Witholding goods/services

[LeftSideDown]

This is something thats been bothering me for awhile, and I was wondering about your guys opinion on this. I think its best illustrated through an example.

Lets say there a manufacturer of something that creates something needed for producing goods (lets just say they make steel). Now, they've been freely trading with manufacturers that use steel for many years, each steel manufacturer trying to sell his steel for as high as he can get, and each buyer trying to buy for as low as possible (in other words a market transaction). Well, I started to think. What if, because the steel makers know they're vital, they got together and decided to stop selling their goods and forced the price to raise. Isn't this selfish? I mean, it helps the steel makers (they get more money), but it hurts the manufacturers that use steel and they pass the higher prices onto the consumer (basically everybody). I was wondering if you guys thought this was something thats okay or not.

And I started thinking even more. What if the government stepped in and made all manufacturers who use steel buy from the steel makers that were charging higher prices (i.e. they were not allowed to set up contracts for buying steel (more cheaply, mind you) with independent steel makers who were not part of the cartel)? Can you imagine how bad this could get?

I was just wondering if, given that the US is not completely state-capitalist yet (so no talking about how this wouldn't be a problem in socialism), you thought, if this was happening right now, you'd think it was okay or that it should be ended... this problem has really made me start looking at capitalism critically.

[Cal Engime]

The U.S. government did this as recently as 2002 by levying steel tariffs to protect domestic production against foreign competition, though private cartels are illegal.

Absent state support, a cartel is not a stable production structure in the long run because it's a prisoner's dilemma. Any manufacturer would be able to increase his own profits by breaking the cartel. Most cartels do not succeed in significantly raising prices, and I believe the mean duration of discovered cartels has been five to eight years.

[RGacky3]

Its not at all a prisoners delema because each party can see exactly what the other is doing at every moment, its rediuclous to call it that, infact manufacturers would be discouraged to go out of line because if they did they would have the entire force of the cartel against them. The fact is this is the way the Market works.

[LeftSideDown]

Surely there is someone who thinks this behavior is acceptable and can defend it for me?

[mikelepore]

Does a business even have a characteristic that can be called behavior being acceptable or unacceptable? All I see is: "I am making money this way, because I can." If enough people don't like the results, they will say: 'We are stopping from doing that, because we can.'" There are some occasions when people will try to make a comparison of the ethical pros and cons before performing an action, mainly among people who wouldn't commit an assault or robbery even if they could get away with it, but never in business. In business, to be allowed to get away with a slick trick is the same thing as doing it. You know that, if you don't do it, your competitors will, and you don't want to give your competitors an advantage over you.

[Dean]

This is something thats been bothering me for awhile, and I was wondering about your guys opinion on this. I think its best illustrated through an example.

Lets say there a manufacturer of something that creates something needed for producing goods (lets just say they make steel). Now, they've been freely trading with manufacturers that use steel for many years, each steel manufacturer trying to sell his steel for as high as he can get, and each buyer trying to buy for as low as possible (in other words a market transaction). Well, I started to think. What if, because the steel makers know they're vital, they got together and decided to stop selling their goods and forced the price to raise. Isn't this selfish? I mean, it helps the steel makers (they get more money), but it hurts the manufacturers that use steel and they pass the higher prices onto the consumer (basically everybody). I was wondering if you guys thought this was something thats okay or not.

Ohs its just fine. Its his private property and he can do what he wants with it. Never mind that his actions as a distributor have distinct social consequences.

[anticap]

they pass the higher prices onto the consumer

Just as an aside: every time you hear this phrase (e.g., "shoplifting hurts the consumer, because the shopkeeper must pass on those costs"), you are hearing a candid admission of what capitalism is really all about. Clearly there is no inherent reason why those costs must be passed on to the consumer: they could be absorbed by the capitalist in the form of lower profits -- but that would run counter to the very purpose of the game.

[LeftSideDown]

Just as an aside: every time you hear this phrase (e.g., "shoplifting hurts the consumer, because the shopkeeper must pass on those costs"), you are hearing a candid admission of what capitalism is really all about. Clearly there is no inherent reason why those costs must be passed on to the consumer: they could be absorbed by the capitalist in the form of lower profits -- but that would run counter to the very purpose of the game.

The purpose of profits is to show where in an economy there needs to be more investment.

[Dr Mindbender]

The purpose of profits is to show where in an economy there needs to be more investment.

the market is a poor microcosm of social need. For example yacht and supercar manufacturing or the building of mansions are no doubt profitable enterprises yet they only facilitate a tiny margin of society having no or little obvious benefit to the remainder of society while large amounts of investment are poured into it. I dare say i could think of other similar examples if i could be bothered.

The profits only show how to satisfy the want of raw spending power. They are a bad guideline on which to run a society.

[LeftSideDown]

But, in general, you guys are against this kind of activity that comes at the cost of consumers?

[Dean]

But, in general, you guys are against this kind of activity that comes at the cost of consumers?

No, I think that a society which invests so much power into the oligarchs is actually better, because I'm more concerned with their right to free enterprise than the rights of consumers to have their commodities. They don't owe them anything, and its perfectly just if the manufacturers of food decide to withhold production from some segment of the population. The herd has to be thinned somehow, what better way than a manufacturer's regime?

[RGacky3]

The purpose of profits is to show where in an economy there needs to be more investment.

No its not, the purpose of profits is profits, you know what makes tons and tons of profits? Weapons, that does'nt mean it needs more investment, and if your going to yell out "THE GOVERNMENT THE GOVERNMENT" I'd also point out that high end housing is much more profitable than low end housing, that does'nt mean there is'nt a need for low end housing, but the market does'nt follow need, it follows money.



But, in general, you guys are against this kind of activity that comes at the cost of consumers?


This distinction Capitalists make between capitalits, workers and consumers is mindboggling. Consumers are just people that buy stuff, everyone buys stuff, but most only buy what they need, and only can by what they need, and have no market power, a few, have luxury and extra income and are bigger consumers, and even fewer have enough monye and are big enough consumers that they have market power.

[LeftSideDown]

There are more consumers than capitalists/steelmakers/workers, even combined. Is it wrong for one sector of the economy (like steel making) to "do better" at the cost of consumers (which they're included in, but the profits from this cartel are more than the costs to them individually).

[RGacky3]

Capitalists and steelmakers and workers ARE consumers (at vastly different levels), and considering the majority are consumers without any real choice (they are too poor to afford a choice, they just get the nesseseties, if that), I'd say that real consumers with actual choice are much less then all of them combined.


Is it wrong for one sector of the economy (like steel making) to "do better" at the cost of consumers (which they're included in, but the profits from this cartel are more than the costs to them individually).

According to you, yes, its the free market.

but you can't just say "consumers" as a block, because they arn't a block, poor "consumers" have a vastly different role and different options than rich "consumers." So its entirely possible for one sector of the economy to screw over the vast majority of the poor, and do well because they please to rich sector, (which in a market is the sector that matters most).

[LeftSideDown]

And you think this is okay?

[Dermezel]

State capitalism is a meaningless term. I have yet to see a consistent definition of it. Some claim the USSR was State capitalist. Some claim Nazi Germany (even though the Nazis privatized various sectors of the economy in an unprecedented manner and got rid of most regulations and taxes. )

Some say the US, some say the Welfare states of Europe, some say China. The term has no meaning.

[LeftSideDown]

If you think it is wrong for the steel companies to withhold the supply of steel in order to drive up prices above the market level you must also think it is wrong for labor unions to engage in this activity as well, no?

[Dean]

If you think it is wrong for the steel companies to withhold the supply of steel in order to drive up prices above the market level you must also think it is wrong for labor unions to engage in this activity as well, no?
It's wrong for laborers to strike or otherwise try to coerce empowered economic entities at all. But steel manufacturers have every right to complete dominance over their property and production.

In fact, I think firms with more power always deserve to maintain that power. The social and economic consequence doesn't matter - the only ideal is maintenance of contemporary property rights.

[LeftSideDown]

It's wrong for laborers to strike or otherwise try to coerce empowered economic entities at all. But steel manufacturers have every right to complete dominance over their property and production.

In fact, I think firms with more power always deserve to maintain that power. The social and economic consequence doesn't matter - the only ideal is maintenance of contemporary property rights.

Oh no. I'm not saying its wrong at all. Of course one can do whatever one wants with one's property so long as you're not harming anyone elses property. My point is that if you oppose a steel company withholding supply to boost prices at the cost of consumers you must surely also be against labor unions. I happen to be for both, but I don't think you can be for one and not the other without being contradictory.

[Dean]

Oh no. I'm not saying its wrong at all. Of course one can do whatever one wants with one's property so long as you're not harming anyone elses property. My point is that if you oppose a steel company withholding supply to boost prices at the cost of consumers you must surely also be against labor unions. I happen to be for both, but I don't think you can be for one and not the other without being contradictory.

Yeah you can. The steel company has the right to do as it pleases on its property. They should shoot the workers and bring in people who will do what the property owners want. They should evacuate their property of laborers who would strong-arm them.

[LeftSideDown]

Yeah you can. The steel company has the right to do as it pleases on its property. They should shoot the workers and bring in people who will do what the property owners want. They should evacuate their property of laborers who would strong-arm them.

Really? I didn't say anything about killing and thats wrong except in cases where one is voluntarily submitting to it. They shouldn't be forced to hire anyone (should you, if you were renting out your house, be forced to rent it to anyone?) but I didn't say they should be allowed to kill. Really Dean? What happened!?! You used to actually raise points instead of appealing to emotion and mischaracterizing positions.

[anticap]

If you think it is wrong for the steel companies to [do X] you must also think it is wrong for labor unions to [do X], no?

No, because the two are not morally equivalent. Watch, I'll show you:

"If you think that it is wrong for a large man to stand in the middle of a jogging trail and demand tribute from a small woman who comes jogging along, then you must also think that it is wrong for the woman, after having paid the "toll" in order to pass, comes back with the rest of her Ladies' Jogging Club to surround him until he gives it back."


Of course one can do whatever one wants with one's property so long as you're not harming anyone elses property.

This sentence is fun. You begin with "of course," as though the "Non-Aggression Principle" were a self-evident "Natural Law." So first of all you've got to defend that latter nonsense before you can even begin to argue for the former. Be warned, however, that Rothbard himself, in an infamous response to the humorously unconvinced heretic L.A. Rollins, effectively conceded that it couldn't be done, but that "Natural Outlaws" should "shut up" and continue to base "Libertarian" arguments on it anyway -- to "pretend" to believe in nonsense -- for the furtherance of their ideology, because "deep beliefs" and "moral passions" are what move people and lead to political success. (In other words, Murray was no more scrupulous than a politician who pretends to believe in Yahweh in order to get elected.) The details of this embarrassing episode are relayed by Rothbard's ideological comrade, R.A. Wilson, in his own humorously scathing dismantling of "Natural Law."

[LeftSideDown]

No, because the two are not morally equivalent. Watch, I'll show you:

"If you think that it is wrong for a large man to stand in the middle of a jogging trail and demand tribute from a small woman who comes jogging along, then you must also think that it is wrong for the woman, after having paid the "toll" in order to pass, comes back with the rest of her Ladies' Jogging Club to surround him until he gives it back."

They're doing different things. Its wrong for a large man to demand tribute in a jogging trail and its wrong for a group of women to demand tribute (provided, of course, that they do not own the trail or are not acting in the interest of the man who DOES own the trail). You're comparing action "x" to action "y".

To restate: if you think it is wrong for a large man to demand tribute on a jogging trail then you must also think it wrong for a small woman to demand tribute on a trail or a group of small women.

[anticap]

You're comparing action "x" to action "y".

Yes, and I'm doing it to make a point: that you attempt in your initial example to pull a fast one by making capitalists and unions of workers into moral equivalents. They're not equivalent: capitalists steal from workers; unions of workers attempt to take back some of what was stolen.

The Sheriff of Nottingham is a thief; Robin Hood is not. Though both commit acts of taking in the strictest sense, the acts, and therefore the actors, are not morally equivalent.

Attempts to equate them, by positing context-free scenarios where they commit the same act, will fail.

[Dean]

Really? I didn't say anything about killing and thats wrong except in cases where one is voluntarily submitting to it. They shouldn't be forced to hire anyone (should you, if you were renting out your house, be forced to rent it to anyone?) but I didn't say they should be allowed to kill. Really Dean? What happened!?! You used to actually raise points instead of appealing to emotion and mischaracterizing positions.

I don't understand - if they can't kill on their property or expel the workers, isn't that undermining their property rights?

[Dimentio]

This is something thats been bothering me for awhile, and I was wondering about your guys opinion on this. I think its best illustrated through an example.

Lets say there a manufacturer of something that creates something needed for producing goods (lets just say they make steel). Now, they've been freely trading with manufacturers that use steel for many years, each steel manufacturer trying to sell his steel for as high as he can get, and each buyer trying to buy for as low as possible (in other words a market transaction). Well, I started to think. What if, because the steel makers know they're vital, they got together and decided to stop selling their goods and forced the price to raise. Isn't this selfish? I mean, it helps the steel makers (they get more money), but it hurts the manufacturers that use steel and they pass the higher prices onto the consumer (basically everybody). I was wondering if you guys thought this was something thats okay or not.

And I started thinking even more. What if the government stepped in and made all manufacturers who use steel buy from the steel makers that were charging higher prices (i.e. they were not allowed to set up contracts for buying steel (more cheaply, mind you) with independent steel makers who were not part of the cartel)? Can you imagine how bad this could get?

I was just wondering if, given that the US is not completely state-capitalist yet (so no talking about how this wouldn't be a problem in socialism), you thought, if this was happening right now, you'd think it was okay or that it should be ended... this problem has really made me start looking at capitalism critically.

That has actually happened in most western nations from time to time. That is why there are anti-cartel laws. For example, in Sweden, it happened a few years ago that car maintenance workshops (at least I think it was that sector) owned by large corporations had formed a secret price cartel.

[LeftSideDown]

Yes, and I'm doing it to make a point: that you attempt in your initial example to pull a fast one by making capitalists and unions of workers into moral equivalents. They're not equivalent: capitalists steal from workers; unions of workers attempt to take back some of what was stolen.

The Sheriff of Nottingham is a thief; Robin Hood is not. Though both commit acts of taking in the strictest sense, the acts, and therefore the actors, are not morally equivalent.

Attempts to equate them, by positing context-free scenarios where they commit the same act, will fail.

Just because they are different entities does not make their actions different. The steel maker is withholding goods to raise prices; laborers are witholding labor to raise prices. If you think one is wrong you think both is wrong. Whose to say the steel manufacturer isn't getting exploited... I mean he sells his steel for X to the manufacturer but when the manufacturer does some stuff to it he sells it for X + Z! The steel manufacturer is being exploited Z!

[LeftSideDown]

I don't understand - if they can't kill on their property or expel the workers, isn't that undermining their property rights?

Killing someone, even if its on your property, undermines their property rights over their body. Libertarians believe in using the least force to accomplish ends. If someone is trespassing you ask them to leave, if they refuse you tell them to leave, if they refuse you threaten them, if they refuse you try and physically remove them. If all else fails then you can kill them. However someone stepping over property is not enough to justify murder; all other options must be eliminated. If you are acting in self defense of course its okay to defend oneself. They certainly expel the workers, they are trespassing. Killing them, however, is a different story.

[anticap]

If you think one is wrong you think both is wrong.

False. But really, there's no point discussing it further.

"There is nothing more useless than engaging in philosophical, religious, or social debate with another person whose axioms (http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/node3.html) differ from one's own." --Robert G. Brown (http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/index.html)

Since you reject the LTV, you won't see exploitation where I will. To you, capitalist and worker are equals; so when workers unionize, they effectively form a gang to bully the poor capitalist out of "his" hard-"earned" profits.

There can be no agreement between us. It's fun to toss the ball back-and-forth a few times, pretending that one of us may convince the other and "win"; but we both know all along that what we're really doing is getting to know the enemy.


property rights over their body

:lol:

[Dean]

Killing someone, even if its on your property, undermines their property rights over their body. Libertarians believe in using the least force to accomplish ends. If someone is trespassing you ask them to leave, if they refuse you tell them to leave, if they refuse you threaten them, if they refuse you try and physically remove them. If all else fails then you can kill them. However someone stepping over property is not enough to justify murder; all other options must be eliminated. If you are acting in self defense of course its okay to defend oneself. They certainly expel the workers, they are trespassing. Killing them, however, is a different story.

Bullshit. There are clear demarcations defining property rights, and being on someone else' property gives them the right to do as they please to secure it, up to and including killing.

There is no "least force required" doctrine, that's nothing but a petty way to justify the fact that your philosophy allows and endorses killing in defense of individual property rights.

[LeftSideDown]

That has actually happened in most western nations from time to time. That is why there are anti-cartel laws. For example, in Sweden, it happened a few years ago that car maintenance workshops (at least I think it was that sector) owned by large corporations had formed a secret price cartel.

Yah, its too bad that under the Norris-La Guardia Act that Hoover passed people who did this same activity (only with labor) couldn't be prosecuted under the Sherman Anti-trust Act. I kinda miss when all we're equal under the law, alas...

[LeftSideDown]

Since you reject the LTV, you won't see exploitation where I will. To you, capitalist and worker are equals; so when workers unionize, they effectively form a gang to bully the poor capitalist out of "his" hard-"earned" profits.

There can be no agreement between us. It's fun to toss the ball back-and-forth a few times, pretending that one of us may convince the other and "win"; but we both know all along that what we're really doing is getting to know the enemy.

Wait, but aren't the steel manufacturers being exploited too? They're steel product is being sold at the price the other manufacturer paid (X) and then an extra price (Z). The steel manufacturer is being exploited out of Z of how much his steel is worth! You must think its okay for the steel manufacturer to "go on strike" as well.

[LeftSideDown]

Bullshit. There are clear demarcations defining property rights, and being on someone else' property gives them the right to do as they please to secure it, up to and including killing.

There is no "least force required" doctrine, that's nothing but a petty way to justify the fact that your philosophy allows and endorses killing in defense of individual property rights.

You have the right to remove trespassers, but there is another side-order condition which is you remove them in the gentlest manner possible. According to Walter Block, a premier Libertarian philosopher, you do not immediately use the most force possible first. The killing would be unjustified.

[Dean]

You have the right to remove trespassers, but there is another side-order condition which is you remove them in the gentlest manner possible. According to Walter Block, a premier Libertarian philosopher, you do not immediately use the most force possible first. The killing would be unjustified.
No, there's not. Why should there be concessions on property rights? Are you not a libertarian or something similar?

You don't ***** about it when private property directly antagonizes the earnings and benefits of laborers, or provide a "gentlest" maxim (where the hell did you get that from anyways?) so why should there be concessions here?

[Dimentio]

Yah, its too bad that under the Norris-La Guardia Act that Hoover passed people who did this same activity (only with labor) couldn't be prosecuted under the Sherman Anti-trust Act. I kinda miss when all we're equal under the law, alas...

There is kinda a difference between if you own capital or if all you own is your bare hands and an empty stomach.

I know capitalists tend to see that stuff as equivalent. Like the British capitalist in the 19th century who complained about child-labour laws that "them politicians them wanna rip the food outta our mouths!"

[anticap]

Walter Block, a premier Libertarian philosopher

Indeed! Here's what the vanguard of right-"libertarian" philosophy is capable of producing (n.b., although I do not personally recognize the legitimacy of intellectual property, I do recognize the power of aggression over me [and over RevLeft] by those so-called "libertarians" [sic] who do, and the necessity, therefore, of playing along as though copyright weren't meaningless nonsense that will be backed up by the force of the State if those so-called "anarchists" [sic] give the order. Accordingly, I hereby claim fair use rights to reproduce the following, as it consists of only an excerpt of Block's "Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf)" [PDF]):



Flagpole Sitter, by Walter Block

A man is standing at the edge of his balcony on the 45th floor of a high rise apartment building. He teeters over the side and drops to the 25th floor. There, fortunately, he is able to grab hold of a flagpole, jutting out from the building. He would like nothing so much as to be able to inch his way down onto the 25th story balcony, go inside that apartment, leave it for the hall, and take the elevator back up to his own apartment.

Unhappily, the owner of the 25 floor apartment, and of the flagpole to which he is precariously holding, comes out on the deck with a shotgun and demands that he respect private property rights and let go, thus dropping to his death.

Liberty magazine took a poll of its mostly libertarian readers, asking how many of them would comply with this request and drop to their deaths. Very few agreed that they would. The implication drawn from this survey is that libertarianism is a rather weak philosophy, impossible to put into effect under such circumstances, and certainly incompatible with the promotion of utilitarianism.

There are several possible rejoinders to this attack.

1. Internalization of the externalities

Since there is one owner of the building, and he is a profit maximizer, he might well anticipate such a situation. If he did, he would make it a condition of tenancy such that the flagpole owner would have to save the life of the hanger on.

But this is to evade the point of the criticism. Presumably, it could be refashioned in such a way as to obviate this reply.

2. It is an illicit question to ask a libertarian, qua libertarian, if he would continue to hang on to or let go of the flagpole. Remember, libertarian is a very limited political philosophy. Essentially, it asks only one question and gives only one answer. The question: under what conditions is the use of or threat of physical force justified? The answer: only in response or in reaction to the prior use of such force. The only germane question raised by this scenario is what to do with the homeowner if he shoots the flagpole sitter, or, forces him to drop to his death under the threat of the gun.

3. Looked at in this way, the answer is clear. The owner of the flagpole is totally within his rights to defend his property, both the flagpole and his apartment. It might be nice if he allowed the person in this precarious position to scurry back to safety, but he is by no means required to do so under the libertarian law code.

What, then, of the greatest good for the greatest number? Isn't the insistence on private property rights at variance with that goal? Yes, to be sure, in this one case, on the assumption that the flagpole sitter is entirely innocent and means the property owner no harm. But how can we be sure of that? Suppose the owner is a frail old man, and the flagpole sitter a young strong one. Suppose the latter will victimize the former if allowed access to the apartment. Then, the implications for utilitarianism are not at all so clearly in against the flagpole owner.

The problem with the scenario as stated is that it takes place all from the point of view of the flagpole sitter. When once we look at matters from the prospective of the property owner the anti libertarian conclusion drawn by the critic no longer seems so obvious.

As a matter of general principle, it is pretty that more lives will be saved, and happiness enhanced, by allowing property rights to be upheld than from the opposite alternative. What we have here is rule utilitarianism, not act utilitarianism: act according to a rule such that if followed by all would maximize utility.

If the general rule were that all strangers could always have access to private property, there is little doubt that there would be far more murders and rapes than under the rule of the sanctity of property rights. Nor is it plausible to entertain the rule that except in cases of emergency, property rights must prevail. Who can tell what is an emergency? One person's emergency is another person's carelessness. Who gets to determine whether it is an emergency, or a ruse to penetrate into another's domicile. Under the property rights rule, it is the owner who makes this determination. In the critic's scenario, this would be decided by the person in difficulties. But if so, then anyone could claim any trouble he wished, and we would be back in the situation where murderers and rapists could venture at will.

[mikelepore]

but we both know all along that what we're really doing is getting to know the enemy.

More important than that, for every critic you have, there may be several lurkers (readers who never post anything online, we can't tell that they're present). Some of them are on the fence; their social viewpoints may later develop in either direction. They may be "young and impressionable." They will benefit from your answer.

Also, save copies of your best replies. Someday you may compile them and write a book.

If I can think of any additional kinds of usefulness in arguing with a brick wall, I'll let you know. http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif