From: urkastig@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Robert Kastigar)
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,sci.econ,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Real Voice of Adam Smith
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:50:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: uxa.Bv95sA.3G5
Organization: Educational Computing Network

In Article 12 of alt.amateur-comp, Michael Hauben wrote. . .
--------------------------     
     Much is made of the "father of deregulation." Adam Smith has
been designated such by many in the field of economics. His
connection takes on a mythical role. These connections are taken
for granted, and perhaps, like mythical legends are not always
true. Adam Smith's beliefs have been stereotyped so when someone
says "individuality" or "deregulation", we are supposed to think
"Adam Smith." The actual reading of Smith's books must be a
curiosity because he constantly winds up supporting the rights of
workers and seeking a fair relationship between employers and
workers. While Smith is connected to "laissez faire" economics,
throughout The Wealth of Nations, there is a strong sentiment
that society is better off when the common worker is treated
good.
---------------------------

It IS possible to have it both ways!  

In some things, but not all things the relationship between employer
and worker are, and will always be, adversarial.  A common mistake
is to assume that an adversarial relationship is bad and steps should
be taken to minimize the adversarial nature of the relationship.  
For example: the adversarial nature of the relationship between a
prosecution and defense attorney is a method for seeking justice.

While the employer may control the land and captital necessary for
production, the worker is in control of the labor.  However, to 
maximize this control, the workers need to unite - to form a strong
cohesive force.  Hence, the need for STRONG UNIONS of workers.  

It is possible, even desirable, as Adam Smith says, to maintain a
"laissez faire" attitude of government in this area.  The strength
of the unions will balance the strength of the employer - because
without labor capitalism grinds to a halt.  

In the 1930's, government recognized the need for the workers to
form united associations to deal freely with their employers, and this
resulted in the Wagner Act, which legitimized unions.  The Wagner Act
was a law that minimized government interference.  

Somewhat later, many feared the strength of this newly legitimized
force in society.  They were able to persuade the government that it
was necessary for government to pass laws to "restore the balance."
As admirable a goal as 'restoring balance' may seem, it isn't always
possible to achieve it, nor it may not always be desireable.  It may
be best to follow "laissez faire."  But, as a result of this pressure, the
Taft-Harley Act was passed, and unlike the liberating effect of the 
Wagner Act, the Taft-Hartley Act re-imposed new government regulations.

Those adherents to Adam Smith's "strong hand of the marketplace" should
recognize that, left to their own devices without government regulation,
the employer and the collective worker will truly be free to negotiate
mutually agreeable terms and conditions of employment and pay.  And
both will be constrained in their relationship by this "strong hand."
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,comp.misc