Unions causing capitalists to be "uncompetitive"

Capitalists want a race to the bottom. Labor movements are the only reason we are not working for 50 cents/hour

Category:

Education

Tags:

• employee
• free
• choice
• act
• capitalism
• unions

[QuatFax]

@AussieAustrianBlog Self-ownership is perfectly consistent with possession. The Mutualist concept of possession (that I own the things that I regularly occupy and use) would obviously apply to myself; I occupy and use my own body at all times. There is no need to apply Lockean property rights to this.

[AussieAustrianBlog]

@QuatFax you need to add the h...in front of that link

[AussieAustrianBlog]

@QuatFax I own myself and i'm private property. Here's a link to an article: mises.org/daily/4157/SelfOwner­ship

[QuatFax]

@AussieAustrianBlog Can you back that statement up?

[AussieAustrianBlog]

@QuatFax Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is private property - not sure where that quote came from.

[AussieAustrianBlog]

@CytherLynx I have yet to see anyone refute the Austrian view point. I always see mainstream and nobel laureates get things wrong with their predictions and logic. The strongest aspect of Austrian economics relates to our trade/business cycle theory.

[QuatFax]

@CytherLynx In a real anarchist society, of course, it would all probably vary based on what individual communities think. In a community where the majority valued Lockean property, the economy would probably become anarcho-capitalist. In a community where the majority valued Mutualist property, the economy would probably become Mutualist or some other form of social anarchist. Each would probably be fine with the other as long as they chose to respect each others' right to exist.

[QuatFax]

@CytherLynx Oh, yeah, it'd have to be more complicated. And, of course, no one has an absolute position on it. Mutualists do believe that people can be separate from their property for some period of time and still own it (i.e.- you don't lose your house just for walking out the door). And Lockeans/Rothbardians, as I understand, would probably see land that was originally homesteaded but then left untouched for decades as open game as well.

[CytherLynx]

@QuatFax well, its a bit more complicated i think. i mean, there'd have to be different community accepted rules for irreplaceables, uniques, personal goods and land.

You should be able to own things, but not in ways like buying country sized pieces of land. the land that is yours should be yours due to 'first use'. Rothbard's view is very similar. you'd think we'd take technical views on it, but we're actually close to left anarchists. however fundamental different in other places.

[QuatFax]

@CytherLynx Oooo, thanks! 'Twill be quite helpful. I may not have time to read it for a while, but I'll use the first chance I get.