Why Libertarianism is the result of a failed mind: no. 46.: Labour Law
chazwin
"The capitalist is very fond of declaring that labour is a commodity,
and the wage contract a bargain of purchase and sale like any other.
But he instinctively expects his wage-earners to render him, not only
obedience, but also personal deference. If the wage contract is a
bargain of purchase and sale like any other, why is the workman
expected to toff his hat to his employer, and to say `sir' to him
without reciprocity?"
Less Government = Less Progress
Bert Hyman
chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is what a decline into Libertarianism would mean
Did you perhaps mean libertarianism?
> "The capitalist is very fond of declaring that labour is a commodity,
> and the wage contract a bargain of purchase and sale like any other.
> But he instinctively expects his wage-earners to render him, not only
> obedience, but also personal deference. If the wage contract is a
> bargain of purchase and sale like any other, why is the workman
> expected to toff his hat to his employer, and to say `sir' to him
> without reciprocity?"
Credit where credit is due.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Webb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Webb
A pair of socialists, of course.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Matt Barrow
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This is what a decline into Libertarianism would mean
>
> Did you perhaps mean libertarianism?
>
>> "The capitalist is very fond of declaring that labour is a commodity,
>> and the wage contract a bargain of purchase and sale like any other.
>> But he instinctively expects his wage-earners to render him, not only
>> obedience, but also personal deference. If the wage contract is a
>> bargain of purchase and sale like any other, why is the workman
>> expected to toff his hat to his employer, and to say `sir' to him
>> without reciprocity?"
>
>
> Credit where credit is due.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Webb
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Webb
>
> A pair of socialists, of course.
Interstingly enough, it is in the socialist world where workers are
commodities, cannon fodder, etc., while in a capitalist world (at least
under something beyond half-assed management) they are valuable assets.
It may well be that the Webb's were the biggest destroyer of standard of
living for their "beloved" workers of anyone else, then or in subsequent
years.
Matt Barrow
x
x
x
x
1Z
> Interstingly enough, it is in the socialist world where workers are
> commodities, cannon fodder, etc., while in a capitalist world (at least
> under something beyond half-assed management) they are valuable assets.
It is in the democratic westernised world where they are assets. In
early capitalism workers were cannon-fodder too -- sometimes even
slaves.
You guys keep missing the point by trying to set up a simplistic
communism-capitalism
distinction -- ignoring religion, technology and above all democracy.
> It may well be that the Webb's were the biggest destroyer of standard of
> living for their "beloved" workers of anyone else, then or in subsequent
> years.
Since British socialism never got further than a minimum wage, public
holidays,
an old age pension and so on, that is hardly the case.
chazwin
> "Bert Hyman" <b...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> > chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> This is what a decline into Libertarianism would mean
>
> > Did you perhaps mean libertarianism?
>
> >> "The capitalist is very fond of declaring that labour is a commodity,
> >> and the wage contract a bargain of purchase and sale like any other.
> >> But he instinctively expects his wage-earners to render him, not only
> >> obedience, but also personal deference. If the wage contract is a
> >> bargain of purchase and sale like any other, why is the workman
> >> expected to toff his hat to his employer, and to say `sir' to him
> >> without reciprocity?"
>
> > Credit where credit is due.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Webb
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Webb
>
> > A pair of socialists, of course.
>
> Interstingly enough, it is in the socialist world where workers are
> commodities, cannon fodder, etc., while in a capitalist world (at least
> under something beyond half-assed management) they are valuable assets.
You mean like the millions of tea and coffee pickers around the
world??
Or do you mean the workers in the USA and UK who enjoy labour law
backed up by lots of government?
>
> It may well be that the Webb's were the biggest destroyer of standard of
> living for their "beloved" workers of anyone else, then or in subsequent
> years.
History shows that was not the case. They and the movement they built
upon guarenteed wokers
in the West protection against the worst exploitation by capitalism
whilst providing them with an educational system that enabled then to
get better job prospects. All this requires government institutions.
Since the invention of socialist policy workers standards have
improved enormously.
Jim Klein
> Since the invention of socialist policy workers standards have
> improved enormously.
Aw, give it up. This is kindergarten economics. Of course
they've improved, but WHY? Simple--because production
has so enormously grown, that this occured.
You didn't know that "correlation is not causation"?
It's a piece of cake to show that their standards have improved
LESS than they otherwise would have, absent socialist policies.
Haven't you read, _Economics in One Easy Lesson_? I haven't,
but I took a quick look last night. It took about twenty minutes
of light reading and skimming to see this myth blown apart.
jk