Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:36:30 +0100
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: owned vs. free market


hello all

Joacim Persson wrote:
> > This is true - they would rot away. So would most small businesses which
> > would no longer have the law to enforce their labour exploitation. The
> > scale of the exploiter is irrelevant; it happens everywhere.
> 
> I have never felt exploited by people who hired me, wether as employed or
> as self-employed (when the "employer" is named "customer"). 

If you cannot tell the difference between controlling your own time 
(self-employment) and being controlled by another (the boss) then this 
is a pointless debate.

I have quit a
> couple of jobs though, when I realised I didn't like the deal after all.

Changing masters is not freedom. If it were, then you are totally free
as
you can leave your current state any time you like.
 
> It can be the other way around too: shortage of available labour. Then the
> labour market is seller's market, and the employers are being exploited. 

Ignoring the silly bit at the end about "the employers being exploited,"
this is true. That is why there is so few periods in which there is full
employment. It's not good for capitalism and usually results in a slump.
Full employment and capitalism cannot go together. As shown
historically.

<snip>

> This talk about exploitation is a circular argument: "is being exploited" is
> defined to fit the wished conclusion. You can't say that someone is being
> treaded unfair, without defining what "fair" is, i.e. in principal, not
> just this or that amount of bread to generate sympathy for the thereby-
> defined-as-being-exploited.

yet again, the capitalist shows how far they are from anarchism.

Iain