GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[Harry Bosch]

If they were stupid enough to hang up that sign, probably not. But you're looking at this through the filter of your beliefs, and ignoring the concerns and viewpoints being presented to you by those of us who disagree.

If someone hung out a sign that read as follows:

I will pay you slightly less on average, but I guarantee that it will be the same amount every week, no matter what the revenue of the company is, and in return all you have to give up is those tedious once-a-week meetings where your vote doesn't really count because you're just one among many anyway...

Then I bet there'd be at least a handful that would take that offer.

Where are you getting this information that paychecks will vary week to week?

This happens to capitalist owners when companies are starting out.

But your assumption that every company will be a start-up and have such volatile revenues that pay will also be erratic is unfounded.

Again, I've said it a million times, but most companies have extremely volatile revenue and profit. Most companies don't earn a profit. Those that do, will often have a dip at some point.

 

[untermensche]

What kind of choice do people have now?

Where are the democratic workplaces?

Most people are forced to work in one dictatorship or another.

And is the Constitution of the US also something that limits freedom since it replaces dictatorship with democratic government?

When we replace a dictatorship and put in it's place a democracy have we infringed upon people's freedom?

What is stopping you from starting a "democratic company". I've done it twice. There are hundreds that start up per day. You can start any kind of company that you want to. I think that you should start one of your own, try it out, then get back to us! Real life often doesn't translate well from the chalk board.

To answer your question: I define a democratic company as one where the workers own the company. The ability to make decisions is done by vote, with decision making distributed to experts. The workers decide how and where to distribute profits. There are thousands of partnerships just in Washington that would fit this definition.

What stopped people from moving from monarchy to democracy for hundreds of years?

 

[untermensche]

Where are you getting this information that paychecks will vary week to week?

This happens to capitalist owners when companies are starting out.

But your assumption that every company will be a start-up and have such volatile revenues that pay will also be erratic is unfounded.

Again, I've said it a million times, but most companies have extremely volatile revenue and profit. Most companies don't earn a profit. Those that do, will often have a dip at some point.

Companies will be no more volatile than they are now because the power structure has been changed from dictatorship to democracy.

But what we see in dictatorship is that the dictators arrange things to give themselves as much as possible, and they do this by taking from the majority.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Again, I've said it a million times, but most companies have extremely volatile revenue and profit. Most companies don't earn a profit. Those that do, will often have a dip at some point.

Companies will be no more volatile than they are now because the power structure has been changed from dictatorship to democracy.

But what we see in dictatorship is that the dictators arrange things to give themselves as much as possible, and they do this by taking from the majority.

Yes and no. The structure allows companies to more easily raise funds to handle the volatility for the workers where your system would be more susceptible to the volatility.

 

[untermensche]

Companies will be no more volatile than they are now because the power structure has been changed from dictatorship to democracy.

But what we see in dictatorship is that the dictators arrange things to give themselves as much as possible, and they do this by taking from the majority.

Yes and no. The structure allows companies to more easily raise funds to handle the volatility for the workers where your system would be more susceptible to the volatility.

Many claim that dictatorship in government is preferable because it allows the government to act quicker.

But we don't long for dictatorship because we know with some potential positives come many negatives.

If all companies are democratic then they all respond at the same speed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes and no. The structure allows companies to more easily raise funds to handle the volatility for the workers where your system would be more susceptible to the volatility.

Many claim that dictatorship in government is preferable because it allows the government to act quicker.

But we don't long for dictatorship because we know with some potential positives come many negatives.

If all companies are democratic then they all respond at the same speed.

That wasn't what I was referring to there. But actually the best government is one that does as little as possible, which isn't the same as a business.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What is stopping you from starting a "democratic company". I've done it twice. There are hundreds that start up per day. You can start any kind of company that you want to. I think that you should start one of your own, try it out, then get back to us! Real life often doesn't translate well from the chalk board.

To answer your question: I define a democratic company as one where the workers own the company. The ability to make decisions is done by vote, with decision making distributed to experts. The workers decide how and where to distribute profits. There are thousands of partnerships just in Washington that would fit this definition.

What stopped people from moving from monarchy to democracy for hundreds of years?

This is an odd question. There are many monarchies in the world today. I assume that the answer to your question is that monarchists who didn't want to lose power tried to prevent the rise of democratic countries. However, there is no mysterious government entity trying to stomp out worker owned companies. In fact, government provides incentives for people to start their own company, form a partnership, form an ESOP. The problem is that running a business, including worker owned, is extremely difficult, extremely competitive.

 

[untermensche]

Many claim that dictatorship in government is preferable because it allows the government to act quicker.

But we don't long for dictatorship because we know with some potential positives come many negatives.

If all companies are democratic then they all respond at the same speed.

That wasn't what I was referring to there. But actually the best government is one that does as little as possible, which isn't the same as a business.

The best government is the government that does as much as possible.

A government that does as little as possible isn't worth very much.

That's only something people who want the power to oppress others further want. They don't want a government powerful enough to stop them.

 

[untermensche]

What stopped people from moving from monarchy to democracy for hundreds of years?

This is an odd question. There are many monarchies in the world today. I assume that the answer to your question is that monarchists who didn't want to lose power tried to prevent the rise of democratic countries. However, there is no mysterious government entity trying to stomp out worker owned companies. In fact, government provides incentives for people to start their own company, form a partnership, form an ESOP. The problem is that running a business, including worker owned, is extremely difficult, extremely competitive.

An odd question?

The story of the US is the story of the beginning of moving away from monarchy after hundreds of years of domination.

And workers who are paid as little as possible will not use their wealth to buy a completely new system into existence.

The way a worker owned system is envisioned is a system that evolves from a capitalist economy with large union membership. Like how the Spanish Anarchists came into existence.

But we know how unions are treated in the US. They are attacked and crushed, in any way possible.

To claim there are no forces in the US working against unions and the expansion of unions is ridiculous.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That wasn't what I was referring to there. But actually the best government is one that does as little as possible, which isn't the same as a business.

The best government is the government that does as much as possible.

A government that does as little as possible isn't worth very much.

That's only something people who want the power to oppress others further want. They don't want a government powerful enough to stop them.

So Nazi Germany, ISIS, and the government forces in Missouri right now are the best governments because they acted quickly and decisively?

- - - Updated - - -

That wasn't what I was referring to there. But actually the best government is one that does as little as possible, which isn't the same as a business.

The best government is the government that does as much as possible.

A government that does as little as possible isn't worth very much.

That's only something people who want the power to oppress others further want. They don't want a government powerful enough to stop them.

So Nazi Germany, ISIS, and the government forces in Missouri right now are the best governments because they acted quickly and decisively?

 

[untermensche]

The best government is the government that does as much as possible.

A government that does as little as possible isn't worth very much.

That's only something people who want the power to oppress others further want. They don't want a government powerful enough to stop them.

So Nazi Germany, ISIS, and the government forces in Missouri right now are the best governments because they acted quickly and decisively?

A government isn't judged solely on how quickly it acts.

What a government does is more important than the speed in which it does it.

 

[Bomb#20]

You keep taking for granted that a democratic workplace would pay better than a top-down control workplace... if you have a good reason to believe it, feel free to explain.

It's a complete shift in philosophy.

Presently the majority view is to pay workers as little as possible.

This philosophy will be replaced with efforts to pay workers as much as possible.

I say this incredible shift in philosophy will result in higher pay for workers because nothing else will change except power structures will be changed from dictatorial to democratic. Companies will do the exact same things, except they will be working to pay all workers as much as possible, not just an elite few at the top as occurs in the current system.

Why on earth would you assume nothing else will change, when you've just changed the game-theoretic payoff table for every decision?

First, they're not working to pay all workers as much as possible. They're working to pay a voting majority more than before. The majority has an incentive to pay the elite few at the top a whole lot less. What you pay less for, you get less of. The elite few at the top will have an incentive to leave for greener pastures. The company will shift to doing things in a way that requires fewer top experts.

Second, the majority won't only have an incentive to reduce the pay of the elite few; they'll have an incentive to reduce the pay of everyone but themselves -- to reduce the pay of suppliers, the pay of investors, the "pay" of customers (i.e. what customers receive per dollar they spend), and the pay of potential employees.

Let's take a very basic business choice -- to hire more workers, or not to. The company has x employees and y capital. If they switch to 2x employees, production will not be doubled -- they'd have to switch to 2y capital to do that. So revenue per employee will drop, and with it, wages. The current worker/owners won't have the option elite top-down managers have of hiring new workers at lower pay than themselves -- the new workers will become worker/owners and they'll vote against lower pay for themselves. Every new worker dilutes each current employee's stake in every piece of the company capital, and with it his share of the marginal revenue from that capital. To vote in favor of hiring another x employees is to vote in favor of giving away half your own capital and give away half the return you get on your capital. In a company owned and operated by investors, it's better for the decision makers to have a bigger company even if it has less revenue per employee; but in a company owned and operated by employees it's better for the decision makers to have a smaller company as long as it has more revenue per employee. So democratic workplaces will tend to vote to stay small, paying the current workers as much as possible and paying nothing to all the people a top-down employer would have hired. So why on earth would you assume companies will do the exact same things?

 

[untermensche]

It's a complete shift in philosophy.

Presently the majority view is to pay workers as little as possible.

This philosophy will be replaced with efforts to pay workers as much as possible.

I say this incredible shift in philosophy will result in higher pay for workers because nothing else will change except power structures will be changed from dictatorial to democratic. Companies will do the exact same things, except they will be working to pay all workers as much as possible, not just an elite few at the top as occurs in the current system.

Why on earth would you assume nothing else will change, when you've just changed the game-theoretic payoff table for every decision?

All that has changed is the power structure. The purpose of business doesn't change.

What are these incredible changes that will take place simply because we get rid of all these petty dictators and introduce democratic control?

The elite few at the top will have an incentive to leave for greener pastures.

There is no correlation between CEO pay and the performance of the companies they work for.

CEO pay is a game. It's the emperor's new clothes.

Getting rid of all that dead wood will save a fortune.

The company will shift to doing things in a way that requires fewer top experts.

Top experts? How many companies have "top" experts?

There will be need of people with expertise and if they can convince others that their expertise has special value and this is true then any good democratic body will pay them for the expertise.

Second, the majority won't only have an incentive to reduce the pay of the elite few; they'll have an incentive to reduce the pay of everyone but themselves -- to reduce the pay of suppliers, the pay of investors, the "pay" of customers (i.e. what customers receive per dollar they spend), and the pay of potential employees.

How does a company pay workers less when all the other companies are paying them more?

You seem to equate democratic control with mindlessness and greed when it is the opposite. What is mindlessness and greed is dictatorship, the current model.

Why exactly are you singing the praises of dictatorship with such enthusiasm? Would the world be worth less if we got rid of all the dictators?

 

[Emily Lake]

The best government is the government that does as much as possible.

A government that does as little as possible isn't worth very much.

That's only something people who want the power to oppress others further want. They don't want a government powerful enough to stop them.

Forgive me for saying so, untermensche, but you seem to have a very black and white view of things. Your perspective contains a number of false dichotomies, not just on this topic, but seemingly across the board.

 

[untermensche]

The best government is the government that does as much as possible.

A government that does as little as possible isn't worth very much.

That's only something people who want the power to oppress others further want. They don't want a government powerful enough to stop them.

Forgive me for saying so, untermensche, but you seem to have a very black and white view of things. Your perspective contains a number of false dichotomies, not just on this topic, but seemingly across the board.

No offense but this is worthless criticism.

One specific with citation is needed.

The only black and white I propose is that democracy is preferable to dictatorship. I don't claim it's some state of perfection, only better.

Am I wrong?

 

[Emily Lake]

Forgive me for saying so, untermensche, but you seem to have a very black and white view of things. Your perspective contains a number of false dichotomies, not just on this topic, but seemingly across the board.

No offense but this is worthless criticism.

One specific with citation is needed.

The only black and white I propose is that democracy is preferable to dictatorship. I don't claim it's some state of perfection, only better.

Am I wrong?

I didn't say that you claimed it was a state of perfection. The false dichotomy comes into play in your framing.

You say that the best government is one that does as much as possible, and that a government that does as little as possible is bad... and the only people who would want a government that does as little as possible are people who want to oppress others further.

That corollary to your opinion is a false dichotomy; it envisions an either-or scenario. Either people want a government that does as much as possible and therefore they want to give people democracy OR they want a government that does as little as possible and they want to oppress people. It allows for no other possible explanation, and no other possible interpretation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interestingly, isn't this view at odds with your own professed position as an anarchocommunist? Wouldn't this view then imply that in wanting no government at all (as an anarchist) you are actually seeking to oppress people maximally?

 

[untermensche]

No offense but this is worthless criticism.

One specific with citation is needed.

The only black and white I propose is that democracy is preferable to dictatorship. I don't claim it's some state of perfection, only better.

Am I wrong?

I didn't say that you claimed it was a state of perfection. The false dichotomy comes into play in your framing.

You say that the best government is one that does as much as possible, and that a government that does as little as possible is bad... and the only people who would want a government that does as little as possible are people who want to oppress others further.

There may be others who blindly as some form of religion or another think that less government is best when we exist in a world with huge corporate wealth and power. That is, huge private power that no individual can stand up to.

We exist in a world with all kinds of illegitimate power structures. When those power structures are dismantled then we can talk about dismantling government.

That corollary to your opinion is a false dichotomy; it envisions an either-or scenario. Either people want a government that does as much as possible and therefore they want to give people democracy OR they want a government that does as little as possible and they want to oppress people. It allows for no other possible explanation, and no other possible interpretation.

This will go no where.

I have my positions. I welcome alternative positions based on morality and simple positions, like democracy is preferable to dictatorship.

Interestingly, isn't this view at odds with your own professed position as an anarchocommunist? Wouldn't this view then imply that in wanting no government at all (as an anarchist) you are actually seeking to oppress people maximally?

To not appreciate the difference between Anarchism and Communism is to not appreciate the difference between democracy and dictatorship.

And in the present world to abandon government would be to throw humanity to the dogs.

 

[Bomb#20]

The way a worker owned system is envisioned is a system that evolves from a capitalist economy with large union membership. Like how the Spanish Anarchists came into existence.

I have my positions. I welcome alternative positions based on morality and simple positions, like democracy is preferable to dictatorship.
...
To not appreciate the difference between Anarchism and Communism is to not appreciate the difference between democracy and dictatorship.

It's easy to appreciate the difference between Anarchism and Communism -- there's really only one thing you need to know. When the Spanish Anarchists seized the factories, shot or drove off the owners and their representatives, turned the factories over to their workers, stood around with guns to make sure the workers stayed in charge, and had the workers vote on how to run the factories, they didn't use secret ballots.

 

[lpetrich]

But actually the best government is one that does as little as possible, which isn't the same as a business.

In other words, anarchy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I didn't say that you claimed it was a state of perfection. The false dichotomy comes into play in your framing.

You say that the best government is one that does as much as possible, and that a government that does as little as possible is bad... and the only people who would want a government that does as little as possible are people who want to oppress others further.

There may be others who blindly as some form of religion or another think that less government is best when we exist in a world with huge corporate wealth and power. That is, huge private power that no individual can stand up to.

We exist in a world with all kinds of illegitimate power structures. When those power structures are dismantled then we can talk about dismantling government.

That corollary to your opinion is a false dichotomy; it envisions an either-or scenario. Either people want a government that does as much as possible and therefore they want to give people democracy OR they want a government that does as little as possible and they want to oppress people. It allows for no other possible explanation, and no other possible interpretation.

This will go no where.

I have my positions. I welcome alternative positions based on morality and simple positions, like democracy is preferable to dictatorship.

Interestingly, isn't this view at odds with your own professed position as an anarchocommunist? Wouldn't this view then imply that in wanting no government at all (as an anarchist) you are actually seeking to oppress people maximally?

To not appreciate the difference between Anarchism and Communism is to not appreciate the difference between democracy and dictatorship.

And in the present world to abandon government would be to throw humanity to the dogs.

I'm massively confused! Are you saying that anarchy uses government?