: This is a self levelling mechanism, and in a free market something which would serve to mediate the 'power' of companies. Its doesnt in state made monopolies.It also is the means by which workers lose their jobs, their homes, and their communities...
: yet 90s US family can buy more material, better technology and more leisure time than thei 70s counterparts. (UN)
Through advances in tech, as noted in my cited website...
: I assume this was better than nothing -alhough you would find me in agreement with a negative view of how the 'landed gentry' got their land - but not with turfing their great grandson off it under the banner 'redress'
1:It was all they could afford, what is to stop teh poor in anarcho-capitalism having to eat substandard food if it is all they can afford. Since, as they are poor, they have no recourse to 'Justice Bob's Law Emporium' (Neal Stephenson 'Snow Crash').
: Likewise injury and disease in pre-industrial Britain was even more rife, there never was a garden of pre technological eden.
Erm, non-sequiter, what is to stop unscrupulous employers lowering working conditions, if there is no state to prevent this? the fact that it once happened, and required the state to stop it, is suffice evidence to suggest that it could happen again...
: They always will. Buyer beware, or would you heap all in the same hole for the sake of a few?
Except in teh pharmaceuticals field, the buyer can obnly beware if they have a chemistry lab and an MSc.
: Ah, I am misunderstanding. Individual power brokers, I can believe that. Are the public so easily duped though?
Its standard political practise in most western countries, the media, owned by said power broklers, just doesn't focus on it...neither do the mainstream parties...
: And leave the entire country in ruins...hmm, Im not sure thats a good exmaple of 'sekf interest'
Or take them over- the very poor are dangerous to the very rich...
: well, I have thought of it as a protection racket. Rob peter to pay paul so that paul doesnt get angry. peter is the producer though, and the robber is the legislative ruling class. No one some peters are trying to influence the ruling 'class'.
Partly thats what it is, they need this state to maintain society- and certainly thats how Shaw framed it.
: I would suggest that companies have to compete for lbor as much as the other way round. Who would work for bademploy plc when goodemploy plc offers better conditions. There were marked examples during the industrial revolution - better employers made better products made better wealth.
And plenty of examples, then as now, of scab employers making good profits from dangerous practise. As I noted to Joel:
1:Geographical, cultural difficulties constrict teh jobs market for most workers.
2:Employers have the advantage of extreme poverty as an inducement to work.
3:The shared interest of employers to force wages down where they can.
: The same as stops forgery now, except criminal law is civil (private) law as per link.
So basically, the rich will be able to take anyone to court whom they accuse, but the very rich could forge their own money, and hold off the courts for years with procedings, etc. you'd never have an agreed currency...
: The idea that they must destroy eachother is a fallacy. It isnt win or die - thats the zero sum game.
No, but eventually, as the rate of profit falls, they must expand their consumer base, and open new markets, hence where war comes in. Production is limitless, consumption is limited.
: As I have described, employers need to compete for employees as much as any other.
And as I have said, its a very one sided market, it happened once, it happens now, so I can foresee it happening again if the state isn't there to regulate capitalism..
