Is “Free Enterprise” Fair? Part 2.

There appears to be some people with the position that “Free Enterprise” is unfair. One or those in particular is a blogger known as “Stalin the Shark”.

We got in this discussion by me implying that transfer payments were the same as “legal theft.” Well, since that phrase is an oxymoron I agreed that it may be legal and therefore it can only be immoral, and not really stealing per se.

But, taking from one group or class of citizens based upon income, and transferring that to another group or class of citizens may not be theft, but it is without a doubt immoral or unjust because it is unjust discrimination.

He cannot say that discrimination based upon income is somehow moral. He will not be able to go there. Liberals love to say that discrimination is unjust and unfair, so his brain will not let him admit that fact because it will make him inconsistent.

Now, back to his position that owners “steal” from their employees.

The fallacy goes like this…”The workers in a company produce all of the value, but they only get paid a part of that value, therefore it is unfair or the owner(s) are really stealing from the workers.”

The fallacy lies in the first part of the statement that “assumes” that only those who actually do the production produce “all”, or the “only” value.

Let’s examine the silliness of that position.

Leave the workers completely alone without any tools and without any capital what so ever and see if they can truly produce what they were producing by themselves.

Help Mr. Owner, I need some supplies. Well, go buy them. Help, Mr. Owner, I need a new spray gun, the one I was using broke. Well, go by one. Help Mr. Owner, we don’t have any customers to sell this product to. Well, go advertise. Help Mr. Owner, we need to pay ourselves and we lost money on the last job, so we don’t have enough to pay ourselves. Well, go borrow some money. Help, Mr. Owner, we keep loosing money on all of our jobs, we need to have someone who can figure out what we are doing wrong. Well, hire someone who manages full time to do the sales and the figuring out why you are always loosing money.

You see, the problem with the thought that a business can operate at all with only producers is incredible shallow thinking and says to all business owners, they should fire all of the managers and support help that are needed to make a business run. Also what if the owner is doing most of the management and support help? Does he deserve some of the value for his contribution? How about his capital contribution? How about value for his risk for even starting a company that 90% of the time fails in the first year?

So, the fact is the following: “The company produces more value that just what the non-owners produce.” That appears to me to be indisputable.

I really think sts knows that as he seems intelligent and he just likes to be challenging.

Where the real battle is between Freedom and Force, and he has admitted, and I have admitted, that this is were the real battle is, so since there are 16 different definitions of “Force” in my dictionary based upon it’s use, I will correctly define Force and Freedom where they apply to our discussion.

Freedom in a government setting should be defined as…”The unrestricted ability to make choices so long as those choices don’t affect others ability to do the same.”

Force in a government setting is therefore the opposite and should be defined as…”The coercion by someone or some group to restrict choices that would otherwise NOT harm someone else or society.”

Now, having said that let me make sure that we understand that having consequences for our actions is not using force by others. If someone robs a store they are choosing prison. They are making a choice that results in consequences so “they” are limiting their ability to make future choices by their own actions.

Workers can choose to start their own business or to find another job if they think the job offered is unfair, they still have the same choices as before, whereas transfer payments are not part of individual choice.

In the case of welfare, we choose to have our government protect us from unjust taxation, meaning we as a country don’t like socialism, where the government gets to enrich one class of citizen and punish another class of citizen in doing so.

When the majority vote to have “socialism” programs, they are restricting the choices by way of majority rule, i.e., might makes right. And everyone knows that might does not always make right.

Transfer payments may be legal, but there is no doubt that they are discriminatory and therefore unjust.

So, whenever you vote, make sure you are asking the question, “Am I supporting an action that is “forcing” the will of the majority unjustly.”

Am I favoring Freedom or Force? Socialism by its very discriminatory nature is Force.

Am I in favor of eliminating all forms of subsidies or transfer payments? Yes, corporate welfare is just as bad. Am I in favor of someone being able to do other stupid things like smoke weed? Yes, as long as those choices don’t limit the choices of others, then they should be allowed and they should be a States Rights question not a Federal Question or decision.