From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians, slaves and company towns
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:38:29 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <45931@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.003559.7488@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>In article <45347@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar24.015233.13525@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>
>>>>
>>>>I would say that you DO have the right to sell yourself into bondage,
>>>>but that you also have a right to demand your freedom and reneg, so it 
>>>>really cant be considered slavery in the traditional compulsory sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What does this mean?  Don't libertarians believe in enforceable contracts?
>>>
>>
>>Sure, we "believe" in enforcable contracts, for very obvious practical
>>reasons.  OTOH, our moral revulsion toward involuntary
>>servitude far outweighs any practical economic concerns.  Inotherwords,
>>even if slavery worked well, in some sense, true libertarians
>>would still oppose it.   (See Abolitionists.)  
>
>So should the "owner" be entitled to enforce his/her contract with the 
>"slave"? 

No, because it would require the legal premise of ownership of a human
being.  If the "voluntary slave" wants out of the contract, he/she gets out. 
The owner might then consider suing for tort damages, in which case the
"slave" would be protected by bankruptcy.

>
>>But, to avoid confusion, it is very important to distinguish between 
>>pure slavery and so-called wage slavery.  We might not like
>>wage slavery much more than pure slavery, but it is inherently different,
>>because wage slaves, unlike actual slaves, are entitled to equal 
>>protection under the law, even if their economic circumstances may be harsh.
>>That is nothing to scoff at.
>
>In the real world, it makes little difference to a debt-bonded sharecropper
>that he has a theoretical right to hire F. Lee Bailey and sue his employer.
>In practice, he has *no* legal redress, and if your theory tells you
>otherwise, it is an indication of the poverty of your theory.
>

He has much more legal recourse than an actual slave.
To deny that is an indication of some serious blinders in your 
world view.


>>We might implore the employer to improve the working conditions, or
>>even attempt to boycott him or embarass him among his peers, or sue
>>him for damages, or even attempt to get a criminal trial, if he
>>were violating his workers' rights to equal protection somehow
>>(like if he used the national guard to bust a strike).
>
>Who's "we"? 

Any number of moral agents who also exist within this society.

>In practice, a vast inequality of wealth between the employer
>andthe employees seems to be inextricable from a vast inequality of
>political/judicial power. 

This is only true to the extent that political actions are allowed to
mix with economic actions, which libertarians seek to avoid to the greatest
extent possible.  Where there is the need to compete on a legal footing,
100,000 workers can pool their resources in unions or in boycotts or
in class action lawsuits and take on any corporation.

For example, a mutli-national energy concern can
>easily afford to shift production while fending off lawsuits from coal
>miners in one mine. The miners, of course, are aware of this, and are thus
>convinced to accept infringements of their human rights in exchange for
>wages.
>
You can pose any hypothetical situation.  The bottom line is that the
best hope for the workers is greater competition for their labor.


>>>What does "voluntary" mean here? How about, "volunteer" to be a slave rather
>>>than starve to death? Is that "volunteering"? 
>>>
>>
>>Well, it is true that volition can be exercised even by slaves, (after all,
>>they could choose the lash instead of the work) which is
>>why the concept of "involuntary servitude" has to be reduced to a more 
>>concrete concept, ie, legal ownership of humans.
>>
>>Practically speaking, the only way that someone
>>can face a clear choice between starvation and bondage is if the 
>>agent offering the "choice" has a monopoly on all jobs offered everywhere
>>and a monopoly on the entire food supply, something which has only
>>existed under centrally planned economies.
>
>False. In conditions of artificially induced scarcity, such as were endemic
>during the pre-welfare-state industrial revolution, jobs were not easy to
>come by, and many workers had absolutely no reserve wealth. Thus, a job loss
>meant no food today, eviction, and quite possibly death. 

I would say that this was much more true in pre-industrial society.  Savings
and reserve wealth and a large middle class are a feature of industrial
society, and in direct proportion to the length of time that society has
had a chance to operate.

>Even when
>conditions were not so drastic, the obvious difference in need between a
>worker who needs a wage to live, and a capitalist who invests to increase
>his stock of capital leads to an inequalit in bargaining power. The
>development of strong unions and the introduction of unemployment insurance,
>provide the workers a certain buffer which reduces the inequality. But, the
>developments of the last 20 years have increased the relative power of the
>capitalists. 
>

Compared to what?  USA capitalists have to compete against foreign capitalists.
The question you should be asking is if USA capitalists have more relative
power over their work force than do their foreign competitors.  I would
say not, except in the case of Europe.


>>local monopoly on both items, as in the much-ballyhooed
>>example of the company town, it cannot be considered 
>>involuntary servitude (ie legal ownership of humans) in the strict sense,
>>as long as people can walk, run, or ride away from the town, which many
>>of them did.  The Land of Opportunity may not have been uniformly so,
>>but it sure beat monolithic tyranny.
>
>So, feudal serfs who could move to cities to escape their feudal bonds were,
>in your estimation, not victims of involuntary servitude? 
>
I didnt say they werent victims, but they certainly were no longer slaves,
as long as there was no legal recourse against them.

>I believe that you have a very meager definition of human freedom. One which
>reduces to the right of a human to engage in such commerce as he/she can
>afford.  

Well, let's hear it.  What's YOUR definition of freedom?

As I have pointed out previously, the people who immigrate to this country
in search of opportunity do not consider my definition of human freedom
to be meager, indeed, they see it as total liberation, just to be able to keep
the fruits of the labors, and to build some security for themselves.
Many of them came here with nothing but the shirts on
their backs, and they did not let their lack of financial capital keep
them from expending their HUMAN CAPITAL in pursuit of their dream.

But it is possible that some people might consider this freedom "meager,"
if they did not like hard work.  Should their "freedom" be expanded by
depriving those who are willing to work of the fruits of their labors?
I say no, for moral and practical reasons too numerous to list.

What is crucial is to maintain legal freedom / liberty / equality 
under the law, and to MIMINIZE "economic rights," which cannot be
granted without (ever-increasing) public takings of private property.  
The right to not be denied life liberty and the pursuit of
happiness does not include a guarantee that society will keep you
alive or make you happy or make you feel free. 

>In contrast, I can certainly envision the possiblity of having a
>great deal of freedom, without taking part in commerce at all.

Oh really?   Most people find that they need money to survive. 
I look forward to hearing your version of freedom, which sounds
to me suspiciously like "freedom from the work that society values."


--Al Date