You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
French lawmakers overwhelmingly back veil ban
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
oi said:So you're basically telling me that companies are outside the democratic system, because it's private property. Then why are people discussing issues as child labour, discrimination of gender and culture, looks, age, intelligence, since obviously according to you the owner/s has the right to do whatever they with want with their own property? And sure, you don't have to call companies dictatorships specifically, since that would imply that there's one absolute leader. The point is that companies are undemocratic institution, which you yourself just said, and apparently think is ok too.
I'm not the one discussing such issues. In fact, I believe the politicians are going way too far when they demand things from private companies they have no business putting their nose into. It's not the point of companies to solve social or political issues. Companies are there to generate profit for their owners, and that's it. It's not the task of companies to ensure that there's an even distribution between the genders in the top tier.
Yes, the owner has every right to do whatever he want with his property. The company is his property, his employees aren't. Those are free individuals with rights. They don't have the right to a job, neither in a particular place or in general, but they have the right to conduct in work. The conditions for the job is agreed upon in a mutual contract.
It's also a right for people to freely form any form of organisation or association, and it's freely up to the members to decide what rules to use, democratic or otherwise. The democratic rules as you are trying to apply them only applies to the collective, not on private associations.
Another important right is the right to private property. Without it you can get a situation equivalent of two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner. Or in a family, when the question about who should wash the dishes comes up after the dinner, someone quickly proposes that little brother should do it, and with a vote with everyone against one this is decided.
The masses would just vote to strip the rich people from all their property to enrich themselves.
oi said:So I guess all the above is just something that flies out the window as soon as we step inside the gates of the company that we work for, a place where most people will spend a significant amount of their life at. It's actually you who have been advocating rights for everyone no matter what, so call me suprised when it's obviously only when you're not working, if you've ended up in the private sector.
There's a very significant difference. You're demanded by law to be in school. Often there is little to no choice for people to decide which school to go to, unless their parents have saved up for you to go to a private school.
There are no laws however that you need to work. Also, if you decide to work, you have a free choice of places to work. If the place doesn't go well with you, you can move over to another place where the conditions fit you better.
MfA said:That's the great old joke isnt it ... libertarians love their fundamental rights, the fact that so many people disagree doesnt seem to phase them in their believe that they are indeed fundamental. It is a little like moral absolutism.
Ever heard the term "the tyranny of the majority"? It's a real threat that exist in democracies when certain rights aren't protected. Look what would happen in Iraq if no strong constitution would be put in place first that protects people's freedom of religion before implementing democracy. The first thing that would happen would be that the shiites would make their branch of Islam the state religion since they represent 60% of the people. A majority should never have the right to strip the minority from their rights.
Humus said:Companies aren't democratic institutions. Nor are they dictatorships. They are private property that can be owned by one or many people. Like with any private property it's up to the owner to decide what to do with it.
It was once commonly thought that entire cities, towns, and nations were the private property of Kings, Nobles, etc. Aristocrats claimed ownership through birthright and also claimed to be more suited for the job, having been raised to do so since birth. Eventually people began to stand up and say that the actions of Kings and Nobles were not the creators of the countries they controlled, that because their actions affected the lives of ordinary people, those people deserved representation. After centuries of struggle, most of us find it absurd that anyone, qualified or not, would lay claim to the private control of an entire country. Yet this attitude continues to persist with regards to the discussion of capitalism today.
To be fair, times have changed for the better since then, (which even Marx and Engels noted repeatedly). There is definately far more social mobility now than was ever available during feudal times. This is largely because money has replaced the bloodlines of nobility as the prime mover in a capitalist society. This is both a good thing and a bad thing however, because while it does away with the rigidness of blood-based hierarchy, it replaces it with a new system that in many ways suffers from the same ills. There's a reason why those born into money rarely die without it. There may be some slippage here and there, but having people fall off the charts isn't all too common. Those with money can afford to send them to better schools where they would have better learning opportunities than those who cannot afford it. Money can be used to bail people out if they're in financial or legal trouble. Money is often used to circumvent the very processes or democratic representation in the political sense fought for over the past several centuries, by linking elected representatives to the money you gave them to get elected, which they are expected to repay by drafting legislation more favorable to their social class.
Furthermore, the more and more money accrued by a single person, the less likely said money was gained through personal toil. Those who sit on the boards of directors at stockholder's meetings make most of the money they subsist on by expropriating surplus value from those who work below them. This begins to sound much like the feudal system abolished or driven from the "Western World" centuries ago. The key difference being that blood lineage doesn't really play nearly as big a part in how people get to that point, (although there are certainly numerous instances where names make a difference if you're a Rockefeller, Kennedy, Bush, DuPont, etc).
However, regardless of how people attain those positions, by the time they reach them there could well be tens of thousands of employees who's very lives depend on the decisions they make, in much the same manner as people were dependent on the decisions of the feudal lords before them. At present, there is next to zero accountability of those in high positions and those working below them, especially in a "free market" open-shop society. Your only real choice is to go to another company which is likely structured in exactly the same way, (there are few large-scale coops). In this sense, a corporation is very much like an authoritarian regime.
Just like my computer isn't a democratic institution that anyone but me have a say in what to do with it.
Key difference here being that what you do to your computer does not affect the lives of hundreds or thousands of people. If you move your monitor to another room, it doesn't mean that hundreds of people could lose their jobs. If you screw up and completely destroy it, it doesn't mean someone's family is going to be out on the street, (unless said computer contained everything you needed for work, and suddenly it's your family out on the street). Because it is something that affects so many people's lives, it is something that should have accountability to all those who's lives depend on it. That is why we need more democracy in the workplace. It doesn't have to happen to every ma and pa shop where the owner's are in every day doing the grunt work themselves, but it does need to happen at some point along the line.
Humus said:Ever heard the term "the tyranny of the majority"? It's a real threat that exist in democracies when certain rights aren't protected. Look what would happen in Iraq if no strong constitution would be put in place first that protects people's freedom of religion before implementing democracy. The first thing that would happen would be that the shiites would make their branch of Islam the state religion since they represent 60% of the people. A majority should never have the right to strip the minority from their rights.
Ever hear of "the tyranny of the minority"? If you look through history books, it tends to be alot more common. Protecting the rights of the minority is one thing, ensuring that they have the ability to arbitrarily discriminate and hinder or destroy people's livlihoods without fear of recriminations is another entirely.
Humus said:A majority should never have the right to strip the minority from their rights.
I agree, now we just have to work out wether it will be you or me which is going to define just what those rights are.
Clashman said:Long post
Again, the right to freely form private associations. The workers have the free choice to form a union to give themselves a better position and a larger portion of the profit.
Just because a company affect the lives of other people doesn't mean those people must have a say in it. They freely chose to be affected by accepting and signing an employment contract. Of course respecting other people and their opinions is important, but the decision of always on the owner of the property.
You are mostly just discussing fairness, which is a whole different thing. Life isn't fair. It will never be, no matter what system, because fairness is highly subjective. Capitalism is unfair in its ways, but it's more fair than any other system out there, and even if you're on the top or the bottom capitalism is for your benefit, even if it benefits some people more than others. But that's a whole different topic.
As for the computer example. Say I buy a computer, but I also let my brother use it. Must I then ask my brother if I can sell it? Must I have my brother's permission to sell it? Of course not. It's mine. Even though my brother is affected by it, it's completely my decision. But I should of course take my brother's opinion into account. So sure, companies should take their employees opinions into account, and most do, but there's no ground for having employees vote on the major decisions. Employees are btw in many companies granted power to make certain decisions on their own. It's not the board of directors that make technical decisions for example, such as what compiler or platform to use (in case of a IT company).
Clashman said:Ever hear of "the tyranny of the minority"? If you look through history books, it tends to be alot more common. Protecting the rights of the minority is one thing, ensuring that they have the ability to arbitrarily discriminate and hinder or destroy people's livlihoods without fear of recriminations is another entirely.
Sure, but that doesn't make the tyrrany of the majority any less bad. Both needs to be held in check. Democracy takes care of the tyranny of the minority, a constitution with a declaration of your rights takes care of the tyranny of the majority.
MfA said:I agree, now we just have to work out wether it will be you or me which is going to define just what those rights are.
How about we just start with the UN declaration of human rights?
I don't get this, human rights all of a sudden must be motivated? They are like the axioms in math, so fundamental that they are broadly accepted, and everything is then based on this foundation.
Humus said:How about we just start with the UN declaration of human rights?
I don't get this, human rights all of a sudden must be motivated? They are like the axioms in math, so fundamental that they are broadly accepted, and everything is then based on this foundation.
Yeah, I think you'll find most right-wingers in this country, (with whom you seem to be aligning yourself), would disagree with articles 23-26 pretty vehemently. Human rights are not fundamental, however much we may want them to be. They are social constructions designed to make the world a better place. However, they all suffer from the limitations of the people who make them, (see the article on marriage and compare it to the contemporary situation). As such, they are always in a state of flux, changing with the times. Compare John Locke, to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, to the UN Charter and you'll find that much has changed throughout that time. And it can and will change again. So Mfa's question is perfectly valid.
Humus said:Again, the right to freely form private associations. The workers have the free choice to form a union to give themselves a better position and a larger portion of the profit.
Just because a company affect the lives of other people doesn't mean those people must have a say in it. They freely chose to be affected by accepting and signing an employment contract.
It isn't really a free choice, because this is a capitalist economy. Your choice is between one hierarchal system and another just like it. There is no real variation in the overall structure and decision-making process of large companies. Therefore, your choices are between working under capitalism or starvation, which is not really a choice made freely.
You are mostly just discussing fairness, which is a whole different thing. Life isn't fair. It will never be, no matter what system, because fairness is highly subjective. Capitalism is unfair in its ways, but it's more fair than any other system out there,
It's more fair than feudalism and slavery, but how much is that saying. This attitude of "well life isn't fair and there's nothing you can do about it" is so tired. If that's the case, then why even get rid of feudalism in the first place? Because, you know, life just isn't fair, and it never will be. At least feudalism is more fair than slavery, right? Of course, if you're not looking for answers, you're not going to find any. That hardly means there isn't anything better out there. Instituting democracy in the workplace would surely go further to bringing out human emancipation as a whole than a strict capitalist system would, even a welfare state would.
and even if you're on the top or the bottom capitalism is for your benefit, even if it benefits some people more than others. But that's a whole different topic.
HIGHLY suspect logic. Try telling that to all the people in Sudan and Ethiopia who starved to death so that they could export grain on the world market. Or all the people who will die of AIDS not because they have HIV, but because their jobs won't pay enough to afford those "free market prices" for the drugs to treat them.
As for the computer example. Say I buy a computer, but I also let my brother use it. Must I then ask my brother if I can sell it? Must I have my brother's permission to sell it? Of course not. It's mine. Even though my brother is affected by it, it's completely my decision.
What we're talking about here cannot be reduced to a simple situation with your home computer, where if you take it away he doesn't get to play Quake 3 anymore. This is more akin to a situation in which your brother is completely supporting you financially, only you're in charge of the cash. He works and makes money, and you let him keep part of what he has earned. You then decide to throw your brother out on the street when he starts asking to have back a larger share of the money he earned for you.
But I should of course take my brother's opinion into account. So sure, companies should take their employees opinions into account, and most do, but there's no ground for having employees vote on the major decisions.
Capitalism exists because it was an improvement over feudalism, nothing more, nothing less. It was an extension of human emancipation, but that doesn't mean it has any inherent right to it's place in the world. The purpose of an economic system is to ensure that people have a means to sustain themselves, to be sheltered, fed, clothed, and educated. When capitalism stops doing that for people, we should be actively seeking alternatives. If there is something better out there, something that does a better job ensuring people's needs are met, it should be replaced and done away with.
Employees are btw in many companies granted power to make certain decisions on their own. It's not the board of directors that make technical decisions for example, such as what compiler or platform to use (in case of a IT company).
Which are usually decided by mid-level management, and very rarely by any sort of democratic process involving everyday employees. And even if they did, those decisions are not the ones that have real significant impacts on people's everyday lives. It's like telling people in Singapore that they can choose between Tide and Cheer, therefore they they live in a free country.
Sure, but that doesn't make the tyrrany of the majority any less bad. Both needs to be held in check. Democracy takes care of the tyranny of the minority, a constitution with a declaration of your rights takes care of the tyranny of the majority.
But what you're talking about is just avoiding a "tyrrany of the majority" by upholding a "tyrrany of the minority". There's nothing written in stone that says in a democracy you can't have protections for the minority, or that if you're in the minority that you aren't represented. That's why Parliamentary systems have proportional representation, to ensure that minority viewpoints are represented. It's still a democratic system in nature, and there protections to ensure that minority positions aren't trampled upon. Most people simply think of democracy as "majority rules", when that simply isn't the case. Democracy means everybody has the ability to make their voices heard, and for those voices to actually mean something in the construction of people's daily lives, even if it only comes one vote at a time.
It isn't really a free choice, because this is a capitalist economy. Your choice is between one hierarchal system and another just like it. There is no real variation in the overall structure and decision-making process of large companies. Therefore, your choices are between working under capitalism or starvation, which is not really a choice made freely
I doubt it would the matter would be any better under socialism or communism. This is especially true in communism where the only opposing position would be the opposition to communism which would be persecuted by the state.
Legion said:I doubt it would the matter would be any better under socialism or communism. This is especially true in communism where the only opposing position would be the opposition to communism which would be persecuted by the state.
You're confusing theoritical communism or socialism with Stalinism, which besides the integration of industry to state beared little resemblence to what socialism and communism are supposed to be.
Secondly, I never was advocating Socialism or Communism, as I'm pretty committed to keeping most industry from being integrated into the state, except for certain industries which even Adam Smith argued shouldn't be left to the "free market", such as health, education, etc.
You're confusing theoritical communism or socialism with Stalinism, which besides the integration of industry to state beared little resemblence to what socialism and communism are supposed to be.
Idealistic communism more than likely can not exist in its theoretical state. What i am refering to is historical communism. Lenin's communism was indeed supposed to be theoretical communism.
Secondly, I never was advocating Socialism or Communism, as I'm pretty committed to keeping most industry outside the realm of the state, except for certain industries which even Adam Smith argued shouldn't be left to the "free market", such as health, education, etc.
I just wanted to make it a point that you are going to see problems with free speech and among other rights in absolutist governments to escape the capitalism/communism/socialism myths.
I can certainly see why people would object to the nature of article 29-1. By what reasoning can one state some one has an obligation to the community? This is just subjective nonsense. Exactly how would this obligation be satisfied? Is that to subjective? I'd gladly throw this out as it breaches the line of being a moral invective.
That is patently untrue. You can work for yourself; you can work with a co-op; live on a commune. You could even engage in subsistance farming, presuming you're also capable of coming up with the taxes to pay for your farm. There's plenty of choices other than working for "the man" or "starving".Clashman said:It isn't really a free choice, because this is a capitalist economy. Your choice is between one hierarchal system and another just like it. There is no real variation in the overall structure and decision-making process of large companies. Therefore, your choices are between working under capitalism or starvation, which is not really a choice made freely.
Capitalism doesn't dictate a corporate structure--it simply forces it to optimize. It may be that most "large" corporations are similarly structured, but thats because they work best in that manner.
The wonderful thing about a free market is that if communes or co-ops were the best way to do things, they'd be able to be the standard mode of operation.
Legion said:Idealistic communism more than likely can not exist in its theoretical state. What i am refering to is historical communism. Lenin's communism was indeed supposed to be theoretical communism.
Lenin didn't even call Russia "Socialist" when he was alive, much less "Communist". There were stages of development, both in the sense of economic development as well as the institution of democracy, that needed to be realized before either of those labels could be applicable. Stalin earned the ire of many within the CP for his proclamations of "Socialism in one country" and that Russia "had already achieved socialism" in the late 20's, early 30's, particularly from Trotsky.
I just wanted to make it a point that you are going to see problems with free speech and among other rights in absolutist governments to escape the capitalism/communism/socialism myths.
Who's talking about installing "absolutist governments" here, besides yourself?
RussSchultz said:That is patently untrue. You can work for yourself; you can work with a co-op; live on a commune. You could even engage in subsistance farming, presuming you're also capable of coming up with the taxes to pay for your farm. There's plenty of choices other than working for "the man" or "starving".
Capitalism doesn't dictate a corporate structure--it simply forces it to optimize. It may be that most "large" corporations are similarly structured, but thats because they work best in that manner.
The wonderful thing about a free market is that if communes or co-ops were the best way to do things, they'd be able to be the standard mode of operation.
There are numerous instances of companies actively working to destroy cooperatives and the like. Your analogy is like saying "Hey, if Capitalism worked best in Iraq, Saddam would have switched over to it long ago". The fact of the matter is that in any society law hardly ever acts as a neutral arbiter. It is put in place to uphold the existing system, and if society is already organized in a way that tilts the rules in favor of one system or another, it is very unlikely that said system will change without external pressure from outside, or a massive revolt from below. There's a reason why you needed revolution after revolution to institute capitalism in most parts of the world. It's not that capitalism wasn't superior to what it replaced, it's just that the system of laws and cultural norms surrounding it were not conducive to it taking over on it's own.