that his one uninformed vote wouldn't be put in check by other informed votes. In other cases, the business may operate using a Board of Directors who are directly elected by and who directly answer to the worker-owners.

If people want to start businesses for the purpose of profiting off of other people's work, I think we'd be much better off losing the incentive.

I wouldn't uphold the entrepreneur's right to lord his resources and capital over the workers as a legitimate liberty. It's not so different than saying 'But what of the slave owners who paid good money for their slaves?'

And, as I said above, the workers accept the terms because they themselves don't have the money, resources or facilities that the owners hoard. They also lack any leverage for negotiating or bargaining with the owners because they do not have the power to fire or otherwise reprimand the owner.

]]> By: NomadicNeil http://wageslaverebel.com/the-abolition-of-wage-slavery-as-our-moral-obligation-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-641 NomadicNeil Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:36:35 +0000 http://wageslaverebel.com/?p=511#comment-641 <p>Should the means of production be redistributed? Would this not mean that potentially people with little expertise having just as much say as those with more? Would people lose the incentive to set up businesses if they knew that they would eventually have to give up control? Does that not inringe on the entrepeneurs liberty? What forces the workers to accept the terms set by the workers?</p> Should the means of production be redistributed? Would this not mean that potentially people with little expertise having just as much say as those with more? Would people lose the incentive to set up businesses if they knew that they would eventually have to give up control? Does that not inringe on the entrepeneurs liberty? What forces the workers to accept the terms set by the workers?

]]>