Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Libertarians and economic democracy Message-ID: <572@mhuxt.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 10:15:50 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxt.572 Posted: Fri Feb 8 10:15:50 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 06:24:45 EST References: <630@wucs.UUCP> <610@unmvax.UUCP> <458@whuxl.UUCP> <330@enmasse.UUCP> <563@mhuxt.UUCP> <93@ucbcad.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 57 > > So I ask: Which of the functions of government which would be > > discarded by libertarians would a huge multinational corporation be > > able to take over? (With profit, and without losing dozens of class > > action lawsuits?) Or is this 'IBM filling the vacuum' stuff just > > empty rhetoric? > > Probably very large companies with a lot of unskilled labor (IBM isn't > a good example here) would want to set up corporate cities for their > workers, where they had a lot more power than the government does now > over citizens. There are a lot of reasons why this would be a good idea -- > they could keep track of what their employees were up to, they could pay > them much less as they are also paying for their room and board, and so > forth. I'm not sure what you mean by 'where they had a lot more power than the government does now over citizens'. As far as I can see, the only additional power that would give them is that of a landlord, which isn't quite the same as 'more power than the government does now'. Care to explain how they're going to get all of this power? How could they keep track of what their employees were up to, any better than if their employees were renting from someone else? As far as paying less, sure they could. *I* wouldn't mind being paid a little less if I was also getting a good deal in housing for it. And how do I know it would be a good deal? Why else would I enter into it? This question was addressed: > The libertarian will of course say, "But nobody compels them to work for > that company". But when you are talking about a number of very large > corporations like IBM, which would probably grow larger if government > regulation were eliminated, in many places either you work for them or > you don't work at all. I'm not saying that this is the same as "lack of > freedom", but just a very strong incentive. First of all, it's not at all clear that removal of governmental restric- tions wouldn't help IBM's competitors just as much; I don't know where you get the idea that IBM is going to grow so large that you either work for them or don't work at all. Secondly, you seem to assume that unions would just dry up and blow away in a libertarian society. Wrong! Of course, membership would be optional, and if it's contract with a striking union had expired, a company could fire striking union members. *IF* the demands the striking union were making were expensive enough to justify retraining a whole new batch of workers who would also be able to unionize and strike if they became too dissatisfied. In a libertarian society, you'd never *have* to work for anyone, unlike our own society, where judges commonly 'order' teachers, police, firemen to work. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j < Dangermouse stumbles through door, falls in front of giant robot.> Robot: You are wise to prostrate yourself before my 50 megabyte floppies. Have you brought a RAM pack assembly for me? DM: No, but I've got a pretty sheepish assistant. Robot: Unacceptable. An illogical peripheral with a 17 byte brain. Where are his subroutines? Penfold: Uh ... They're in my third drawer down, right next to my wooly vests.