Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <1942@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 02:42:28 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1942
Posted: Wed Feb  6 02:42:28 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 01:59:58 EST
Lines: 97
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-45800:inmet:7800293:177600:4163
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Feb  4 20:54:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 10:23 pm  Feb  1, 1985
>
>So why should democracy be restricted to only that sphere that has
>been carved out as "government"?  

Perhaps because people are thought to have rights irrespective
of what a nearby majority might think?

>What I would like to see is more
>democracy in the workplace.  

What I would like to see is more accountability on USENET.  Use a straw
horse and have it show up on your point score.  Misquote someone
or quote out of context, ditto.  Attempt to answer hard facts with
cheesy rhetoric, and down you go as a fool on the Big Board. (Just
hoping).

>After all, for one thing people
>usually spend 40 hours out of their 168 hours of the week at work.
>Moreover, what people do in their work is often one of the most
>important things in their lives.  

Well?  Form a company that does this.  If it is not economically
efficient, don't expect us to help, but if it is, great!  Oh, don't
try to do this in a socialist country -- you'll find that their
criteria of exactly what will be voted on and what won't be, and what
will be subject to democracy and what won't be may differ from yours.
If so, you're out of luck.

>Many current problems of worker
>morale have come about because most people feel they have no influence
>or stake in their job.  If I am not consulted about major decisions
>then why should I take any interest in the outcomes of such decisions?

Because you're *PAID* to do it, and you *AGREED* to do it.  Or is that
too abstract and propertarian for you?

>And why should I care if they are successful or not?

What "they" are you talking about?

>This is one of the fallacies of Libertarianism: myopically focussing
>upon the State alone as the source of all political power.

The private workplace has the following nice feature to it: if the
work environment is not consonant with economic reality, then 
the work environment will self-destruct, without anyone having
to shoot anyone.  This is *NOT* true of the "worker's paradise" of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

>There is just as much "political" power involved in deciding whether
>plants will be open or closed, who will be hired, what levels of
>production to shoot for and other decisions made everyday in the workplace.

Of course you'll find that politics there is simply part of what
business decisions are made.  Nobody gets shot for such decisions, nobody
gets killed, and nobody gets taxed (unless the "political" government
gets called in, that is).

>Why do you suppose a constant source of gossip is that entity called
>"office politics"?   I think the term "office politics" is a popular
>expression of the fact that decisions at work and in the office *are*
>political decisions.   

Oh true!  There is, of course, the little feedback mechanism of 
economic failure, and the fact that the decision-makers either are, or
are backed by the people who risked their capital in the first place.
In other words, whatever "office politics" may do, it is subject
to market discipline.  This is not true of agencies, such as the
government, which steal from others who do economically correct things.

>Such decisions affect not only the owner of
>the company but also the workers who work in it and the community
>in which the company is based.  

The same thing might be said of everyone who hears of "Tim Sevener".
Are you willing to put it up to a vote (periodically, of course)
what you may and may not say on the net?  If not, why not?

>However under the current prevalent
>systems of management and control, such decisions tend to be
>authoritarian in nature- they come from the top of the pyramid down.

Why not?  Those who pay the piper may call the tune.  If you think
you've found a way to suspend this little rule, let us know, but if you
haven't.....
I'm particularly amused that you, an apparent advocate of central planning
complain about "authoritarian" central planning ("from the top of the
pyramid down") or aren't you aware of how apartments are doled out
in Moscow?

>....

>Why not extend democracy to the workplace?

"You register your car, why not your sexual preferences?"