Controlling other people (was Positive Feedback...

[Martin Taylor 2011.06.26.19.48]

[From Adam Matic]

To Rick Marken:
What I'm most confused about is that, according to B:CP, "you can't
control other people". If you try to, there is conflict.

You have to be careful with generalizations like that.

What might you mean by "control other people"? If you mean you can't get another person to do something you want, you have hundreds of counter-examples every day. You want a cashier to give you change when you pay for an item. The cashier does. Where's the conflict? Does the cashier want not to give you change?

If you want someone to take the right fork on the road, you could control them by blocking the left fork, if they are controlling for perceiving themselves to be somewhere beyond the fork and they know a detour route. In general, you can influence, if not control, the behaviour of other people by varying their environmental affordances -- making some actions easier or more difficult for them when their use or non-use of those actions is important to you.

If by "controlling other people" you mean setting reference levels for some perception they are controlling, you probably can't do that reliably very often (except perhaps by using hypnosis, which is itself an interesting topic for PCT). You certainly can't put a wire in to connect to the reference input of a control system and set it at some level. But you can often disturb some controlled perception in such a way that the corrective output will pass through a lower-level control system by setting its reference value to some level you would like it to be. That's what happens when you ask a cooperative person to put something on a shelf that is too high for you to reach. The other person sets a reference level for perceiving the object to be at the height of (and lying on) the shelf. That is control of another person's reference level for some perception.

There are occasions when someone will not do what you want because to do so would involve conflict with something they are controlling for, and the other control system wins the conflict. Importantly, it is often true that a person is controlling for perceiving themselves to be free to do what they want, and to perceive themselves as being constrained to do what you want would increase error in that perception, thus inducing conflict with you. That conflict is at the heart of "you can't control other people". You can if they don't mind or don't notice. You can't if they object and you don't have overwhelming force.

I think the mantra "you can't control other people" really applies mostly in cases where the "other people" perceive that you are controlling a perception of being in control of them, rather than controlling a perception for which getting them to do something is part of its output pathway (as in the case of the cashier or the shelf-putter). It's the conflict that is the problem, not the fact that you are controlling a perception of some aspect of their behaviour.

Mantras can be useful, but like analogies, they can be pushed too far.

Martin

[From Adam Matic 2011.06.27 1400 gmt+1]

Martin Taylor 2011.06.26.19.48

You have to be careful with generalizations like that.

What might you mean by "control other people"? If you mean you can't get
another person to do something you want, you have hundreds of
counter-examples every day. You want a cashier to give you change when you
pay for an item. The cashier does. Where's the conflict? Does the cashier
want not to give you change?

AM:
Does getting someone do what you want count as controlling them? They
are still controlling their own behavior.
Is this a case of "controlling against some one's will" and
"controlling in cooperation"?

MT: There are occasions when someone will not do what you want because to do so
would involve conflict with something they are controlling for, and the
other control system wins the conflict. Importantly, it is often true that a
person is controlling for perceiving themselves to be free to do what they
want, and to perceive themselves as being constrained to do what you want
would increase error in that perception, thus inducing conflict with you.
That conflict is at the heart of "you can't control other people". You can
if they don't mind or don't notice. You can't if they object and you don't
have overwhelming force.

I think the mantra "you can't control other people" really applies mostly in
cases where the "other people" perceive that you are controlling a
perception of being in control of them, rather than controlling a perception
for which getting them to do something is part of its output pathway (as in
the case of the cashier or the shelf-putter). It's the conflict that is the
problem, not the fact that you are controlling a perception of some aspect
of their behaviour.

Mantras can be useful, but like analogies, they can be pushed too far.

Martin

AM: Well, I agree with much, if not all, of what you said. How then,
if conflict is the problem, the government is entitled to reduce the
freedom arbitrarily? It creates a lot of conflict, a lot of people get
fines or go to jail simply for being in conflict with some arbitrary
law - like smoking marijuana or speeding above a certain limit. A lot
of money is spent on trying to control them, but with little success.
If some people _want_ to smoke marijuana and it is forbidden, some of
them will simply hide when smoking. The government can't control them
by forbidding it or punishing them. They could have more success by
making dealing drugs a capital offence like some Middle East countries
did, but is that a good thing?

Best, Adam

[From Adam Matic 2011.06.27 1430 gmt+1]

[From Bill Powers (2011.06.26.1905 MDT)]

AM: How is it that you think the government should try to do that if we
know that it can't?

BP: Aren't there any conditions under which it's a good idea for people
serving in a government to control someone's behavior, regardless of what it
takes to do that?

Best,

Bill P.

AM:
Sure, there are many conditions where it is a good idea that _some
people_ control other people - like stopping people from stealing
property or hurting other people or their environment. What I think is
not a good idea is to have monopolies - to force people to buy
services from single companies, as the case is in education or
healthcare; or to protect producers from competition by imposing laws,
taxes and tariffs, instead of protecting consumers from monopolies.

An institution that has a monopoly doesn't improve. There is no need
to improve if everyone has to buy their services and every one's job
is secure. That's not to say that competition in a free market is a
perfect mechanism, just that it is better for the consumer than a
monopoly.
And we're all consumers, we all need to buy things. It might be harder
to work in a company that competes with another company (or twelve of
them), but it is easier when buying because you get to chose a
superior product and in that way support a great firm. Competition
breeds innovation. When a company starts failing they need to innovate
to survive. It's just that the usual move was "go get goverment to
remove competition".

Best, Adam

[Martin Taylor 2011.06.27.10.19]

[From Adam Matic 2011.06.27 1400 gmt+1]

Martin Taylor 2011.06.26.19.48

You have to be careful with generalizations like that.

What might you mean by "control other people"? If you mean you can't get
another person to do something you want, you have hundreds of
counter-examples every day. You want a cashier to give you change when you
pay for an item. The cashier does. Where's the conflict? Does the cashier
want not to give you change?

AM:
Does getting someone do what you want count as controlling them? They
are still controlling their own behavior.
Is this a case of "controlling against some one's will" and
"controlling in cooperation"?

I posed the question of anyone who wants to talk about "controlling other people" and saying that PCT says you can't do it without causing significant problems. I ask "What do you mean by 'controlling other people'?". Only when that person answers this question can the PCT implications be seriously analyzed.

So don't ask me whether case X is a case of controlling, whether "against someone's will" or "in cooperation". Ask yourself what you mean and what the situation entails.

AM: Well, I agree with much, if not all, of what you said. How then,
if conflict is the problem, the government is entitled to reduce the
freedom arbitrarily? It creates a lot of conflict, a lot of people get
fines or go to jail simply for being in conflict with some arbitrary
law - like smoking marijuana or speeding above a certain limit. A lot
of money is spent on trying to control them, but with little success.
If some people _want_ to smoke marijuana and it is forbidden, some of
them will simply hide when smoking. The government can't control them
by forbidding it or punishing them. They could have more success by
making dealing drugs a capital offence like some Middle East countries
did, but is that a good thing?

Do you distinguish between government reduction of freedom in cases such as laws requiring you to drive on a particular side of the road and to stop at red lights, as compared to reduction of freedom in cases such as you offer as example? If so, how would you specify the distinction in a way that could be applied to other cases?

Can you define "a good thing" other than as "something that reduces error in some perception you control"? Can there be a universally agreed "good thing"? Is there?

Rather than assert that some course of action would result in "a good thing", I would prefer to analyze dispassionately what would be likely to happen under defined conditions such as those you describe. If such analysis is justified by the information at hand, which often is not the case in politically charged situations, I might then determine whether _I_ thought the results of the analysis suggested that the conditions would be likely to result in "a good thing". I would not expect you to agree as to whether it was a "good thing" a "bad thing" or neither good nor bad, because you might not be controlling perceptions analogous to those I control, and even if you were, you might not be controlling them at the same reference values.

Martin

[From Adam Matic 2011.06.27 1930 gmt+1]

[Martin Taylor 2011.06.27.10.19]

I posed the question of anyone who wants to talk about "controlling other
people" and saying that PCT says you can't do it without causing significant
problems. I ask "What do you mean by 'controlling other people'?". Only when
that person answers this question can the PCT implications be seriously
analyzed.

So don't ask me whether case X is a case of controlling, whether "against
someone's will" or "in cooperation". Ask yourself what you mean and what the
situation entails.

AM:
Ok. What I mean is that every person is an autonomous control system
(in an engineering sense) and trying to control someone (as in trying
to make them do what we want them to do) could only be done by
disturbing them by promising a reward or a punishment and hoping they
want the reward or fear punishment. And that, eventualy if not right
away, creates conflict. No one can really control (in an engineering
sense) anyone else because reference levels are set only from the
inside.

What I mean by "cooperation" is two or more people controling for
compatible outcomes. If I have bread and want money for it and you
have money and want bread for it, then we can cooperate and exchange
agreed upon amounts of bread and money. In a way, we both do what the
other one wants and what we ourselves want.

What I mean by "coertion" is when one person does what the other
person wants because of fear.
Like paying taxes. :slight_smile: Or when being robbed at gunpoint.

MT: Do you distinguish between government reduction of freedom in cases such as
laws requiring you to drive on a particular side of the road and to stop at
red lights, as compared to reduction of freedom in cases such as you offer
as example? If so, how would you specify the distinction in a way that could
be applied to other cases?

AM:
I don't have a problem with specific rules of conduct per se. I mean,
If my friend does not allow dirty shoes in his house and I want to
come in, I'll take my shoes off. No problem. I can also stay out of
his house and show him I don't like his rules. I have a choice. When
it comes to government-owned roads, then the situation is not so
clear. I have to follow those rules, I can't choose a different road.
All are government owned. If I use the trains, no one notices that I
don't like the roads.

An alternative would be to have private roads who would compete for
customers, just like any other business. Customers would choose the
roads that have rules compatibile with their own goals and.. well,
that's it. Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a single country
with private roads to see what happens.
It all about offering choice to people and then seeing what people
choose. Not what majority chooses, but what is chosen by enough people
that it can stay in business.
It's about voluntary reduction of freedom vs invountary reduction of freedom.

MT: Can you define "a good thing" other than as "something that reduces error in
some perception you control"? Can there be a universally agreed "good
thing"? Is there?

Rather than assert that some course of action would result in "a good
thing", I would prefer to analyze dispassionately what would be likely to
happen under defined conditions such as those you describe. If such analysis
is justified by the information at hand, which often is not the case in
politically charged situations, I might then determine whether _I_ thought
the results of the analysis suggested that the conditions would be likely to
result in "a good thing". I would not expect you to agree as to whether it
was a "good thing" a "bad thing" or neither good nor bad, because you might
not be controlling perceptions analogous to those I control, and even if you
were, you might not be controlling them at the same reference values.

AM:
Well, you're right. I am against death sentence on moral grounds (I
think it's a bad thing) even if it could cause the number of people
who use drugs to decline. I don't know if there is data that would
prove either way.
I guess that this doesn't qualify as a scientific question, then.

Best
Adam

[From Rick Marken (2011.06.27.1145)]

Adam Matic (2011.06.27 1930 gmt+1)–

AM:

Ok. What I mean is that every person is an autonomous control system

(in an engineering sense) and trying to control someone (as in trying

to make them do what we want them to do) could only be done by

disturbing them by promising a reward or a punishment and hoping they

want the reward or fear punishment.

If you object to this kind of control then you must object to the behavior of all those business executives you so admire, who use reward (in the form of a paycheck) and punishment (in the form of firing an employee) as the means of controlling their employees. What could go more against libertarian principles than that?

No one can really control (in an engineering

sense) anyone else because reference levels are set only from the

inside.

This is not factually true. I have a demo on the net that illustrates this point. It’s at

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Coercion.html

When you keep the upper cursor on the target you are controlling the output of an autonomous control system that is continuously (and randomly) varying it’s reference for another (invisible) cursor that it is controlling.

I used to think as you do, that autonomous variation of reference signals makes control systems uncontrollable. But I tested the idea and found that, alas, it is not true.

PCT does not say that people cannot be controlled. Nor does it say that people should not be controlled.

All PCT says is that conflict is likely to result if you try to arbitrarily control a control system – “arbitrarily” meaning “without taking into account the fact that the controllee has wants of its own”. One way to be non-arbitrary is to negotiate and come to agreements. That’s why control by reward and punishment will not necessarily create a conflict. At work, I have agreed to do certain things in order to get a certain reward and avoid being fired. In my country, I have agreed to follow certain rules (like paying taxes) in order to get certain rewards (schools, libraries, roads, police, firefighters, etc).

Arbitrary control is what is exhibited by some governments (dictatorships) and businesses (sweat shops). It’s not government or business per se that is a problem; it’s any individual or collection of individuals that exerts arbitrary control that’s the problem.

Best

Rick

···

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Adam Matic 2011.06.27 2130 gmt+1]

Rick Marken (2011.06.27.1145)

�>> AM:
Ok. What I mean is that every person is an autonomous control system
(in an engineering sense) and trying to control someone (as in trying
to make them do what we want them to do) could only be done by
disturbing them by promising a reward or a punishment and hoping they
want the reward or fear punishment.

If you object to this kind of control then you must object to the behavior
of all those business executives you so admire, who use reward (in the form
of a paycheck) and punishment (in the form of firing an employee) as the
means of controlling their employees. What could go more against libertarian
principles than that?

AM:
Oh, I'm not saying I'm objecting to control of other people in all
circumstances. Cooperation is also a form of mutual control. It's
coercion I object to.
Also, I never said I admire executives and I don't see why I should
admire them. What is libertarian about business agreement between an
employee and an employer is that it is voluntary. It's cooperation.
Both have a choice to work with someone else. It's different from
slavery to which I object.

I understand PCT does not say anything about how things should be,
it's me who thinks what they should be like; and I base that on
several grounds, and one of those grounds is the moral one.
The other one is that I think more people would have food on their
table and more people would live longer - and I think a PCT model
could be used to show that.

No one can really control (in an engineering
sense) anyone else because reference levels are set only from the
inside.

This is not factually true. I have a demo on the net that illustrates this
point. It's at

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Coercion.html

When you keep the upper cursor on the target you are controlling the output
of an autonomous control system that is continuously (and randomly) varying
it's reference for another (invisible) cursor that it is controlling.

AM:
Well, I do understan that you can control the perception of someone
else's behavior by disturbing what you know they perceive, but is that
the same as providing the system with a reference value?
I mean, isn't controling my arm to get a glass of water different from
telling you to move your arm to give me a glass of water? I can't know
if you'll do it if I don't know your other goals.

RM: All PCT says is that conflict is likely to result if you try to
_arbitrarily_ control a control system -- "arbitrarily" meaning "without
taking into account the fact that the controllee has wants of its own". One
way to be non-arbitrary is to negotiate and come to agreements. That's why
control by reward and punishment will not necessarily create a conflict. At
work, I have agreed to do certain things in order to get a certain reward
and avoid being fired. In my country, I have agreed to follow certain rules
(like paying taxes) in order to get certain rewards (schools, libraries,
roads, police, firefighters, etc).

Arbitrary control is what is exhibited by some governments (dictatorships)
and businesses (sweat shops).� It's not government or business per se that
is a problem; it's any individual or collection of individuals that exerts
_arbitrary_ control that's the problem.

AM:
Would you count majority controling a minority by voting as arbitrary
control? If, say, majority says "gays should go to prison", whose
problem is that?

Also, what is different between paying taxes to the government and
paying to a business for a service or working for money is that you
can choose where to buy a certain service; you can change your
employer for someone who pays more; but you can't choose not to pay
taxes if you don't want the services of the police. If you do, you go
to jail. You can move out, sure, but you can also try to change
policies.

So, I think it is government per se that is the problem. Not because
they try to control, but because too many things are not voluntary.
Again, it is my personal opionion that it would be morally better to
have more voluntary interactions; but also, I think economic data
shows that with more voluntary interactions and cooperation goods and
services get cheaper, achieve higher quality and people on the whole
become less poor and live longer. I don't think PCT could be used for
the former, but for the latter.

Best,
Adam

[From Rick Marken (2011.06.27.1500)]

Adam Matic (2011.06.27 2130 gmt+1)

Rick Marken (2011.06.27.1145)

AM: No one can really control (in an engineering

sense) anyone else because reference levels are set only from the

inside.

RM: This is not factually true. I have a demo on the net that illustrates this

point. It’s at

http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Coercion.html

AM:

Well, I do understan that you can control the perception of someone

else’s behavior by disturbing what you know they perceive, but is that

the same as providing the system with a reference value?

If by “controlling anyone” you meant “provide reference values for the” then, indeed, PCT says that you can’t control anyone.

I mean, isn’t controling my arm to get a glass of water different from

telling you to move your arm to give me a glass of water? I can’t know

if you’ll do it if I don’t know your other goals.

Yes, they are different but I don’t see what this has to do with it. When people talk about “controlling behavior” I believe they are usually talking about controlling a visible aspect of another person’s behavior. So if I know that you are controlling for doing what I say, then I can control your arm position by telling you to move it. That’s control of behavior.

AM:

Would you count majority controling a minority by voting as arbitrary

control? If, say, majority says “gays should go to prison”, whose

problem is that?

That’s a close call. But I think not. It seems to me that when a group agrees to bring an issue to a vote, there is recognition that there are different wants in the group; some people want gays to go to prison, some don’t. But modern democracies also know that the result of a vote can hurt people. So some things are ruled out as a subject for voting; these are called “basic rights” and there isn’t necessarily much agreement about what these should be. But I think that any society that tries to come to terms with what people’s basic rights are – what rules cannot be voted on – makes the resulting rules (the basis of coerced control) non-arbitrary (though certainly not necessarily “right”).

Best

Rick

···

Also, what is different between paying taxes to the government and

paying to a business for a service or working for money is that you

can choose where to buy a certain service; you can change your

employer for someone who pays more; but you can’t choose not to pay

taxes if you don’t want the services of the police. If you do, you go

to jail. You can move out, sure, but you can also try to change

policies.

So, I think it is government per se that is the problem. Not because

they try to control, but because too many things are not voluntary.

Again, it is my personal opionion that it would be morally better to

have more voluntary interactions; but also, I think economic data

shows that with more voluntary interactions and cooperation goods and

services get cheaper, achieve higher quality and people on the whole

become less poor and live longer. I don’t think PCT could be used for

the former, but for the latter.

Best,

Adam


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

from Adam Matic (2011.06.28 1730 gmt+1)]

AM: I mean, isn't controling my arm to get a glass of water different from
telling you to move your arm to give me a glass of water? I can't know
if you'll do it if I don't know your other goals.

RM: Yes, they are different but I don't see what this has to do with it. When
people talk about "controlling behavior" I believe they are usually talking
about controlling a visible aspect of another person's behavior. So if I
know that you are controlling for doing what I say, then I can control your
arm position by telling you to move it. That's control of behavior.

AM: That's fine, but you still have to know that I'm controling for
doing what you say. I might change my mind any time. Controling living
things is much harder then controling inanimate objects and practicaly
imposible if you don't know what I'm controling for.

AM:
Would you count majority controling a minority by voting as arbitrary
control? If, say, majority says "gays should go to prison", whose
problem is that?

That's a close call.� But I think not.� It seems to me that when a group
agrees to bring an issue to a vote, there is recognition that there are
different wants in the group; some people want gays to go to prison, some
don't. But modern democracies also know that the result of a vote can hurt
people. So some things are ruled out as a subject for voting; these are
called "basic rights" and there isn't� necessarily much agreement about what
these should be. But I think that any society that tries to come to terms
with what people's basic rights are -- what rules cannot be voted on --
makes the resulting rules (the basis of coerced control) non-arbitrary
(though certainly not necessarily "right").

AM:
What, then, is arbitrary control, could you give an example?

Best, Adam

[From Rick Marken (2011.06.28.1000)]

Adam Matic (2011.06.28 1730 gmt+1)–

AM: That’s fine, but you still have to know that I’m controling for

doing what you say.

Yes, that’s true. To control someone by disturbing a controlled variable you have to know what the controlled variable is. But you don’t necessarily have to know it consciously. I control the cashier, getting her to hand me $3 when I pay $5 for a $2 item, because I assume (virtually always correctly) that he or she is controlling for giving me correct change; but I rarely think of this consciously (I do it only when I’m looking at the world through PCT glasses).

I might change my mind any time.

That’s true. If the person stops controlling the variable you are disturbing to control them then you can no longer control their behavior by disturbing that variable.

Controling living

things is much harder then controling inanimate objects and practicaly

imposible if you don’t know what I’m controling for.

Not necessarily. For example, I think it’s easier to control cashiers (making them produce change) than to control for carving the pieta out of a block of inanimate marble.

AM:

What, then, is arbitrary control, could you give an example?

People try to arbitrarily control each other all the time. A parent who tries to get her child to eat his spinach is exerting arbitrary control. The boss who will give a raise to the cute employee only if she sleeps with him is exerting arbitrary control. The President who lies about WMD in order to get us into a war is exerting arbitrary control. The government that creates taxes without consulting those to whom the taxes will apply (Happy July 4th) is exerting arbitrary control. Arbitrary control exists when efforts to control do not take the wants of the “controllee” into account.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Adam Matic (2011.06.28 2330 gmt+1)]

Rick Marken (2011.06.28.1000)

AM: That's fine, but you still have to know that I'm controling for
doing what you say.

RM:Yes, that's true. To control someone by disturbing a controlled variable you
have to know what the controlled variable is. But you don't necessarily have
to know it consciously. I control the cashier, getting her to hand me $3
when I pay $5 for a $2 item, because I assume (virtually always correctly)
that he or she is controlling for giving me correct change; but I rarely
think of this consciously (I do it only when I'm looking at the world
through PCT glasses).

AM:
At the same time she's controling you to pay what you need to pay.
Mutual control?

RM: Arbitrary control exists when
efforts to control do not take the wants of the "controllee" into account.

AM:
Well, that's exactly why I think that free market capitalism is the
system that automaticaly, from set conditions, enables cooperation and
mutual control and any attempt of arbitrary control simply does not
work.
If I make shoes and I want to sell them, the free market way to do
that is to show them to people and wait for someone who wants to buy
them. No arbitrary control as in "the government takes care that
everyone has shoes and everyone has to wear these shoes, not any other
ones".
If I want to sell you my shoes for 100$, and you don't like that deal,
you can just walk away.

It seems to me that arbitrary control from the government is all over
areas such as healt or education. It succedes simply because there are
not many alternatives.

Best,
Adam

[From Adam Matic 2011.06.29 0100gmt+1]

Here's a common example of what I think is a failure of government
control - the minimum wage laws.

A wage is agreed upon between an employee and an employer. The
regulator wants to see all people that have wages lower than some
arbitrary level start getting a higher wage. He chooses average pay as
the relevant measure. He makes a law that says "a person can not pay a
wage lower than this amount of money per hour".
Now, nothing changes in people's goals. The employee still wants to
work for a low pay for whatever reason - he is unskilled, does not
speak the language or something else..The employer still needs cheap
labor to keep the company working, the company can't afford to pay
everyone more. If the law is not strictly enforced, the worker will
probably work illegally. If the laws are more strict, then the already
poor people who got low wages get unemployed and can't even get
working experience. Some companies, perhaps, actually redistribute
more money from owners to workers.

Meanwhile, the average pay rises and the law seems to be doing good.

Best, Adam

[From Rick Marken (2011.06.28.1740)]

Adam Matic (2011.06.28 2330 gmt+1)–

RM:Yes, that’s true. To control someone by disturbing a controlled variable you

have to know what the controlled variable is. But you don’t necessarily have

to know it consciously. I control the cashier, getting her to hand me $3

when I pay $5 for a $2 item, because I assume (virtually always correctly)

that he or she is controlling for giving me correct change; but I rarely

think of this consciously (I do it only when I’m looking at the world

through PCT glasses).

AM:

At the same time she’s controling you to pay what you need to pay.

Mutual control?

Exactly!

RM: Arbitrary control exists when
efforts to control do not take the wants of the “controllee” into account.

AM:

Well, that’s exactly why I think that free market capitalism is the

system that automaticaly, from set conditions, enables cooperation and

mutual control and any attempt of arbitrary control simply does not

work.

Yes, that’s certainly a good thing about the free market. But participants also like to have this free exchange be fair so they will adopt rules and regulations. So free market exchanges (which involve mutual control) are also “controlled” by outside agencies (like the SEC) that enforce the rules. I would say that this control is arbitrary only if those doing the controlling have not taken the goals of the traders into account by letting the traders have input into the rule making process.

It seems to me that arbitrary control from the government is all over

areas such as healt or education. It succedes simply because there are

not many alternatives.

Government control can be arbitrary-- the control exerted by dictators is certainly arbitrary; they don’t usually seem to take the goals of those they rule into account. I see the development of modern Western government – from Greece to Rome to the Magna Carta to the US Constitution – as an exercise in trying to figure out ways to make governments accountable to the governed. It’s not easy but it was working for a while in the US, before the Supreme court handed the government over to Corporations (just recently). So now in the US government control (or lack thereof) is pretty much accountable only to Corporations. But in the old days in the US (and even today in places like Canada and Norway) governments were accountable (at least in principal) to the entire population.

However, even in the most democratic democracy, where government rules are made completely non-arbitrarily, with full democratic input, you are bound to end up with rules that seem oppressive to some people. So there will always be libertarians, but in a non-arbitrary (accountable) government there will probably be very few of them. Indeed, I think you could measure the oppressiveness of a country’s government by measuring the proportion of libertarians in the population; oppressiveness would be inversely related to the proportion of libertarians. I’ll see if I can find that data;-)

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2011.06.28.1745)]

Adam Matic (2011.06.29 0100gmt+1)–

AM: Here’s a common example of what I think is a failure of government

control - the minimum wage laws.

A wage is agreed upon between an employee and an employer. The

regulator wants to see all people that have wages lower than some

arbitrary level start getting a higher wage. He chooses average pay as

the relevant measure. He makes a law that says "a person can not pay a

wage lower than this amount of money per hour".

Now, nothing changes in people’s goals. The employee still wants to

work for a low pay for whatever reason - he is unskilled, does not

speak the language or something else…The employer still needs cheap

labor to keep the company working, the company can’t afford to pay

everyone more. If the law is not strictly enforced, the worker will

probably work illegally. If the laws are more strict, then the already

poor people who got low wages get unemployed and can’t even get

working experience. Some companies, perhaps, actually redistribute

more money from owners to workers.

Meanwhile, the average pay rises and the law seems to be doing good.

This is all imaginary. Why not look at the relationship between minimum wage and employment rate. I would be that there is a positive relationship because when workers are paid more there is more aggregate demand and, thus, more need for workers to produce to meet the demand. I’ll try to find the data.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Adam Matic 2011.06.29 1540gmt+1]

Rick Marken (2011.06.28.1740)

AM:
Well, that's exactly why I think that free market capitalism is the
system that automaticaly, from set conditions, enables cooperation and
mutual control and any attempt of arbitrary control simply does not
work.

Yes, that's certainly a good thing about the free market. But participants
also like to have this free exchange be fair so they will adopt rules and
regulations. So free market exchanges (which involve mutual control) are
also "controlled" by outside agencies (like the SEC) that enforce the rules.
I would say that this control is arbitrary only if those doing the
controlling have not taken the goals of the traders into account by letting
the traders have input into the rule making process.

AM:
I agree, the participants of an exchange want it to happen under
certain rules, such as not using violence or lying or stealing. There
is definitely a place for finding ways that make sure those rules are
followed, but that does not mean it has to be done by government
agencies.
For example, on EBay, there is the rating system. If someone wants to
sell a lot, it's in their interest to have a good rating - that says
that they have followed the rules of fair trading. Having a government
agency taking care of enforcing the rules is only one way of doing it.

RM:
Government control can be arbitrary-- the control exerted by dictators is
certainly arbitrary; they don't usually seem to take the goals of those they
rule into account. I see the development of modern Western government --
from Greece to Rome to the Magna Carta to the US Constitution -- as an
exercise in trying to figure out ways to make governments accountable to the
governed. It's not easy but it was working for a while in the US, before the
Supreme court handed the government over to Corporations (just recently). So
now in the US government control (or lack thereof) is pretty much
accountable only to Corporations. But in the old days in the US (and even
today in places like Canada and Norway) governments were accountable (at
least in principal) to the entire population.

AM:
I agree that the government is getting more and more influenced by
corporations, and that it's a bad thing. That's been going on for
cenutries. Most of today's big corporations would not get as big as
they if they had not had government protection from competition.
The government has a monopoly on violence, it's the first go-to person
for any protection. Since the people in government are not perfectly
smart or imune to bribery, a lot of times a law gets passed that
protects certain companies from competition, thereby granting a
monopoly.
Like the banking cartel. They came to the government to organize a
federal bank "for the public good". Now they control the money
production. Or the railroads. Or the teachers union. Or the AMA. There
are a lot of private interests disguised as "public interest". There
is a rule of a minority over a majority made "for the greater good",

I also agree that the system worked for a while quite good. The
government was small and there was high growth and innovation.

There is nothing inherently good about private companies, they are
mostly against the free market and competition, and have their own
interests in mind. I'm not saying that everything should be private
because I trust private companies, but because I don't. In a free
market, the greedy ones can only earn money if they take into account
what their customers want and need and offer it to them, and then
constantly improve their product knowing that they have competition.

RM: However, even in the most democratic democracy, where government rules are
made completely non-arbitrarily, with full democratic input, you are bound
to end up with rules that seem oppressive to some people.

AM:
Sure. That's why I'm against having so many rules. :slight_smile:
Does some of this not look arbitrary to you: http://uscode.house.gov/
And it has grown over the years..

Best, Adam

[From Adam Matic, 2011.06.29.1605 gmt+1]

Rick Marken (2011.06.28.1745)

This is all imaginary. Why not look at the relationship between minimum wage
and employment rate. I would be that there is a positive relationship
because when workers are paid more there is more aggregate demand and, thus,
more need for workers to produce to meet the demand.� I'll try to find the
data.

AM
You mention supply and deman, but what you're saying looks like the
reverse of the usual law of supply and demand. If you want to sell
everything you've got, you decrease it's price, not increase it. If
you have a bag of corn, and want to sell it at a price larger then the
market price, you won't succeed. If the government says that you can't
sell it, you'll go to the black market or stop with corn production
alltogether. If the minimum wage laws really helped, then they should
be increased to 100$ per hour.
Wages are the price of work and minimum wages are the price of
unskilled work, so to see the effect of the law we shoul look at
those.

What about teenagers (this is quoted from http://mises.org/daily/2130 )
"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate for
everyone over the age of 16 was 5.6% in 2005. Yet unemployment was
17.3% for those aged 16-19 years. For those aged 16-17 unemployment
was 19.7%. In the 18-19 age group unemployment was 15.8%. Minimum wage
laws do affect ethnic minorities more so than others. The unemployment
rate for white teens in the 16-17 age group was 17.3% in 2005. The
same figures for Hispanic and black teens were 25% and 40.9%
respectively. Of course, these figures decrease for older minorities.
Blacks aged 18-19 and 20-24 had 25.7% and 19.9% unemployment in 2005.
For Hispanics unemployment was slightly lower � 17.8% at age 18-19 and
9.6% at age 20-24."

Let's say a manager controls for a high profit in his company. He's
got a lot of unskilled workforce that he pays rather low. The
government, out of good intention, sets a minimum wage law. Tha
manager still wants a high profit, so in order to increase their pay,
he can fire half of them and require the remaining half to work with
double productivity. He can go to Bangladesh looking for cheap labor.
A better way to increase wages would be to simply let other companies
offer jobs that pay just a little more - so they compete for unskilled
labor.

Best
Adam

[From Bill Powers (2011.06.29.0719 MDT)]

Adam Matic 2011.06.29
0100gmt+1]

Here’s a common example of what I think is a failure of government

control - the minimum wage laws.

A wage is agreed upon between an employee and an employer. The

regulator wants to see all people that have wages lower than some

arbitrary level start getting a higher wage. He chooses average pay
as

the relevant measure. He makes a law that says "a person can not pay
a

wage lower than this amount of money per hour".

Now, nothing changes in people’s goals. The employee still wants to

work for a low pay for whatever reason - he is unskilled, does not

speak the language or something else.

BP: The heartless cruelty of this reasoning is matched only by its
inventiveness. The employee wants to work for a low pay? Why of course.
The person could easily find a job with higher pay, but is simply too
lazy to look for it or train for it. Isn’t that how the story goes? If
that story were the truth, we could all relax – those low-paid workers
are just getting what they asked for, and certainly what they deserve.
They have a free choice – they could choose not to take a job with such
low pay. It’s their own fault that they are poor in this great land of
opportunity. Let them suffer the consequences; that’s the only way some
people can learn. If they starve to death, that will be a valuable lesson
for others of their kind. Look at the suffering they cause for their own
children! When other parents see that, they will think twice about
insisting on a right to live in luxury. Of course if we step in and
rescue the parents or the children that will weaken the point, so we
mustn’t do that. Behavior must have real consequences.

AM: The employer still needs
cheap labor to keep the company working, the company can’t afford to pay
everyone more.

BP: Suppose the employer happens to think it’s immoral to take 10, 20, or
50 times as much of the profits for himself as he pays to his employees.
Will he still “need” such cheap labor? To say “need”
is to imply that there is some external imperative forcing the employer
against his more charitable impulses to pay the lowest possible wages.
Poor chap. Apparently, the employer has no choice (though his employees
do).
“Oct 19, 2006 – The average small business owner or chief
executive brings home an annual salary of $233600, according to
Salary.com.” (Google on small business owner
income).

The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, or for a 2000-hour work-year
(50 weeks at 40 hr/wk), $14,500. That is 1/16th of the average annual
salary of a small business owner or CEO. The federal poverty line for a
family of 4 is $1800 per month, which is $21,600 annually. For a single
person it is $903 per month or $10,836 per year and for two people it is
$1215 or $14580. So the best thing is for poor people not to get married,
or if married not to have any children. Of course nobody forces anyone to
abstain from marriage or children, do they? It’s their free choice. Isn’t
it?

AM: If the law is not
strictly enforced, the worker will probably work illegally. If the laws
are more strict, then the already

poor people who got low wages get unemployed and can’t even get

working experience. Some companies, perhaps, actually redistribute

more money from owners to workers.

BP: That’s a real hardship, not being able to get working experience. No
wonder people are willing to take low-paying jobs – with no job at all,
a person will never get the working experience needed to get better pay
if a better-paying job is available. Well, at least an ambitious
unemployed person can rest up to go out job-hunting the next day
fortified by a nice hot meal, dressed up in his best clothes, exact
change ready for the bus when it comes and visions of high-paying jobs
dancing in his head like sugar-plums.

But wait a minute – an unemployed person doesn’t have a job, does he?
And that means he isn’t earning any money, doesn’t it? So he can’t pay
the rent and his furniture is out on the sidewalk, and his best clothes
are just like his worst clothes, and he not only doesn’t have exact
change for the bus, he doesn’t have any change at all. He probably
doesn’t have much education (and would have none if his parents had had
to pay for it), and he probably looks pretty shabby and hasn’t had a
haircut for a long time. He’s probably been turned down for most jobs
he’s tried to get, so now he has to accept anything at all just to say
alive, even if it leaves him exactly where he is now.

That leaves the employer in a very satisfactory position. About all he
has to offer such workers is enough money to barely make it from one day
to the next so they can show up for work again. Those bleeding hearts who
keep telling him he ought to pay them more just don’t get it. If he paid
them more, they’d be full of energy and hope and would be out looking for
better pay, and where would that leave the employer? He’s be cutting his
own throat. The trick is to pay just enough so they can keep working, but
not so much that they can get all independent and think they deserve
more. You have to teach them to be grateful for what they get and not
rock the boat – after all, complainers can easily be replaced. That’s
just good business strategy.

The employer points out, “A wage is agreed upon between an employee
and an employer. Both have to be satisfied to come to agreement. So by
what right does the employee then complain that he or she isn’t making
enough money? The worker can always go look for higher pay elsewhere;
there is always someone who will be more than happy to take the abandoned
job. That’s why some minimum level of unemployment is essential; we have
to make sure that the replacement worker is always available. That keeps
the employed workers in line.”

So there is the other side of the free-market argument. The free market
turns out to be a subtle and well-managed form of coercion. If you have
money and power, you are free to set up a system under which you can
offer people choices that aren’t really reasonable choices; it’s like the
choice offered by the highwayman: your money or your life. There are some
choices that a person in his right mind will make in a totally
predictable way, with only the occasional exception. To make the other
choice is effectively to commit suicide or to choose misery and slavery
just to stay alive.

The free market isn’t really about freedom of choice. It’s about power
and control. It’s about some people stacking the deck so they know what
hand the other people are playing and they can force their opponents to
make choices that aren’t choices at all. “If you don’t want to do
this job for this wage, I can always find someone who does want to do
it.”

In short, if you don’t want to do this work for this wage, I can make you
want to do it. Go ahead and test me. It’s your free choice.

Some choice.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Adam Matic (2011.06.29 1915 gmt+1)]

Bill Powers (2011.06.29.0719 MDT)

BP: The heartless cruelty of this reasoning is matched only by its
inventiveness. The employee wants to work for a low pay? Why of course. The
person could easily find a job with higher pay, but is simply too lazy to
look for it or train for it. Isn't that how the story goes?

AM:
No, actually, that's not at all how the story goes.
I would appreciate if you would not call me cruel or heartless for no reason.

I don't know why an exact someone would want to take a low payed job.
There could be a lot of reasons. They might be very poor and any pay
is better than none for them, so they agree to work for a low pay. I'm
happy to work for 4$ per hour as a bartender and with that money I can
buy a lot of things that I need. It would be a disaster if someone
would punish my employer for giving me a "low wage". It's quite high
for me. It would also be a disaster if someone would set a minimum
wage above that level because then I would have to work on the black
market.

BP: If that story
were the truth, we could all relax -- those low-paid workers are just
getting what they asked for, and certainly what they deserve. They have a
free choice -- they could choose not to take a job with such low pay. It's
their own fault that they are poor in this great land of opportunity. Let
them suffer the consequences; that's the only way some people can learn. If
they starve to death, that will be a valuable lesson for others of their
kind. Look at the suffering they cause for their own children! When other
parents see that, they will think twice about insisting on a right to live
in luxury. Of course if we step in and rescue the parents or the children
that will weaken the point, so we mustn't do that. Behavior must have real
consequences.

AM:
Well, I certainly don't think like that.
I'm saying that setting a law that fixes a price of unskilled work
does not help the poor and that they should be helped in some other
way.
If the minimum wage did help the poor, then it should be set at 100$
for sure. Or why not make it 500$. Then everyone will have enough to
live.

But it doesn't work that way.

AM: The employer still needs cheap labor to keep the company working, the
company can't afford to pay everyone more.

BP: Suppose the employer happens to think it's immoral to take 10, 20, or 50
times as much of the profits for himself as he pays to his employees. Will
he still "need" such cheap labor? To say "need" is to imply that there is
some external imperative forcing the employer against his more charitable
impulses to pay the lowest possible wages. Poor chap. Apparently, the
employer has no choice (though his employees do).

AM:
I don't think it's fair, good, or moral for an employer to have 50
times as much as an employee for himself. I just think that setting a
minimum wage is the wrong way of preventing that.

BP: "Oct 19, 2006 � The average small business owner or chief executive brings
home an annual salary of $233600, according to Salary.com." (Google on small
business owner income).

AM:
So, apparently, the minimum wage laws didn't help with that inequality.

BP: The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, or for a 2000-hour work-year (50
weeks at 40 hr/wk), $14,500. That is 1/16th of the average annual salary of
a small business owner or CEO. The federal poverty line for a family of 4 is
$1800 per month, which is $21,600 annually. For a single person it is $903
per month or $10,836 per year and for two people it is $1215 or $14580. So
the best thing is for poor people not to get married, or if married not to
have any children. Of course nobody forces anyone to abstain from marriage
or children, do they? It's their free choice. Isn't it?

AM:
Simply saying "you have to pay someone more than 7$ per hour or
else.." will not necessarily lead to people actually paying workers
more than that.

AM:� If the law is not strictly enforced, the worker will probably work
illegally. If the laws are more strict, then the already
poor people who got low wages get unemployed and can't even get
working experience. Some companies, perhaps, actually redistribute
more money from owners to workers.

BP: That's a real hardship, not being able to get working experience. No
wonder people are willing to take low-paying jobs -- with no job at all, a
person will never get the working experience needed to get better pay if a
better-paying job is available. Well, at least an ambitious unemployed
person can rest up to go out job-hunting the next day fortified by a nice
hot meal, dressed up in his best clothes, exact change ready for the bus
when it comes and visions of high-paying jobs dancing in his head like
sugar-plums.

But wait a minute -- an unemployed person doesn't have a job, does he? And
that means he isn't earning any money, doesn't it? So he can't pay the rent
and his furniture is out on the sidewalk, and his best clothes are just like
his worst clothes, and he not only doesn't have exact change for the bus, he
doesn't have any change at all. He probably doesn't have much education (and
would have none if his parents had had to pay for it), and he probably looks
pretty shabby and hasn't had a haircut for a long time. He's probably been
turned down for most jobs he's tried to get, so now he has to accept
anything at all just to say alive, even if it leaves him exactly where he is
now.

AM:
Right. And he comes to some, dirty smelly warehouse and begs to work
for as much as they will give them and they say - "Sorry. Can't hire
you. The federal government says I'd have to pay you double what you
ask for and I just don't have the money." And the person goes on to
sell drugs.

BP: That leaves the employer in a very satisfactory position. About all he has
to offer such workers is enough money to barely make it from one day to the
next so they can show up for work again.

AM:
There is competition between employers. One day, a company opens next
door and say "we pay more than this guy". And people go working for
him.
That's exactly how wages rise in a free market. Not because someone
says - "hey, you're too greedy, pay your workers more".

BP: Those bleeding hearts who keep
telling him he ought to pay them more just don't get it. If he paid them
more, they'd be full of energy and hope and would be out looking for better
pay, and where would that leave the employer? He's be cutting his own
throat. The trick is to pay just enough so they can keep working, but not so
much that they can get all independent and think they deserve more. You have
to teach them to be grateful for what they get and not rock the boat --
after all, complainers can easily be replaced. That's just good business
strategy.

AM:
At the same time, the employer has to offer his product to the market
for a price as low as he can manage.

BP: The employer points out, "A wage is agreed upon between an employee and an
employer. Both have to be satisfied to come to agreement. So by what right
does the employee then complain that he or she isn't making enough money?
The worker can always go look for higher pay elsewhere; there is always
someone who will be more than happy to take the abandoned job. That's why
some minimum level of unemployment is essential; we have to make sure that
the replacement worker is always available. That keeps the employed workers
in line."

AM:
That's not what I'm saying. The employee has every right to ask for
more money. On the other hand, he does not have the right to force the
employer to give him more money. If the business is profitable, he
could try opening one on his own. There are people willing to invest
in things like that.

BP: So there is the other side of the free-market argument. The free market
turns out to be a subtle and well-managed form of coercion. If you have
money and power, you are free to set up a system under which you can offer
people choices that aren't really reasonable choices; it's like the choice
offered by the highwayman: your money or your life. There are some choices
that a person in his right mind will make in a totally predictable way, with
only the occasional exception. To make the other choice is effectively to
commit suicide or to choose misery and slavery just to stay alive.

AM:
There is also the "road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Minimum wage laws simply don't produce what they are meant to produce.

BP: The free market isn't really about freedom of choice. It's about power and
control. It's about some people stacking the deck so they know what hand the
other people are playing and they can force their opponents to make choices
that aren't choices at all. "If you don't want to do this job for this wage,
I can always find someone who does want to do it."

AM:
There is a catch - not always can you find a person who wants to work
for as low wage as you set. In fact, that's rarely the case. I could
go yelling that I'll pay a dollar an hour to anyone who will work for.
No one would want that.

In short, if you don't want to do this work for this wage, I can make you
want to do it. Go ahead and test me. It's your free choice.

Some choice.

AM:
In short, minimum wage laws don't work because they are price fixing.
Drop the price of bread by law and soon, there will be a chaos in the
bread market. Just like there is chaos in unskilled labor market.
Why wouldn't you simply be forced to pay your taxi driver 50$ per
hour? He's doing work for you and he's poor. You're his employer. I
think it's not fair that you two should agree on some arbitrary price.
You'd end up exploiting him by paying him as low as he would accept.

Best
Adam

[From Rick Marken (2011.06.29.1030)]

Bill Powers (2011.06.29.0719 MDT)]

Adam Matic 2011.06.29
0100gmt+1]

Here’s a common example of what I think is a failure of government

control - the minimum wage laws.

A wage is agreed upon between an employee and an employer. The

regulator wants to see all people that have wages lower than some

arbitrary level start getting a higher wage. He chooses average pay
as

the relevant measure. He makes a law that says "a person can not pay
a

wage lower than this amount of money per hour".

Now, nothing changes in people’s goals. The employee still wants to

work for a low pay for whatever reason - he is unskilled, does not

speak the language or something else.

BP: The heartless cruelty of this reasoning is matched only by its
inventiveness.

I’ve managed to lose Internet connection at my home (bad modem) but I just had to say Thank You! for this wonderful post. Finally my beloved humanist shows up.

Love

Rick

···

employee wants to work for a low pay? Why of course.
The person could easily find a job with higher pay, but is simply too
lazy to look for it or train for it. Isn’t that how the story goes? If
that story were the truth, we could all relax – those low-paid workers
are just getting what they asked for, and certainly what they deserve.
They have a free choice – they could choose not to take a job with such
low pay. It’s their own fault that they are poor in this great land of
opportunity. Let them suffer the consequences; that’s the only way some
people can learn. If they starve to death, that will be a valuable lesson
for others of their kind. Look at the suffering they cause for their own
children! When other parents see that, they will think twice about
insisting on a right to live in luxury. Of course if we step in and
rescue the parents or the children that will weaken the point, so we
mustn’t do that. Behavior must have real consequences.

AM: The employer still needs
cheap labor to keep the company working, the company can’t afford to pay
everyone more.

BP: Suppose the employer happens to think it’s immoral to take 10, 20, or
50 times as much of the profits for himself as he pays to his employees.
Will he still “need” such cheap labor? To say “need”
is to imply that there is some external imperative forcing the employer
against his more charitable impulses to pay the lowest possible wages.
Poor chap. Apparently, the employer has no choice (though his employees
do).
“Oct 19, 2006 – The average small business owner or chief
executive brings home an annual salary of $233600, according to
Salary.com.” (Google on small business owner
income).

The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, or for a 2000-hour work-year
(50 weeks at 40 hr/wk), $14,500. That is 1/16th of the average annual
salary of a small business owner or CEO. The federal poverty line for a
family of 4 is $1800 per month, which is $21,600 annually. For a single
person it is $903 per month or $10,836 per year and for two people it is
$1215 or $14580. So the best thing is for poor people not to get married,
or if married not to have any children. Of course nobody forces anyone to
abstain from marriage or children, do they? It’s their free choice. Isn’t
it?

AM: If the law is not
strictly enforced, the worker will probably work illegally. If the laws
are more strict, then the already

poor people who got low wages get unemployed and can’t even get

working experience. Some companies, perhaps, actually redistribute

more money from owners to workers.

BP: That’s a real hardship, not being able to get working experience. No
wonder people are willing to take low-paying jobs – with no job at all,
a person will never get the working experience needed to get better pay
if a better-paying job is available. Well, at least an ambitious
unemployed person can rest up to go out job-hunting the next day
fortified by a nice hot meal, dressed up in his best clothes, exact
change ready for the bus when it comes and visions of high-paying jobs
dancing in his head like sugar-plums.

But wait a minute – an unemployed person doesn’t have a job, does he?
And that means he isn’t earning any money, doesn’t it? So he can’t pay
the rent and his furniture is out on the sidewalk, and his best clothes
are just like his worst clothes, and he not only doesn’t have exact
change for the bus, he doesn’t have any change at all. He probably
doesn’t have much education (and would have none if his parents had had
to pay for it), and he probably looks pretty shabby and hasn’t had a
haircut for a long time. He’s probably been turned down for most jobs
he’s tried to get, so now he has to accept anything at all just to say
alive, even if it leaves him exactly where he is now.

That leaves the employer in a very satisfactory position. About all he
has to offer such workers is enough money to barely make it from one day
to the next so they can show up for work again. Those bleeding hearts who
keep telling him he ought to pay them more just don’t get it. If he paid
them more, they’d be full of energy and hope and would be out looking for
better pay, and where would that leave the employer? He’s be cutting his
own throat. The trick is to pay just enough so they can keep working, but
not so much that they can get all independent and think they deserve
more. You have to teach them to be grateful for what they get and not
rock the boat – after all, complainers can easily be replaced. That’s
just good business strategy.

The employer points out, “A wage is agreed upon between an employee
and an employer. Both have to be satisfied to come to agreement. So by
what right does the employee then complain that he or she isn’t making
enough money? The worker can always go look for higher pay elsewhere;
there is always someone who will be more than happy to take the abandoned
job. That’s why some minimum level of unemployment is essential; we have
to make sure that the replacement worker is always available. That keeps
the employed workers in line.”

So there is the other side of the free-market argument. The free market
turns out to be a subtle and well-managed form of coercion. If you have
money and power, you are free to set up a system under which you can
offer people choices that aren’t really reasonable choices; it’s like the
choice offered by the highwayman: your money or your life. There are some
choices that a person in his right mind will make in a totally
predictable way, with only the occasional exception. To make the other
choice is effectively to commit suicide or to choose misery and slavery
just to stay alive.

The free market isn’t really about freedom of choice. It’s about power
and control. It’s about some people stacking the deck so they know what
hand the other people are playing and they can force their opponents to
make choices that aren’t choices at all. “If you don’t want to do
this job for this wage, I can always find someone who does want to do
it.”

In short, if you don’t want to do this work for this wage, I can make you
want to do it. Go ahead and test me. It’s your free choice.

Some choice.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Adam Matic (2011.06.29 2030 gmt+1)]

Rick Marken (2011.06.29.1030)

I've managed to lose Internet connection at my home (bad modem) but I just
had to say Thank You! for this wonderful post. Finally my beloved humanist
shows up.
Love
Rick

Now, now, you payed a lot for that "despising free marketeers"
therapy, don't you be going the other way again. :smiley:

Best, Adam