From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Universal Wages   was Libertarian history
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:51:30 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Jul15.215112.12549@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Jul10.195513.15397@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>>

>I have argued that a freemarket type principle might define what
>a wage is for a particular amount of work; but that that amount
>of work should be paid the same worldwide. Isn't that the 
>"free" market way?

Well, it could be.  You see, the amount that someone is willing to pay
for a certain amount of work depends on how wealthy they are, and
how desperate they are to hire a particular person, which depends
on the amount of local competition for that laborer.

So, the free market determines that wages will never be exactly the
same anywhere for the same amount of work, unless there is uniform
wealth and capital distribution worldwide.  As it currently stands,
there are some nations which are capital-rich, and some which are
capital-poor.  Wages are high in the former, and low in the latter.

If equality is what you favor, then you should favor open borders, miniscule
taxes on capital assets, universally upheld private property rights,
and laissez faire.  When this occurs, capital will have no reason
to hide behind
borders, and it will seek profit in all corners of the earth, 
competition for labor will equalize, and wages will be fairly
uniform globally, for similar work.

>
>
>No, I am not advocating the enforcment of any edict. I
>am advocating that the principle of equal pay for equal work
>be law at least in principle. Now what capitalist could
>possibly oppose such a reasonable principle!?!?  (You seem
>to assume that the concept of capitalist is maintained. I
>don't see any reason for this....if we eliminate the idea
>of private property because it is based on force.)
>

The best way to establish the principle of equal pay for equal
work is to simply let markets operate and allow capital to flow freely.
Attempts to legislate it will result in the opposite occurring,
as capital flees to more hospitable quarters.

Private property isnt BASED on force, philosophically speaking.  
It is based on the idea that people should have the power to control
some material things directly--that which they "own."  Force only
enters the picture when there is a dispute over ownership.

Abolishing private property requires a great deal more exercise
of force than the maintenance of this social contract.
For example, the 10 million Kulaks that Stalin slaughtered in
forced collectivization.

Now, I realize that it is POSSIBLE that there might be a voluntary
communism devoid of private property, but one would think that with
all the random elements of humanity running wild on this planet that
we would have an example somewhere.  Unfortunately, the ONLY examples
of voluntary communism are small cult-like religious groups.

That should tell you something.


--Al Date
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13310 talk.politics.misc:35428 alt.individualism:4457