Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

I'm tired of your empty "slogans". You don't want to discuss this intelligently and clearly? Fine. Buh-bye.

 

Wasn't that answered by "If your scenario had ended with "the employees contacted the employer and worked out an agreement to purchase the business property and equipment to the satisfaction of both employer and employees" I would have answered no. And THAT would be following a much more rational law, essentially what exists currently."?
Taking property without remuneration would be the violation. The business, property, and machinery belong to the employer who has a right to be paid for the property he/she/they own.
Suppose you lived in California and decided you would like to live in Arizona. You sell your house in California for $500,000 but when you try to leave the State government decides the money you are trying to take with you is the result of selling property in California and moving it to another State. Should the money be confiscated by the State? Or if similar houses are selling for $200,000 in Arizona, should California claim $300,000 allowing only $200,000 to leave the State?
Both scenarios, yours and mine are rather silly, and in my opinion do nothing but keep us from tackling issues that we might be more willing to find solutions we can agree on.

People have a right to both their body and their property. They should be remunerated for both the labour of their body/mind as well as any property they have legally acquired.

 

Slogans?
Obviously you're only looking for agreement, NOT an intelligent discussion.

 

Pan Am did NOT fail because of unions. Plenty of other airlines still flying with union workers so that fallacy of yours in not going to fly...pun intended. Pan Am was mismanaged for decades before it ultimately failed.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/18/business/pan-am-s-disappearing-act.html

Railroads were failing to keep up with the competition of road transportation and again that had nothing to do with unions. Instead it was a matter of too many corporations competing in a shrinking market. The surviving railroad corporations still use union labor.

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/Rail-union-labor-agreement-contract/506864/

Auto corporations also reached agreements with their unions and are surviving so all of your fallacies are baseless.

 

Great job harming your own credibility with that asinine drivel.

 

Can you cite this, or are you just making stuff up?

 

But this is exactly what a minimum wage law says, and you and many other statists find it acceptable.

 

Let's see. Person wants to move his property to another location, but he is told that, "No, you may not take your property. We are taking it and giving it to others."

Yeah, definitely a violation of his property.

 

Continued hypocrisy. Demanding that mutually beneficial exchange opportunity is destroyed is not demonstrating any support for freedom

 

In my original post on this (#1816) I specifically said "...the government, following the law, contacts the business owner..."

.And your "alternative" doesn't stand anyway because in my scenario, when the government tells the owner he can go overseas but his equipment stays, I provide an inherent implication that the owner has the option of making another choice. Offering a deal to the workers would be another choice.

My point is that you are viewing and considering this hypothetical situation from the standpoint of its appearance within the context of existing capitalist law. And capitalist law isn't "God's law" or "the only sensible law" or some sort of "natural law" (don't bother declaring that you didn't say what's in quotes here; I know you didn't). It is A TYPE OF law. In Italy they have the Marcora Law where this sort of thing is legislated.

So the point is, let's get out of our narrow, capitalist mindset.

 

If you wanted an intelligent discussion you would not be dodging every request for specifics and supporting documentation.

 

Personal observation.

 

The law also provides for locking a person's body up in prisons in certain cases. When it's done on the basis of trumped-up charges, is it also then a violation that needs to be punished? No, the law doesn't provide for such punishment. So your rule fails.

 

-under capitalist law. That is the only framework within which you are operating. Under the Marcora Law it's law. Under some laws, usually socialist laws, it is illegal to privately possess and control business income to distribute to workers as you see fit. The profits are seen as equally belonging to all the workers. Under those laws, the business owner in my story purchased that equipment with proceeds expropriated from his workers, and they have a right to much or most of that equipment.

The point is that you are only and narrowly considering all this from within the context of familiar capitalist law, not some rigid natural "right" and certainly not within any alternate framework. And yet you know I operate within an alternate framework. This difference is the basis of our disagreement.

 

I believe your original post was #1814, #1816 was my response.
So in your scenario you're saying the government is only preventing him from moving his equipment with him allowing him to sell to the best offer he can obtain? As long as the owner is remunerated to his satisfaction there would be no violation of his property rights.
And if the employees were unable to come up with the best offer to purchase the equipment they might have to find new employment if the new owner did not retain them, which would not violate their body or property. And then if the employees did make and pay an acceptable offer they might find themselves in a worse state trying to compete with their old employer from abroad who may then purchase newer and more efficient equipment allowing the production of more quantity and better quality at a much lower profitable price.
Basically, your point is we need government force to accomplish your agenda. Have enough American citizens become so stupefied to allow government to pass such laws?
Are you claiming your scenario to be representative of Marcora law in its application?

 

I done nothing but. You've presented few, if any intelligent requests, although I've tried to give as simple an answer as possible to each. If ANYONE should be complaining, it should be ME, not YOU.

 

What if the business owner purchased all the equipment free and clear before hiring any employees? Are you saying he would then be allowed to take his equipment with him?
When I worked as a carpenters apprentice many years ago I had to buy my own tools and when I left I took them with me, and rarely used them, but still have some of them today.

 

"As long as the owner is remunerated to his satisfaction there would be no violation of his property rights."

So you want a guarantee in order for there to be no judgement of a "violation". Where does that happen? LOL!!!

And you still haven't stepped out of your framework of capitalist law. A country with a system of democratic socialism that was actually working toward true socialism, would at some point have a law barring anyone from creating a new, privately-owned business and producing private profit for themselves. And existing privately-owned businesses would be phased-out. In such a case my scenario would be legislated too, no doubt. It's just a question of what laws work for which system.

 

I can't agree. Market socialism includes variants that allow private ownership for SMEs. That can be crucial, given the need to harness entrepreneurial spirit.

 

BUNK!! You started whining about "living within your means" back in post 1568. I first questioned it in 1578 and the asked for clarification of what you meant in 1674. Here we are in 1845 and you STILL haven't specified exactly what you mean by "those who live beyond their means" and how it causes "all our problems". You own vagueness escapes you.

 

With his own, inherited money? Yes.

 

"Market socialism" is a mixed system that is (hopefully) moving toward socialism, as I said. And at some point prior to becoming fully socialist a ban on private ownership of business would be necessary.

 

That is a bogus political economic determination. There is no 'fully socialist', which is on a par with 'pure capitalism'. I would argue that it is not possible to maintain innovation without small business. Socialist calculation, in the traditional debate, fails because the importance of the entrepreneur is sidelined.

 

"Is no..."? Socialism is not mature. It is still in its developmental stage including much experimentation.

Why would socialism exclude small businesses? It's STARTING with small businesses.

So Marx was wrong? He called for workers of the world to cast off their chains of exploitation. You're saying that isn't possible. He said that just as serfs rose up and became capitalists and no serfs exist in advanced capitalist countries today, so too would workers rise up and establish a new socialist economy in which workers own the means of production. He didn't say "some" of the means of production. He said socialism would replace capitalism and in time classes would "wither away". You're saying that can't happen and if that were true, classes would not "wither away".

What kind of economy is it that you advocate?

 

It's a fact that proves your drivel was truly asinine.