> Why do you look at the worker / employer relationship as though one person is
> above another? From my perspective, they are on equal ground. They are two
> people simply making a trade. One person has their work to trade for money,
> and the other person wants to trade money for work. I prefer to look at
> people as though they are all self-employed, and the people they work for are
> their clients. For example, if I am a skilled factory worker, I can sell my
> services to various factory owners, who would then be my clients. I want
> money, they want some work done; we both agree on the price, and we then
> exchange our wares; I trade my work for the factory owner's money. I don't
> see where any one is being "screwed" in this process.
It would be great if everybody was empowered enough to afford to sell
their labour to whoever has better working conditions, but the case is
that people have to work in appalling conditions just to survive.
If everybody was treated with mutual respect in libertarianism then it
would succeed, but that is the case with any form of government or lack
thereof. If everybody had the relationship that you do with your
tutorees, then it would be great. That's not the case. In anarchism,
everybody wants to be free, correct, then why should someone be able to
force others to work for them, by offering them the "choice", between
starvation and slavery.
Suresh Naidu
occaisonal student
math 1a, computer science
Ask not what your brand name can do for you,
but what you can do for your brand name.