Capitalism

But does this society we live in agree that is where our rights come from? I contend still, our society has to agree upon these rights. If our society doesn't agree on them, they're not rights anymore essentially. The problem with capitalists making these decisions, is that this decision is astronomical in affecting a person. They decide whether a person gets to feed themselves at night(for without a job, it would be extremely difficult to do so), whether they get to improve their lot in life, etc. What gives them such right to that authority? Just because they were fortunate enough to have capital to fund their business? No single person should have the power to affect another person so tremendously unless the people consented to have them in that position of power. Not only does a capitalist get to make decisions regarding the company, but they get to choose whether to hire a person, and this translates to all I've said. I would argue the hiring decision has affect on a person directly, and not indirectly. The difference between deciding to shop or boycott a store, is that you're a single person. A single person wouldn't be able to affect that business owner so greatly to where they would no longer be able to feed themselves, for there are many other people willing to shop there. And if there aren't, then I consider that proper authority used because then it naturally represents everyone involved. Sure, while the business owner is opposed to no one shopping at their business, everyone else approves of it. Just like how in a democracy it is moral for 99% to agree upon a law while ignoring the will of the other 1%, so is this moral. Now, the difference with employers and deciding to hire someone, is it ignores everyone else involved in that company. Other employees would be directly affected by the decision for an employer to hire or not to hire someone. For they may have to put up with a terrible co-worker, or perhaps it was someone they knew was a great worker who would help relieve the unfair workload, but the employer turned them down anyways. So, while you can say the business owner is "only making decisions regarding his own property", well, there are other people using that property who are directly affected by the decisions he makes. The workers are part of the business, and now that I brought that up, that brings me to the conclusion that capitalism is a form of slavery. If the workers are part of the business, and the business owner owns the business, they indirectly own the workers, it might be "voluntary" slavery as the workers agreed upon working for the business owner, but even that is hindered since what other choice does a person have in a capitalist system to improve their lot in life? You're forced either to be a business owner or an employee. If you're anything else, then you're not partaking in the capitalist system, and I doubt you would be able to improve your lot in life if you're not involved in the capitalist system. The only option where you can be outside of the capitalist system and have different arrangements, is by working for a workers' cooperative, but as I pointed out, coops are a very small minority, so for many, they are not a feasible option either.