Question for Market-Libertarians and An-caps.

[Idealism]

One thing I try and avoid is blindly and ignorantly criticizing anything. Because of this, I started to look into market-libertarian ideas. It came up with a bunch of stuff about individualism and self-government through property, voluntary association, and freedom of competition and all that. While I don't agree with it at all being far on the collectivist end of the spectrum, I could see the logic behind it. But the more I thought about it here's the question that came to mind: Libertarianism propose the right to self-government as a inherent right, and also maintains the system of employer-employee. But, to me, it would seem, that the concept of employment inherently violates this concept of "self-governing", as the employer is allowed to freely dictate terms to the employee without the employee's consent, because the employee is inherently dependent on the employer for his/her wage. I looked for the "answer" to this, and all I could find is the idea that the employee is "free not to choose" that employer, and can go else where-yet this simply means that a person is able to choose between multiple oppressors who dictate terms slightly differently.
Anyway, as stated in the first sentence, I like to understand things even if I do not agree with them at all, so could someone here point to where I am wrong? Or am I not wrong?

[trivas7]

I would question your assumption that employers are ipso facto oppressors. Per that logic employers are in their turn oppressed by market forces. No one escapes the wheel.

Libertarianism embodies the non-aggression principle, which is my main concerns; contract and mutual trade are its best lubricant for social harmony and progress.

[Nwoye]

I think you're essentially correct, in the sense that you're pointing out the silliness in overemphasizing negative liberty at the expense of positive. A possible expansion on this though is the realization that the difference between a landlord and a state is basically one of scale, and that saying "well you don't have to use the landlords land" is the same as saying "well you don't have to live under X government".

[Idealism]

I would question your assumption that employers are ipso facto oppressors.

Why are they not oppressors?

contract and mutual trade are its best lubricant for social harmony and progress.

I do not really understand what you are saying here.

[RebelDog]

One thing I try and avoid is blindly and ignorantly criticizing anything. Because of this, I started to look into market-libertarian ideas. It came up with a bunch of stuff about individualism and self-government through property, voluntary association, and freedom of competition and all that. While I don't agree with it at all being far on the collectivist end of the spectrum, I could see the logic behind it. But the more I thought about it here's the question that came to mind: Libertarianism propose the right to self-government as a inherent right, and also maintains the system of employer-employee. But, to me, it would seem, that the concept of employment inherently violates this concept of "self-governing", as the employer is allowed to freely dictate terms to the employee without the employee's consent, because the employee is inherently dependent on the employer for his/her wage. I looked for the "answer" to this, and all I could find is the idea that the employee is "free not to choose" that employer, and can go else where-yet this simply means that a person is able to choose between multiple oppressors who dictate terms slightly differently.
Anyway, as stated in the first sentence, I like to understand things even if I do not agree with them at all, so could someone here point to where I am wrong? Or am I not wrong?

It is impossible to imagine a situation whereupon capitalists exist without a state to protect their interests. Capitlism exists through the widespread exploitation and cooertion of the producing class. Surely if they thought they had the freedom to do as they like to industial labour then it will simply become naked class warfare against a greater foe than any class society has ever had. There would be rebelion and revolution everywhere and the need for an organised structure to protect the capitalists interests, ergo: a state. Libertarianism is the capitalists fantasy and that is all it will ever be. Their greater freedom means our greater tyranny and where that happens workers will rebel and they (capitalists) will always require the state to protect them from this. Tyranny and oppression has an upper limit. Shake the bottle too much and the top will come off.

[ReactionaryOppressor]

The logic would be that in a Libertarian or anarchocapitalist state, there would be no legal hurdles to changing one's employment or becoming self-employed, such that if a person finds their work too "oppressive," they could simply instantly walk off the job and find a new one, or even become self-employed. Since an "oppressive" employer would have too many of its employees quit their jobs, employers would be forced to offer a level of freedom to their employees which their employees deem tolerable. Furthermore, if two employers offer the same pay and benefits for the same work, but one is less "oppressive," then workers will gravitate towards that one, and thus employers would be forced to compete to be the least "oppressive."

[Dejavu]

Libertarianism propose the right to self-government as a inherent right, and also maintains the system of employer-employee.

I don't know about 'inherent right.' Not all libertarians are uniform about concepts of self-ownership ( which would be more accurate than saying self-government.) Libertarians like myself make a case for the negative rights of individuals rather than some positive right.

The employer-employee dynamic is not something that's required or universal in any real libertarian school of thought I can think of. I can come about through voluntary contract between the two ( I.e. some people would find it more beneficial to just go work , get compensated, go home , and not worry about the added stress of managing resources and calculating gains/losses , or possibly not making money through marketing at all.)

It would be nice if we can construct a society where almost anyone has a decent shot of becoming a 'boss' so to speak but that does not necessarily mean everyone wants to become one even if they had the opportunity to be so. ( Personally I have rejected higher managerial openings with better pay simply because I did not want to deal with the stress and did not want to invest anymore of my personal time into the business)

As far as choosing a job goes , it certainly depends on the reputation of the business and management. Its also dependent on other factors such as work hours , benefits , location , etc.

[ThorsMitersaw]

Libertarianism propose the right to self-government as a inherent right, and also maintains the system of employer-employee. But, to me, it would seem, that the concept of employment inherently violates this concept of "self-governing", as the employer is allowed to freely dictate terms to the employee without the employee's consent

One is not forced to work at any place of business. One is free to choose their employees or employers through a right to contract. A man with a business may dictate the goings on on his premises just as you may in your home... As you state below... But stay with me a second...

Because the employee is inherently dependent on the employer for his/her wage. I looked for the "answer" to this, and all I could find is the idea that the employee is "free not to choose" that employer, and can go else where-yet this simply means that a person is able to choose between multiple oppressors who dictate terms slightly differently.

This is due to the fact that the state has cartelized business and the means to obtain ones own business. (state enforced barriers to entry. Tucker and Brad Spangler are my biggest influences here). Shrinking the number of providers of production in the market. This has obviously oligopoly effects upon products - all the things wrong with a cartel and criticized in Austrian economics apply. There is likely no disagreement here. However this also sets up oligopsony conditions. Here I will quote Brad Spangler from his blog at BradSpangler.com:

One of the ongoing roadblocks to left and libertarian reconciliation, one which deserves more of our attention, is the matter of conflation of context with causality, an intellectual error committed by most on both sides.

Leftists typically blame markets for state-caused injustice that takes place in markets.

Free-market libertarians often apply a shallow analysis that causes them to defend state-caused injustice merely because its visible manifestation is in the marketplace.

Both fail to recognize that the market is the context, the cause is the state.

Let’s look at the topic of wage slavery, for example.

Every marginalized worker viscerally knows wage slavery to be a very real phenomenon — yet libertarians typically bury their heads in the sand and leftists typically fundamentally misunderstand the problem.

Most libertarians deny the existence of wage slavery, seeing only the voluntaristic nature of the concept of wages in principle rather than the real world of state-tainted injustice in practice.

Most radical leftists attack the voluntaristic nature of the concept of wages, assuming there is something inherently evil about wages for reasons that are mirror images of the intellectual errors commonly committed by libertarians.

They’re both right and both wrong.

A deeper libertarian analysis, a left libertarian analysis, points to the role of the state in artificially concentrating capital in the hands of state-allied big business — giving statist plutocrats far more bargaining power in the labor market than is their natural due. Injustice happens to play out in the marketplace, but the cause is the state.

I urge, and challenge, free-market libertarians to show their solidarity with labor by supporting radical unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), rather than establishment unions in league with big business and the state.

he continues later...

That word is oligopsony. Just as the word “oligopoly” is a more dispersed form of the concept of “monopoly”, so to oligopsony complements monopsony. Monopsony, in turn, is a mirror image of monopoly. Where a monopoly indicates only one seller, monopsony indicates one buyer.

The essence of what I had to say about the concept of wage slavery is that the government-induced cartelization of industry creates oligopsony conditions in the labor market. It does this by artificially reducing the number of buyers of labor (businesses), thereby granting the existing ones an unnatural degree of bargaining power.

Austrian economics is quite clear on the cartelizing effects in the business world of statism. By pointing to statism as the cause of resulting oligopsony conditions in the labor market, a compelling case can be made that the completely free market (i.e. anarchy) truly is the proletarian revolution.

[note: Samuel Edwin Konkin III, grand puhba of Agorism, made the comment that his goal with Agorism was to transform the proletariat into the entrepreneuriat. Which to me seems to reflect Tuckers goals with his opposition to his 4 monopolies.]

So that would be the left-Rothbardian/Agorist sort of take on the matter. I hope that maybe this gave you a different view point on it.

[trivas7]

So that would be a left-Rothbardian sort of take on the matter. I could call myself an Agorist left-Rothbardian. [...]

I would describe myself as a agorist/left Rothbardian. How is it that you are not restricted?

[ThorsMitersaw]

I would describe myself as a agorist/left Rothbardian. How is it that you are not restricted?

I am very very new. I imagine it will come in due time.

[New Tet]

[QUOTE=Dejavu;1497012]The employer-employee dynamic is not something that's required or universal in any real libertarian school of thought I can think of. I can come about through voluntary contract between the two ( I.e. some people would find it more beneficial to just go work , get compensated, go home , and not worry about the added stress of managing resources and calculating gains/losses , or possibly not making money through marketing at all.)/QUOTE]

If ever the capitalist class or, as is more likely, a sector of the capitalist class ever feel the burden of "the added stress of managing resources and calculating gains/losses", Maybe the working class can take it over and do it democratically and in their own individual and collective interests.

Hell, salaried workers have been performing those tasks in behalf of the employer class for more than 500 years!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I am very very new. I imagine it will come in due time.

[FONT=Arial]Depends entirely on your rhetoric, to an extent. Trivas his position himself as a troll in recent months, while members like Deja Vu have been unrestricted and mutualists are now "sharing power," so to speak. Welcome to the forum.

A "left-libertarian market" position is that with the state either abolished or minimized, those not wanting to be subjugated to the dynamics of "leeching from the top" can then freely compete and even organize their cooperative experiments without the nuisances of capital's iron hand. Those who "want" to work for others may do so, if the opportunity arises, but it would seem counterproductive to their own desires. Even if you don't want a managerial position, why limit your power to such a degree? That opens up the door for further exploitation. A cooperative is more likely to look after the welfare of everyone than a hierarchical firm. I'm not saying we would watch such businesses vanish overnight, but a major reshuffling of priorities for most economic tasks might be in order.

The inability to acquire credit without conforming to the corporative business structure plays a significant role in maintaining capitalist relationships. In addition to all the other help capitalist firms enjoy, and the unreasonable limitations on credit unions, the banking industry provides loans not only with the intention of acquiring $$ from interest, but also long-term investments.

Especially without the current mechanics of a state, problems like absentee landlordism should, hypothetically, diminish. It would cost relatively little to buy protective services for a cooperative or home. It will cost more to protect a company with bad labor relations. Defense firms are going to calculate the risk factor.
[/FONT]

[trivas7]

[FONT=Arial]Depends entirely on your rhetoric, to an extent.
[/FONT]

Another name for "depends entirely on your rhetoric" in this regard is 'whim'.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

[FONT=Arial]You have showed no interest in wage slavery. Deja Vu has. If you want to correct that issue and be allowed to roam the regular forums, be our guest. [/FONT]

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But, to me, it would seem, that the concept of employment inherently violates this concept of "self-governing", as the employer is allowed to freely dictate terms to the employee without the employee's consent, because the employee is inherently dependent on the employer for his/her wage. I looked for the "answer" to this, and all I could find is the idea that the employee is "free not to choose" that employer, and can go else where-yet this simply means that a person is able to choose between multiple oppressors who dictate terms slightly differently.

Market libertarians have different standards for the state and for private bosses. The state is an oppressor, even if you are free to choose which state you live under. But a private employer is not an oppressor, precisely because you are free to choose which employer you work for.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

One is not forced to work at any place of business.

No one is forced to live in Spain (for example). Why, then, do you consider the Spanish state oppressive?

As I said above, you fail to use the same standards of "freedom" and "force" for states and private businesses.

The logic would be that in a Libertarian or anarchocapitalist state, there would be no legal hurdles to changing one's employment or becoming self-employed, such that if a person finds their work too "oppressive," they could simply instantly walk off the job and find a new one, or even become self-employed.

The situation of a paralyzed man drowning in a lake is not improved one bit by the fact that there are no laws against swimming.

And furthermore, in most currently existing states, there are no legal hurdles to leaving the territory controlled by the state in question, such that if a person finds their state too "oppressive," they could simply instantly walk across the border and find a new one, or even set up their own state in international waters or Antarctica.

See what I did there?

[ThorsMitersaw]

[FONT=Arial]You have showed no interest in wage slavery. Deja Vu has. If you want to correct that issue and be allowed to roam the regular forums, be our guest. [/FONT]

I would say Spanglers view on wages directly reflect my own. I might also throw my hat in with David Friedman for once and say they are inefficient and not generally desirable by most persons. However I will not stop anyone from contracting in the manner they see fit

[ThorsMitersaw]

No one is forced to live in Spain (for example). Why, then, do you consider the Spanish state oppressive?

The Spanish state acquired its land holdings through conquest. Not original labor or trade.

As I said above, you fail to use the same standards of "freedom" and "force" for states and private businesses.

I do not think that is true. I also think you stopped at that first part of my response and did not read further.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Spanish state acquired its land holdings through conquest. Not original labor or trade.

[FONT=Arial]With the possible exception of some aborigines encampments, all land has been possessed through conquest. The Rothbardian standard of what qualifies as a state, when quantified with historical analysis, would lead us to believe almost all existing ownership is statehood. If we want to start afresh, what draws the line between Munich's municipal government and the shop owner's cafe shop. Size? Seems rather arbitrary.


[/FONT]

[ThorsMitersaw]

[FONT=Arial]With the possible exception of some aborigines encampments, all land has been possessed through conquest. The Rothbardian standard of what qualifies as a state, when quantified with historical analysis, would lead us to believe almost all existing ownership is statehood. If we want to start afresh, what draws the line between Munich's municipal government and the shop owner's cafe shop. Size? Seems rather arbitrary.
[/FONT]

What exactly originated from theft in my parents purchase of land from the previous owner? Even if the original owner stole the land from another and the plaintiff is not here making a claim, then there is no one who can make the claim to ownership. I assume you might point to native american land holdings, as though their state like claims of ownership to vast tracts of untransformed land is any more legitimate. The state however maintains every portion of what it owns at the cost of others. It is a continuing organization of theft and robbery from others.

If you wanted to wipe all slates clean and remove all titles to land that currently exist, and then proclaim that anyone laboring upon them own them, basically making all who currently labor upon the land they are now on owners of that land. Hitting a reset button, I suppose I could make that compromise.