> Then they put the people in a state of serfdom. Businesses don't need
> to have any respect for the low end producers, just the high end consumers.
> Look at the clothing industry.
IAN: Not to deny that serf conditions exist in the unlaissez faire
countries of the world, that produce products for the international
capitalist market; however, capitalism in general is distinct from
pre-capitalist serfdom due to that feature know as * mass production *
under which products are made for the masses, as opposed to a few elite.
This is precisely how capitalism raises the poor out of the pre-capitalist
conditions of universal poverty and serfdom.
It is not in the capitalist's interest to keep his products out of
the hands of any group of consumers. the capitalist strives to bring
the best product at the lowest price due to the impact of competition
with other businesses who would also like attract/serve those customers.
> Even in high tech, there is severe disparity in wages. Some
> software companies import top-notch Indian programmers, keep them in
> "software sweatshops" and pay them INDIAN wages. That strikes me as
> grossly unfair, because more highly educated and skilled people are being
> manipulated by sleazy managers.
IAN: A business will pay each worker as little as he is willing
to except, just as you will pay each producer as little as he is
willing to except. Folks from India are willing to except less
than American workers because they, living in or coming from a
heavily socialized economy, are poorer than Americans on average
so this lesser wage is to them higher than the wage options.
This wage disparity is purely rational, not even slightly unethical.
> Okay, call me one of those crazy idealists, but what about if people
> worked to better each other rather than only themselves. Science
> innovations could be shared by the entire commune. Everybody is working
> for the benefit of all.
IAN: People do work for the benefit of other in a capitalist
society. Ever heard of customer service ? The whole function
of the free market -- nongovt business -- is producing something
for someone else. Yet people who oppose the market want things
for free, without having to do anything for someone else.
> I think cooperation can produce the best item for the lowest
> price, simply because everyone contributes what they can.
IAN: Voluntary association is the definition of cooperation.
There can be no cooperation free from consent. On the other hand,
govt mandated collectivism is coercion and therefore is by definition
antithetical to cooperation.
> Cooperation would work so much better than
> competition, because you get much more voluntary work.
IAN: Cooperation is not antithetical to competition; however,
competition is antithetical to totalitarianism. Without competition
there is not incentive to build the better mouse trap, no incentive
to cut costs by reducing wasted effects and energy. Without competition
there is only stagnation and poverty.
> My fundamental moral principle is that all forms of coercion are bad,
> government and private property are pretty much the two biggest forms of
> coercion I can think of. You know about government coercion, but who backs
> up your right to property if not government. You and your superior
> firepower. Blatant application of force.
IAN: So if private property is bad, then its destruction must be good.
Therefore it would be good for me to blow up you and your home, because
both you and your home are items of your private property, which is
good to abolish.
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igoddard@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________