From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:25:12 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Aug18.043751.14045@u.washington.edu> davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:
/In article <900@nazgul.UUCP>, bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
/Exactly.  So what makes capitalism "natural" or morally right?  The
/fact that it was instituted by force, and that people have lived with
/it so long they think it is "natural?"

I suppose "natural" is debatable. Certainly, freedom has not been tried
very often in human societies, the USA being the most notable exception.
But I'd say capitalism is morally right
because of its basis in freedom.

/> 	The "rule" of a corporation is by consent. None of the workers
/> 	in a corporation are there by force. *ALL* of them agreed to
/> 	work there, and typically signed an employment contract. Do
/> 	you think it is unreasonable for someone to be expected to
/> 	abide by the terms of their agreements signed of their own
/> 	free will?
/Oh come on, certainly you aren't suggesting that a contract between
/two entities where:
/a) One entity that has millions of dollars to devote to a legal department
/in drawing up and maintaining contracts and which will survive perfectly
/well if the second entity does not work for them
/and
/b) One entity that does _not_ have millions of dollars to spend
/drawing up and maintaining contracts, and that likely _will_ be
/adversly affected if s/he doesn't get the job
/... can possibly, even remotely, be considered to be a fair contract
/drawn up under non-coercive circumstances, are you?  One might as
/well call a wrestling match between an elephant and a shrew "evenly
/matched."

I am suggesting that it is fair. When I've signed employment contracts,
I've *read* them, and I made changes which the corporation accepted. I
didn't even hire a lawyer. If you sign something you do not understand,
or maybe even haven't read, then it's your funeral. I agree that some people
think that those employment contracts are cast in stone and they have no
choice about signing them. They are sadly misinformed, and I regard this
as an educational problem.

How is a corporation "coercing" you to sign, except maybe offering you
money? I've been involved in the hiring process at big companies like
Boeing. Lots of people who had offers made to them (and for entry level
positions) declined the offers (usually because the money was insufficient).
I guess Boeing wasn't too successful at "coercing" them to join, and
ramming the contract down their throat.

Take a look at the Yellow Pages. It's jammed with companies. If you don't
like the terms at one, you are free to select another. Where is the coercion?

I'm curious: who do you work for? Did you feel coerced into your job?
If so, how and why? Am I correct in assuming that you are bitter about
something?

/> 	I agree with you totally about property rights. I also suggest
/> 	that property rights includes the right to own shares, something
/> 	with which you appear to strongly disagree.
/I do disagree.  The "right to own shares" is a "right" to manipulate,
/coerce, and dominate other human beings.  Such "rights" are a peversion
/of the concept of rights.  The sole legitimate concept of rights is to
/act as social benchmarks to _minimize_ such coercion.

Can I infer from this that you regard "employment" as essentially
equivalent to "slavery"? If so, I must sigh and resign myself to the
fact that this discussion has reached an unfortunate impasse. I cannot
understand how a free exchange of money for labor equates to slavery.
Newsgroups: pnw.general