Wage Slavery

Great Debates
1

The argument is sometimes made that if the only options available to a person other than starving are working for a wage for one of any number of employers, where none of those employers offers a wage that allows the person to do anything more than subsist, then that person’s eventual agreement to work for one of those employers is as good as coerced. My constitution is such as to tend to be sympathetic toward a view like this one. But I have a counterargument that I’m interested in discussing.

Imagine an idealized world containing just three individuals, A B and C, each of which is fully self-sufficient. They trade with each other, but none needs any of the others to survive comfortably. Moreover, A, B and C are perfect libertarians in the sense that none of them would ever enter into an agreement involuntarily, and none of them would ever enter into an agreement in which the other party does so involuntarily either.

Now let’s assume for the sake of argument that the concept of a “voluntary agreement” excludes any kind of wage-slavery arrangement. In other words, let’s assume (for something like a reductio argument, as you’ll see) that no agreement that says “I’ll work for you for a subsistence wage” is voluntary if every moral option available to the “I” just referred to would amount to living on a mere subsistence wage. In such a case, let’s say, the “I” just referred to would be in some sense coerced into any such agreement–because he must enter into some such agreement or else steal or starve.

Sadly, a meteor strikes A’s property and completely wipes him out. A survives, but he now has nothing.

Now here’s one way things could go. B and C could see an opportunity here. They could each offer A a work contract. He has no bargaining power, so he’s at their mercy. So the contract each offers him amounts to working in perpetuity for them at a mere subsistence wage. They don’t particularly need his labor–it would be a matter of mere convenience for them–so even if they compete for his labor, neither is going to go very high. In the end, the best he can get is a subsistence wage.

Like I said, that’s one way things could have gone. But remember, A B and C are perfectly psychologically constituted libertarians. They would never enter into an agreement in which either side is entering involuntarily. And by hypothesis, a subsistence wage contract, where the person making the wage has no better moral option than to enter into some subsistence wage contract or other, is involuntary. So not only would A never enter into this contract–B and C would never offer it.

Sounds nice, right?

But a subsistence wage contract, recall, represents the most B or C are willing to offer for A’s labor. Since that contract is not one they’d be willing to extend, it follows they’re not going to be willing to enter into any agreement at all with him! A is completely and utterly screwed. He must either steal or starve.

So then–in this scenario anyway–the idea that says “working for a subsistence wage when you have no other options is tantamount to slavery” leads, when followed perfectly, to a situation in which people who are unfortunate are made to either steal or starve. There is no other way out for them.

The conclusion would seem to be this, then. Either:

A. “wage slavery” is voluntary after all (and we must articulate a concept of voluntary association which permits such agreements) or else

B. it’s not true after all that all associations must be voluntary, or

C. Past a certain level of misfortune, people should either steal or starve, or

D. The hypothetical scenario described above is not useful for thinking about the question of whether wage slavery is voluntary and of whether all associations should be voluntary.

Please tell me your thoughts.

2

D. because at that point, libertarianism doesn’t deal with the concepts of mercy and shared sacrifice and helping other people AT A COST TO YOURSELF.

You can’t shoehorn a contract-based philosophy into handling non-contractual circumstances, so you have to have something else in place to deal with those situations.

Whatever those philosophies end up being will be based on B&C and their ideals, but won’t BE libertarian “policy” in any way, because libertarianism (so far as I can tell) expressly avoids dealing with that type of situation.

3

First of all, salute to Frylock for a great OP.

Here are my thoughts.

I disagree with the idea that libertarianism avoids dealing with this hypothetical.

At the point where A encounters this massive stroke of misfortune, he must make the best deal available to him based on his control of resources, ability, confidence in himself, and other circumstances that make us who we are.

IMO, wage slavery>starvation, unless one is a zealot.

Wage slavery <>= stealing, depending on A’s commitment to libertarian ideals.
That will depend on A’s background and interactions. Now, if we wanted to completely adhere to Frylock’s three-person universe, I would posit that A’s background is entirely made up of her/his interactions with B and C. And if all three are in accord, there is no problem. A accepts wage slavery to the point where A is able to build up enough again, making any sacrifice necessary, to strike out alone again. If that ever happens. If not, A accepts his/her lot as a slave. Slavery is never voluntary.

I say A.

I further posit that since A, B, and C are committed to libertarianism, the idea of wage slavery does not exist. If one does not wish to starve, one accepts the terms available to them not to starve. For A, that may mean stealing or killing–remember, Dagny Taggert bribed the Powers-That-Be of her world as a cost of doing business without a second thought.

An example like this truly exposes libertarianism’s fatal flaw. A’s choice here of stealing, killing, starving, or wage slavery are bad choices all, not based on any choices that A has made, and libertarianism has no good answer to this.

Liberalism deals with this, in the main, by naming as a value the idea that, since there are forces beyond each individual’s control that can affect one’s choices and point of view, that there is inherent value in sharing the risks of an indifferent universe. This can produce societal harmony (which I believe that libertarianism in the main ignores and, again in Atlas Shrugged, was posited as whining from looters to get the Job Cre… Producers to voluntarily give up the fruits of the labor that they and they alone undertook to create value) and is the reason that libertarianism is like unto Soviet-style Communism in its prospects for success. It ignores the human factor.

4

In the three person world the solution would be to take from B and C and give to A. The difference is that instead of earning what he consumes, A has what he needs given to him after it being taken forcefully from B and C.
In the libertarian scenario, B and C have just as much as they would have, and A gets what he earns. In the liberal scenario everything A has is forcibly taken from B and C so everyone is poorer.
Let make this slightly more realistic, by assuming an economy where A fishes, B raises chickens, and C makes wine. A catches three fishes a day, eats one, trades one to B for eggs, and one to C for a cup of wine. B’s chickens produce three eggs and C produces threes cups of wine per day.
The asteroid destroys A’s boat and he can no longer fish. On libertarian island he can either go to work for C stomping grapes or starve. If he works for C, the extra set of feet allow them to produce four cups of wine. He get paid one cup of wine and he drinks half and trades the other half to B for the egg.
On liberal island the government takes one egg from B, one cup of wine from C and gives it to A.
On liberal island A is better off because he does not have to stomp grapes all day and gets what he needs. B and C are both worse off because their stuff has been taken and they received nothing in return.
On libertarian island B and C are better off because they do not have to give A their stuff. The entire island is also better off since because of A’s work now the island has another cup of wine.
Now the human factor comes in, maybe A hates stomping grapes so much he rebuilds his boat and starts fishing again, whereas otherwise he would be content sun himself and drink the free wine. Maybe B and C get tired of working so hard and slack off. Maybe B decides to start raising chickens for meat and not just eggs, but if one third of what he makes on the meat business is going to be taken he decides it is not worth all the extra hassle. Maybe A becomes depressed because all the has to do on the liberal island is think about what happened to his boat, whereas his mind would occupied with wine making on libertarian island. Maybe whoever is redistributing the stuff decides he wants to keep a percentage for himself.

The fact that somepeople only have bad choices is not libertarianism’s fatal flaw, it is just reality.

5

Russia, 1917.

All the libertarian economic theory in the world couldn’t have kept the royal family from being taken out back of the woodshed and shot. Why?

France, 1789, guillotine instead of guns.

The list continues. The ignorant rich oppress the ignorant poor, until the ignorant poor say “fuck it” and take what they want.

6

Libertarian philosophy is based on a concept of enough for all so there is no scenario in which ‘wage slavery’ is not voluntary. It would only occur because someone lacks the motivation to go out and find the free land to be independently worked. So it must always be voluntary, and there is no situation where a person has no choice but to work for another for subsistence wages, he can just go and subsist on his own land somewhere.

This is the reality.

Or the libertarians could realize their philosophy is deficient and decide to share.

Yes, because the scenario is too divorced from reality. It is common for economic philosophies to attempt to address complex problems with simplistic solutions, and common to find them lacking. One man cannot survive as a ‘true libertarian’ outside of idealized circumstances, and the multitude of people that exist cannot possibly do so. Hypotheticals about such circumstances aren’t very helpful in determining anything about the nature of human interaction.

If anything, your scenario illustrates why concepts like ‘ideal libertarians’ and ‘wage slaves’ are self serving indulgent of the human condition.

7

If B and C decided to share i would not be realizing their philosophy is deficient. It is entirely within the scope of libertarianism for individuals to decide to share. Maybe B is a cold-hearted man. He may still decide on his own accord that sharing with A benefits himself because otherwise A may resort to stealing, murder, sabotage.

8

Yes indeed they could share, but they also could not share. To share to avoid the negative consequences of a man in need must be done altruistically or it is coerced. The philosophy in general does not account for the reality that people are dependent on each other. Imagine the circumstance where both A and B are left with nothing. C is outnumbered and has no choice but to enter an agreement with A or B or both to avoid having all that is his taken by force.

9

Where is this libertarian philosophy? The most famous libertarians besides Rand have been economists and economics is the study of scarcity. The situation where a person has no choice but to works for someone else, describes 90% of people. The wage is determined by the value of the work and the supply and demand of the workers.
The difference between libertarian philosophy and liberal philosophy is whether or not it is moral to take from to who do have money to give part of it to those who do not.

10

[quote=“puddleglum, post:9, topic:640826”]

Where is this libertarian philosophy? The most famous libertarians besides Rand have been economists and economics is the study of scarcity. The situation where a person has no choice but to works for someone else, describes 90% of people. The wage is determined by the value of the work and the supply and demand of the workers.

[quote]

You’ve just confirmed my point. There is not enough for everyone to be an idealized libertarian.

There is no well defined libertarian or liberal philosophy so you can say anything you want about that. However both libertarian and conservative philosophies are heavily based on the morality of acceptiing socialism for individual benefit without making commensurate contributions.

11

Libertarian philosophy does indeed account for the reality that people are dependent on eachother. This lone wolf libertarianism that you are inventing isn’t the ideal according to libertarians I am familiar with. On the contrary, capitalism allows for the division of labor that increases prosperity for everyone. I am not aware of any libertarians who are against capitalism.

If C is willing to enter an agreement with A and B for the benefit of all three of them, so be it. They can all remain libertarians and still work with eachother. C does still have a choice. It would be foolish for him to not enter an agreement with A and B. If he was a wise libertarian he would recognize the benefits of the division of labor. It still remains a fact that if C refuses to enter an agreement with A and B, it is immoral for A and B to use force on him.

12

Ok, only the OP can clear up what type of libertarians these are. But I don’t know of any who consider that division of labor or the prosperity for everyone is a requirement. The question I have is what happens when the lucky libertarians just don’t feel like helping out the unlucky one.

I disagree with the bolded part. Everyone has the moral right to assure their own survival. Even if that means stealing or killing those who would threaten them. It is immoral to deny food to a starving person.

13

And that is why we have a social safety net. I don’t want the safety net to provide a comfortable life but true wage slavery (where you have no excess productivity to save or invest) provides no opportunity for improving your lot in life.

The fact that libertarianism eventually leads to a situation where a LOT of people only have really bad choices IS a fatal flaw.

Stealing to avoid starvation is entirely moral. It would be immoral to put another’s property rights over your own life. Property rights are the result of a social contract that chooses to respect those property rights, they are not natural law.

14

That is just question begging. A libertarian would say that what is causing the bad choices is poverty, and in a libertarian world there would be less poverty so there would be fewer people forced into bad choices. Unless you can show how libertarian philosophy leads only to bad choices, you are just making assumptions and not arguments.

15

Liberalism is the philosophy that assumes abundance and then is concerned with how to most justly split up the abundance to assure everyone gets their fair share. Libertarian and especially conservative philosophy starts with scarcity and is about how to increase wealth.
Consider the OP, the scenario is that somehow everyone just has a bunch of stuff, they didn’t make it or earn it, they just have it. Since they did nothing to earn it, it is fine to take it away and give it to the asteroid victim.
However, this is not the real world. In the real world, the stuff people have was stuff that was created or earned by them. Thus it is not fine to take away what people have earned by the sweat of their brow and give it to someone regardless of whether they are an asteroid victim or just lazy.

16

That statement is so totally without basis that I didn’t bother reading the rest of your post. I’m not a liberal, nor do I know of any solid definition of liberalism, but that statement sounds like it came straight from the interlocked lips of Rush Limbaugh, Fank Luntz, and Karl Rove. And I’m not talking about just the lips on their faces either.

17

I’m curious what the OP thinks is the non-libertarian outcome to his scenario. B and C don’t want to deal with A. How would the OP compel them to do so?

18

By no means does the OP make any such claim, or implication, that it is “fine to take it away and give it to the asteroid victim.”

19

I wouldn’t. Why do you think I would?

For some reason, several people seem to be reading the OP as anti-libertarian. But it’s not! Its concern is not to show that there’s anything wrong with libertarianism, its concern is rather to discover what “voluntary” must mean, and whether situations often labeled “wage slavery” count as voluntary or not.

My own sympathies* lie with a libertarianism so extreme you might call it anarchism. But to say “all associations should be voluntary” invites the question, “Okay, but what’s ‘voluntary’”?

*Most days.

20

Indeed, if I’d had to say it went one way or the other, I would have said it’s the opposite. Libertarians, it seems to me, typically assume non-scarcity and build a totally free society on that assumption. (And if they don’t explicitly assume it, it often seems that it lies hidden as an unexpressed assumption.) Meanwhile liberals are asking the question of what to do about the fact that things are, in fact, scarce, sometimes to such a degree that agreements must be reached, and even people coerced, to prevent resources from going only to the strong, quick or lucky.