From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: Why not feudalism?
Summary: because feudalism is lame. 
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:28:12 GMT

In article <BzD8Fy.DoJ@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>|> >What's wrong with exploitation (all it means it to benefit from), and how
>|> >were either sweatshop workers or the rail workers oppressed


Philosophically speaking, I guess an argument would be that if a person
voluntairily agrees to be taken advantage of because he does not know 
any better, that is his problem.  However in the specific case of rail 
workers, they were making near  subsitence wages in very poor working 
conditions while the rail owners were making huge profits.  I'm sure 
the rail owners could have made conditions a little better at higher
wages and still make a profit. 

>
>In article <BzD0IE.1Gz@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>|> They suffered a low standard of living, a high rate of ill-health,
>|> and the knowledge that they had little if any chance of moving out
>|> of their situation.  Children who worked 12 hour shifts down coal
>|> mines ended up with black lung.  Children who didn't get paid
>|> enough to eat well suffered from rickets.  Rail workers were economic
>|> slaves, with conditions not far off from those of South African miners
>|> today.  If someone suffered a work-related injury, there was little
>|> if any recompense, and little if any chance of future employment.
>|> How nice.

I don't think the argument is about whether the employers were "nice"
but whether these poor conditions should be allowed to exist.    

>
>If the workers were desperate enough to take such jobs, how desperate
>would they be if those jobs were not available?
>
>I presume you think it would have been nicer to ban such businesses so
>that the workers would have *no* work at all, so they could die in a
>dignified manner, say, starvation at a young age, as in Somalia.

There IS a third choice besides the two extremes stated.  The manufacturers
could have made working conditions a little better and it would still 
be profitable enough to run the business.  This seems the more equitable 
solution.  Remmember these employers got extremely rich during the 19th 
century, so it wasn't the case of the workers suffering because the 
product was not selling.  

Now, I know the standard response is to say that the government shouldn't
prohibit two parties from voluntairily signing a mutaul contract.  However,
I also dispute how voluntary the workers' acquiesence to the terms were.
If the alternative to not working was death by starvation, I don't think 
that the workers really have a choice.  This is equivalent to the often
pointed case of the government forcing you to pay your taxes at gunpoint. 
Yes, you can choose not to pay taxes, you'll just end up in jail or be 
shot defending your property. 

Before I get lots of the same reply (this happened last time), I agree
IN PRICIPLE that the majority in this country should have no say in
whatever agreement I make with Jane Doe next door.  However in some specific
cases of exploitation such as the the rail workers, I believe that the 
benefits of regulation to the workers outweighed the cost to the employer
(and may have ultimately benefitted the employers).  Of course this raises
the question of where to put the minimum in terms of wages and working 
conditions.  A person making $20 dollars an hour with a retirement plan and 
full health coveraage in a relatively safe desk job can claim to be 
unjustly exploited while a employer can claim that a miminum wage janitor 
working tough hours is being very well treated.  This is the problem with all 
reletivist arguments.  In the "ideal" society of course there would be no
regulations needed, but this is not the case today.

William

"Whetever the traffic will bear." -- Cornelius Vanderbilt   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian