The Labor Pains Megathread

[Ideologue]

What's demonstrably wrong about believing people are stupid and horrible and need to be told what to do?

[Admiral Yi]

What's demonstrably wrong about believing people are stupid and horrible and need to be told what to do?

Many things, starting with the fact that the person telling the stupid and horrible person what to do is people too.

[Sheilbh]

But what I was referring to were fairly recent discussions (I believe they were here 3 or so years ago, or possibly EUOT) about not trusting the bartender to give you the full pint when you order one, or pub owners watering down their beer. Also about brewers cheating on the amount of beer they put into a can or bottle.  I said that was pretty much nonexistent at any halfway decent place around here.  Bar owners are more concerned about drawing people in and keeping them in their seats than trying to cut corners on the product, plus bartenders generally don't want to dissuade generous tips.  And if a rumor came about that Brewery X was watering down their beer or purposely underfilling, that would kill their business.  I was told I was naive and that the same stuff had to be going on here.

Oh okay. Honestly that sounds like something either from the seventies, or an urban myth buttressed by the long-standing figure of the crafty cheating bastard of a landlord in British culture

You hypothesized a person who was willing to bargain away safety or whatever and said that it's not OK.  Why is it not OK?  Is the hypothetical person stupid and unable to make informed decisions for himself?

Because those are or should be labour rights. As with other sorts of rights, such as consumer rights, they shouldn't be allowed to be bargained away because the power and knowledge difference between the parties is so large. If legally enforceable rights are just bargaining chips that don't have to be adhered too then there'll be a race to the bottom because the number of situations where there's anything like parity of bargaining position for, say, consumers or employees is tiny.

For example the old British landlord's trick of watering down his beer and not actually selling the product he's alleging to sell.

Your punch line is about consumers, but your argument had nothing to do with consumers.

I think that's where the difference stems from though. What matters more consumer convenience or workers' rights.

[Jacob]

Your punch line is about consumers, but your argument had nothing to do with consumers.

You hypothesized a person who was willing to bargain away safety or whatever and said that it's not OK.  Why is it not OK?  Is the hypothetical person stupid and unable to make informed decisions for himself?

Are you really arguing that it is okay for someone to bargain away their freedom, health, or life if that is the only options available to them in a free market situation?

[Ideologue]

What's demonstrably wrong about believing people are stupid and horrible and need to be told what to do?

Many things, starting with the fact that the person telling the stupid and horrible person what to do is people too.

Turtles all the way down, I guess. Just because it's unpalatable doesn't mean it's untrue.

[Admiral Yi]

Because those are or should be labour rights.

Are you familiar with the concept of circular logic?

[CountDeMoney]

Turtles all the way down, I guess. Just because it's unpalatable doesn't mean it's untrue.

You mean...it trickles down?

[Admiral Yi]

Are you really arguing that it is okay for someone to bargain away their freedom, health, or life if that is the only options available to them in a free market situation?

If that is the only option available, there's not much bargaining going on.

[Sheilbh]

Are you familiar with the concept of circular logic?

Yeah. Are you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'?

[crazy canuck]

People sometimes sell themselves or their children into slavery - legal enforced or sometimes not - in response to the incentives of the free market. That doesn't mean it's the right outcome.

[Yi] If selling themselves or their children into slavery  is so onerous and unpleasant, fewer people will be willing to do it and wages will have to rise accordingly. [Yi]

[Yi] And why shouldnt they be allowed to sell themselves or their children into slavery? Are they stupid and unable to make informed decisions for themselves? [Yi]

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah. Are you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'?

Pretend I don't and explain the distinction to me.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah. Are you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'?

Pretend I don't and explain the distinction to me.

I am beginning to think we dont have to pretend....

[Admiral Yi]

PRAWND

[Razgovory]

Your punch line is about consumers, but your argument had nothing to do with consumers.

You hypothesized a person who was willing to bargain away safety or whatever and said that it's not OK.  Why is it not OK?  Is the hypothetical person stupid and unable to make informed decisions for himself?

Are you really arguing that it is okay for someone to bargain away their freedom, health, or life if that is the only options available to them in a free market situation?

This is why I bring up the slavery issue in regards to libertarianism.  I can imagine a situation where people sign contracts for loans that stipulate that failure to pay back the loan results in enslavement.  This situation seems entirely in accordance with libertarian principles.

[DGuller]

You hypothesized a person who was willing to bargain away safety or whatever and said that it's not OK.  Why is it not OK?  Is the hypothetical person stupid and unable to make informed decisions for himself?

Because the hypothetical person doesn't have much bargaining power, but does have a need to have food and shelter.