Bitcoins Lost

[myrkul]

Can Employee/Employer or Landlord/Tenant or Lender/Borrower relationships become manipulative?

Yes, just like any relationship can. Depending on the society they're established in, they may even start that way, with one party having a clear advantage, such as a high unemployment rate giving employers an advantage, while a severe labor shortage gives the advantage to the workers.

Does that mean that they are inherently so? No. No mutually consensual relationship is inherently manipulative.

While we're at it, Let's look at the dictionary for a sec...

–noun
1. use or utilization, especially for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

Now, It's obvious, that when McGruder and other Proudhoun anarchists use the word, they mean the second definition, "selfish utilization". And on the face of it, they're entirely correct. An employer selfishly utilizes his employees for profit. That's what the business is there for. But they conveniently ignore one crucial fact, that I pointed out, before: The employee selfishly utilizes the employer for profit, too. He turns hours of his day, that he otherwise would have spent doing something else, into money, which he otherwise would not have gotten, or at least, had to get in another manner.

This also makes one very flawed assumption: that being selfish is somehow bad. It's not. That's not to say altruism is bad, because it isn't, it helps the survival of the society, as well as the species as a whole. One cannot be selfless all the time, however. At least some self-interest is required for the continued survival of the individual.  Obviously, if all the individuals die, the society is dead too, and along with it, the species. So each person must look after themselves first, and others second.

Combining this concept with the knowledge that things go a whole lot easier if everyone cooperates, and you get the free market: Everyone puts out there what they want, and what they're willing to offer. When someone finds someone else who happens to be offering what they want, they enter into negotiations to get it, haggling until both people agree that the deal is acceptable. Since both people are better off than before, both have profited.

Both parties benefit, but one much more than the other, because one has more capitalist power than the other. If employees, tenants, and borrowers had an even playing field, they would own their workplaces, their homes, and wouldn't pay interest. But they do not, because capitalism reigns.

Could you please explain, exactly, how an employer gains more from his employee than his employee gains from him? (we'll stick to one example case, for clarity)

[1714820158]

1714820158

[1714820158]

1714820158

[1714820158]

1714820158

[FatherMcGruder]

Can Employee/Employer or Landlord/Tenant or Lender/Borrower relationships become manipulative?

Yes, just like any relationship can. Depending on the society they're established in, they may even start that way, with one party having a clear advantage, such as a high unemployment rate giving employers an advantage, while a severe labor shortage gives the advantage to the workers.

Does that mean that they are inherently so? No. No mutually consensual relationship is inherently manipulative.

While we're at it, Let's look at the dictionary for a sec...

–noun
1. use or utilization, especially for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

Now, It's obvious, that when McGruder and other Proudhoun anarchists use the word, they mean the second definition, "selfish utilization". And on the face of it, they're entirely correct. An employer selfishly utilizes his employees for profit. That's what the business is there for. But they conveniently ignore one crucial fact, that I pointed out, before: The employee selfishly utilizes the employer for profit, too. He turns hours of his day, that he otherwise would have spent doing something else, into money, which he otherwise would not have gotten, or at least, had to get in another manner.

This also makes one very flawed assumption: that being selfish is somehow bad. It's not. That's not to say altruism is bad, because it isn't, it helps the survival of the society, as well as the species as a whole. One cannot be selfless all the time, however. At least some self-interest is required for the continued survival of the individual.  Obviously, if all the individuals die, the society is dead too, and along with it, the species. So each person must look after themselves first, and others second.

Combining this concept with the knowledge that things go a whole lot easier if everyone cooperates, and you get the free market: Everyone puts out there what they want, and what they're willing to offer. When someone finds someone else who happens to be offering what they want, they enter into negotiations to get it, haggling until both people agree that the deal is acceptable. Since both people are better off than before, both have profited.

Both parties benefit, but one much more than the other, because one has more capitalist power than the other. If employees, tenants, and borrowers had an even playing field, they would own their workplaces, their homes, and wouldn't pay interest. But they do not, because capitalism reigns.

Could you please explain, exactly, how an employer gains more from his employee than his employee gains from him? (we'll stick to one example case, for clarity)

Employee spends eight hours building a widget. Employer pays employee 80 bitcoins (10 BTC/hour) and takes the widget. Employer sells the widget for 800 bitcoins. The employer hasn't added any work to the widget. It's the same as when he got it from the employee. The employer gets 720 bitcoins without having done any work. The employee concedes those 720 bitcoins and submits to his employer's direction because the employer will prevent him from working otherwise. Even if his former employer doesn't blacklist him, the worker will encounter the same deal with every other employer.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

The employer hasn't added any work to the widget.

That's nonsense, plain and simple. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

Sure, the employer may not have done any work directly to the widget, but they have provided a place to work with the necessary tools and quality control, as well as providing a steady source of work, regardless of if one particular product fails or succeeds. The employee is offering work in exchange for the above, realizing that while he could work on his own, the capital costs and potential for failure are greater.

[myrkul]

Allow me to address each of your assertions individually:

The employer hasn't added any work to the widget. It's the same as when he got it from the employee. The employer gets 720 bitcoins without having done any work.

No, it isn't. It's packaged, assembled into a group with other like widgets and then packaged, or compiled into a full device by adding other doodads and whatsits and widgets, and then packaged. It's changed in a myriad of ways, and each of those processes he had to either do himself, buy the machinery to do, or hire someone else to do. There is considerable further processing to be done after the initial production. Don't forget other costs, such as overhead on the factory itself, maintenance on the machines, marketing expenses, etc.

The employee concedes those 720 bitcoins and submits to his employer's direction because the employer will prevent him from working otherwise.

I think, perhaps, you ascribe too much power to the average Capitalist. The only people who have enough influence in a field to blacklist someone are the "captains of industry", the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, as it were. Nobody is going to care if you quit say, Trend Micro because they weren't paying you enough, Especially when you offer your talents to their competitor. Additionally, let me remind you that there are always those who do not listen to the "power elite", those willing to bypass Bill Gates saying not to hire him, if his skills are good enough.

Even if his former employer doesn't blacklist him, the worker will encounter the same deal with every other employer.

Not so. In the free market, there are options for every level of compensation. If his skills are not sufficient to warrant a higher rate of pay, then he is free to seek employment using a different set of skills, or apply those same skills on his own, fashioning widgets from his own raw materials, packaging and marketing them himself, and if his widgets are of a competitive quality with those of the company he left, he can charge a comparable price, gaining the profit for himself. Of Course, if he starts selling too many widgets, he may find that he can't keep up with production and have to hire an employee...

[FatherMcGruder]

That's nonsense, plain and simple. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

Sure, the employer may not have done any work directly to the widget, but they have provided a place to work with the necessary tools...

This is not work.

...and quality control...

This is work.

...as well as providing a steady source of work, regardless of if one particular product fails or succeeds.

This is not work. Furthermore, when the product fails, the employees lose their income.

To the extent that an employer does work, he deserves compensation. To the extent that he merely gives permission for others to work at his direction, he does not.

The employee is offering work in exchange for the above, realizing that while he could work on his own, the capital costs and potential for failure are greater.

The workers could work on their own were it not for the fact that capitalists withhold from them the equipment and resources to do so.

No, it isn't. It's packaged, assembled into a group with other like widgets and then packaged, or compiled into a full device by adding other doodads and whatsits and widgets, and then packaged. It's changed in a myriad of ways, and each of those processes he had to either do himself, buy the machinery to do, or hire someone else to do. There is considerable further processing to be done after the initial production. Don't forget other costs, such as overhead on the factory itself, maintenance on the machines, marketing expenses, etc.

See my response to TheKid.

I think, perhaps, you ascribe too much power to the average Capitalist. The only people who have enough influence in a field to blacklist someone are the "captains of industry", the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, as it were. Nobody is going to care if you quit say, Trend Micro because they weren't paying you enough, Especially when you offer your talents to their competitor. Additionally, let me remind you that there are always those who do not listen to the "power elite", those willing to bypass Bill Gates saying not to hire him, if his skills are good enough.

Employers never ask for references from potential hires?

Not so. In the free market, there are options for every level of compensation. If his skills are not sufficient to warrant a higher rate of pay, then he is free to seek employment using a different set of skills, or apply those same skills on his own, fashioning widgets from his own raw materials, packaging and marketing them himself, and if his widgets are of a competitive quality with those of the company he left, he can charge a comparable price, gaining the profit for himself.

What if capitalists control all the resources?

Of Course, if he starts selling too many widgets, he may find that he can't keep up with production and have to hire an employee...

Or, he could do the right thing and recruit someone as a partner.

[Anonymous]

Not so. In the free market, there are options for every level of compensation. If his skills are not sufficient to warrant a higher rate of pay, then he is free to seek employment using a different set of skills, or apply those same skills on his own, fashioning widgets from his own raw materials, packaging and marketing them himself, and if his widgets are of a competitive quality with those of the company he left, he can charge a comparable price, gaining the profit for himself.

What if capitalists control all the resources?

We have an entire universe full of them.

[error]

This ridiculous theory of "capitalist" "exploitation" has been debunked so many times by so many different people that I am starting to wonder what you're up to. Employers do no useful work?! Clearly you've never been an employer, and probably never even known one, or you would know this is completely untrue. Oh, and the value of something bears absolutely no relation to the amount of labor used to produce it; its value is wholly subjective. Once you understand this simple fact, the rest of your whole economic quackery falls apart.

[myrkul]

The workers could work on their own were it not for the fact that capitalists withhold from them the equipment and resources to do so.

Pardon? I don't recall any regulations or restrictions on buying industrial machinery, or raw materials, or any of the required equipment to do exactly the same thing he's doing for the employer on his own. Or are you suggesting that the employer make him a gift of the factory?

No, it isn't. It's packaged, assembled into a group with other like widgets and then packaged, or compiled into a full device by adding other doodads and whatsits and widgets, and then packaged. It's changed in a myriad of ways, and each of those processes he had to either do himself, buy the machinery to do, or hire someone else to do. There is considerable further processing to be done after the initial production. Don't forget other costs, such as overhead on the factory itself, maintenance on the machines, marketing expenses, etc.

See my response to TheKid.

Really? Expending resources (saved work from before) isn't the same as expending effort directly? Money is representative of value, regardless of how you define "value".

I think, perhaps, you ascribe too much power to the average Capitalist. The only people who have enough influence in a field to blacklist someone are the "captains of industry", the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, as it were. Nobody is going to care if you quit say, Trend Micro because they weren't paying you enough, Especially when you offer your talents to their competitor. Additionally, let me remind you that there are always those who do not listen to the "power elite", those willing to bypass Bill Gates saying not to hire him, if his skills are good enough.

Employers never ask for references from potential hires?

Of course they do. But a smart job-seeker uses people he didn't piss off as his references. As I said, there are always people who don't care what your prior employers say, they want your skills.

Not so. In the free market, there are options for every level of compensation. If his skills are not sufficient to warrant a higher rate of pay, then he is free to seek employment using a different set of skills, or apply those same skills on his own, fashioning widgets from his own raw materials, packaging and marketing them himself, and if his widgets are of a competitive quality with those of the company he left, he can charge a comparable price, gaining the profit for himself.

What if capitalists control all the resources?

Good! Then they will allocate them to the best uses, as those are the most profitable. You seem to be forgetting that a "Capitalist" isn't some big fat dude in an office, lighting his cigars with $100 bills. The worker who owns nothing more than his clothes and car is still a capitalist. He still seeks to offer his services at the best rate, and will seek that whenever possible.

Of Course, if he starts selling too many widgets, he may find that he can't keep up with production and have to hire an employee...

Or, he could do the right thing and recruit someone as a partner.

That's an option... If he could find someone who contributes equally. If the new hire is just running the drill press, there's no reason from him to profit from the marketing, and packaging, and, and, and, etc.

tl;dr: Welcome to the 21st Century. It's not 1840 anymore.

[gene]

FatherMcGruder, don't worry. Those of us who know anything about history know that what you are saying is correct. The rest of them, well... the propaganda of the American right works wonders on comfortable middle-class suburbia dwellers. They are the target of the "education," after all.

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories. It's called a co-operative, and it is a wonderfully democratic way to have an industrial society.

[Anonymous]

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.

>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.

[myrkul]

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.

>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.

Or the desire! Not everyone wants that much stress on a daily basis.

[LMGTFY]

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.

>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.

Or the desire! Not everyone wants that much stress on a daily basis.

The stress would be spread, however. I found being a sole-proprietor very stressful; bringing in a partner dramatically reduced that. If all the workforce were partners (like this UK department-store and supermarket chain) the stress of management would be spread much more thinly.

[Anonymous]

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.

>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.

Or the desire! Not everyone wants that much stress on a daily basis.

The stress would be spread, however. I found being a sole-proprietor very stressful; bringing in a partner dramatically reduced that. If all the workforce were partners (like this UK department-store and supermarket chain) the stress of management would be spread much more thinly.

However, most factory workers are factory workers because all they are good at is their specialized jobs. There shouldn't be an obligation for them to have a stake in the company. Why should John Doe be forced to have a role in management duties when all he wants to do is screw caps on tubes?

Sure, partnerships are fine and dandy but they should be voluntary.

[FatherMcGruder]

We have an entire universe full of them.

Which contributes to the present suckage of unemployment. You can't even go and grow your own food or build your own shelter without appeasing some capitalist for the right to use land that he owns but isn't using.

This ridiculous theory of "capitalist" "exploitation" has been debunked so many times by so many different people that I am starting to wonder what you're up to.

Debunked? At least one capitalist, or devil's advocate, in this thread has agreed with my association of the two terms, just not that it's a bad thing.

Employers do no useful work?! Clearly you've never been an employer, and probably never even known one, or you would know this is completely untrue.

Except for the fact that I am not presently an employer, I can assure you that you are wrong. I don't know how it affects my argument though.

Oh, and the value of something bears absolutely no relation to the amount of labor used to produce it; its value is wholly subjective. Once you understand this simple fact, the rest of your whole economic quackery falls apart.

So, workers should sell that which they produce at market prices. If they contribute their labor to a larger product, they deserve a proportional share of the sale price. That's what I'm advocating.

Pardon? I don't recall any regulations or restrictions on buying industrial machinery, or raw materials, or any of the required equipment to do exactly the same thing he's doing for the employer on his own. Or are you suggesting that the employer make him a gift of the factory?

Beyond the restrictions and regulations set forth by the state, capitalists will set their own the resources they control. The builder of the factory can gift it if he likes. I recommend that he sell it to a party that will actually use it.

Really? Expending resources (saved work from before) isn't the same as expending effort directly? Money is representative of value, regardless of how you define "value".

Right, and you can put your efforts towards exploiting others and gaining at their expense or not. For example, you can work to obtain a lock-picking set. With it, you can either use it to take other people's hard work or you can use it to do honest work as a locksmith.

Of course they do. But a smart job-seeker uses people he didn't piss off as his references. As I said, there are always people who don't care what your prior employers say, they want your skills.

Perhaps it isn't profitable for employers to be vindictive. However, it's profitable for employers to find obedient hires. A worker's reputation had better befit that requirement.

Good! Then they will allocate them to the best uses, as those are the most profitable.

Profitable use != best use. See slavery.

You seem to be forgetting that a "Capitalist" isn't some big fat dude in an office, lighting his cigars with $100 bills. The worker who owns nothing more than his clothes and car is still a capitalist. He still seeks to offer his services at the best rate, and will seek that whenever possible.

I find it rather sad that even union workers demand higher wages and greater benefits with no apparent regard for the fact that they deserve to own that which they produce.

That's an option... If he could find someone who contributes equally. If the new hire is just running the drill press, there's no reason from him to profit from the marketing, and packaging, and, and, and, etc.

The drill press operator still deserves his fair share of the final product.

tl;dr: Welcome to the 21st Century. It's not 1840 anymore.

People are still people. 171 years hasn't changed that.

FatherMcGruder, don't worry. Those of us who know anything about history know that what you are saying is correct. The rest of them, well... the propaganda of the American right works wonders on comfortable middle-class suburbia dwellers. They are the target of the "education," after all.

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories. It's called a co-operative, and it is a wonderfully democratic way to have an industrial society.

+1 However, the capitalist delusion affects all members of society.

>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.

The workers can delegate such duties to those most fit.

Or the desire! Not everyone wants that much stress on a daily basis.

A supporters of slavery used a similar argument against abolitionists. "Who says the slaves want to be free?"

[LMGTFY]

However, most factory workers are factory workers because all they are good at is their specialized jobs.

I think that's an overly pessimistic view of humanity: my experience is that most people have surprising capabilities when given the freedom to use them. Factory workers have lives outside work, in which they may run household budgets, manage local sports teams, volunteer for church fund-raising drives, etc. Few, if any, factory workers are mere drones, only able to focus on one task.

There shouldn't be an obligation for them to have a stake in the company. Why should John Doe be forced to have a role in management duties when all he wants to do is screw caps on tubes?

Sure, partnerships are fine and dandy but they should be voluntary.

I agree with this. If all someone wants to do is screw caps on tubes, that's all they should do!

[grondilu]

And yes, those who operate the factories should own the factories.

Let's assume they do.  Let's assume all the factory belongs to workers.

What happens if, for some reason, one of the workers wants to sell his share?  He may need some money in short term, he may just not be interested in taking part of the organisation of the factory.  For whatever reason, he has the right to sell his part of the factory, even to someone who doesn't work in this factory.  It's his concern.

What I mean is that giving a factory to workers would not change the system, it would just consist in stealing present owners to give to others.

[Anonymous]

We have an entire universe full of them.

Which contributes to the present suckage of unemployment. You can't even go and grow your own food or build your own shelter without appeasing some capitalist for the right to use land that he owns but isn't using.

We have unemployment because of a declining entrepreneurial spirit. The state thinks it can usurp the role of innovation through perversive subsidization. It's not in the capitalists best-interest to defend land he has no stake in unless he has the force to collect fees from all who inhabit it, aka government. There is little incentive to hoard and you can't really hoard what you can't defend.

Employers do no useful work?! Clearly you've never been an employer, and probably never even known one, or you would know this is completely untrue.

Except for the fact that I am not presently an employer, I can assure you that you are wrong. I don't know how it affects my argument though.

Oh, and the value of something bears absolutely no relation to the amount of labor used to produce it; its value is wholly subjective. Once you understand this simple fact, the rest of your whole economic quackery falls apart.

So, workers should sell that which they produce at market prices. If they contribute their labor to a larger product, they deserve a proportional share of the sale price. That's what I'm advocating.

They only deserve the pay they voluntarily agreed to.

>implying most factory workers have the skills necessary to manage a factory.

The workers can delegate such duties to those most fit.

...or they can do duties they voluntarily agree to.

[gene]

The talk of how workers really need to be told what to do is the height of arrogance. Like others stated before, this is the same argument used to justify slavery and many other despicable institutions "because they can't manage themselves."

It is strange how people act like the idea of worker-owned business is just some pipe dream. Examples of it exist this very day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

Here is one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Bauen

Maybe you should ask these people how they manage. There are some small shops in the US that are run this way. If only more abandoned factories in the midwest had been recuperated, perhaps the US would still have some industrial capacity. Of course, this sort of democratic structure is absolutely hated by those who control the majority of the productive capital. In fact, they would rather keep the empty factory and let it rot than sell it to those who would wish to set up some sort of cooperative (yes, this has happened). Why? Simple -- first, they don't play in any real market. The big guys want to capture and control the market - to distort it for their own purposes. Selling their capital to those who could use it to sustain an economy independently would "set a bad example." Second -- it is very important that they demonize democracy and keep the middle class fighting over scraps, like those of you who support the current status quo.

[Anonymous]

The talk of how workers really need to be told what to do is the height of arrogance. Like others stated before, this is the same argument used to justify slavery and many other despicable institutions "because they can't manage themselves."

It is strange how people act like the idea of worker-owned business is just some pipe dream. Examples of it exist this very day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

Here is one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Bauen

Maybe you should ask these people how they manage. There are some small shops in the US that are run this way. If only more abandoned factories in the midwest had been recuperated, perhaps the US would still have some industrial capacity. Of course, this sort of democratic structure is absolutely hated by those who control the majority of the productive capital. In fact, they would rather keep the empty factory and let it rot than sell it to those who would wish to set up some sort of cooperative (yes, this has happened). Why? Simple -- first, they don't play in any real market. The big guys want to capture and control the market - to distort it for their own purposes. Selling their capital to those who could use it to sustain an economy independently would "set a bad example." Second -- it is very important that they demonize democracy and keep the middle class fighting over scraps, like those of you who support the current status quo.

I have nothing against partnerships. I am only against forced and government-subsidized partnerships.

[myrkul]

Warning! Wall of text imminent!

Sure, partnerships are fine and dandy but they should be voluntary.

Exactly. And that's the advantage Market Anarchy has over the other types, imo: It can encompass, within its philosophy, acceptance of the practices of the others: An overall Market Anarchy would tolerate having enclaves of Mutualists, while an overall Mutualism would not tolerate, but would inevitably suffer, enclaves of Market Anarchy.

Which contributes to the present suckage of unemployment. You can't even go and grow your own food or build your own shelter without appeasing some capitalist for the right to use land that he owns but isn't using.

You could always... I donno... what's the word... oh yeah: Buy. You could always go and buy the land you want to use. Of course, that's a larger upfront cost, but you save on overhead.

Debunked? At least one capitalist, or devil's advocate, in this thread has agreed with my association of the two terms, just not that it's a bad thing.

Tell you what... When you can take care of everyone else who asks you, and still manage to feed yourself, I'll sign up for the Proudhoun Kool-aid. Until then, you are still a selfish being, and that's a good thing, because it means you can eat.

Except for the fact that I am not presently an employer, I can assure you that you are wrong. I don't know how it affects my argument though.

Thus re-enforcing my conception that anyone who says "Stop people from doing X!" is really saying: "Please stop me from doing X!" As an employer, did you stick to your convictions, or did you "exploit" your workers?

So, workers should sell that which they produce at market prices.

They are. Market price is what they can get for it. Since what they can get for their labor is (in the example provided) 10 BTC/hr, That's the market price.

Beyond the restrictions and regulations set forth by the state, capitalists will set their own the resources they control. The builder of the factory can gift it if he likes. I recommend that he sell it to a party that will actually use it.

He is using it. He goes in every day, probably. He has an office there, from which he does his work. Some of that work is delegating other work.

Right, and you can put your efforts towards exploiting others and gaining at their expense or not. For example, you can work to obtain a lock-picking set. With it, you can either use it to take other people's hard work or you can use it to do honest work as a locksmith.

Apples and Oranges are both fruit. That doesn't make a tangerine the same as a Granny smith. In other words, Picking other peoples locks to steal their stuff is not the same as employing people.

Perhaps it isn't profitable for employers to be vindictive. However, it's profitable for employers to find obedient hires. A worker's reputation had better befit that requirement.

Indeed. It also behooves a company to pay its workers enough to keep them.

Profitable use != best use. See slavery.

Slavery was not the most profitable way of doing things, mechanization was. That's why slavery was slowly losing out to mechanization. Had the civil war not occurred, slavery would still have ended, with some estimates placing it within just a few years.

I find it rather sad that even union workers demand higher wages and greater benefits with no apparent regard for the fact that they deserve to own that which they produce.

I find it sad that Union workers demand higher wages and greater benefits with no apparent regard for the fact that they are sucking the company dry. So I guess that's one thing we have in common.

The drill press operator still deserves his fair share of the final product.

And he's getting it. If he does not like the wages offered, he can seek employment elsewhere, or seek a raise. If his skills are sufficiently valuable, he will get it.

tl;dr: Welcome to the 21st Century. It's not 1840 anymore.

People are still people. 171 years hasn't changed that.

No, But I'd like to think we've learned a few things since then.

The workers can delegate such duties to those most fit.

Which they are doing, by working for them, as opposed to attempting to go solo.

A supporters of slavery used a similar argument against abolitionists. "Who says the slaves want to be free?"

I'd say the running away is a pretty clear indication... Don't see a bunch of factory workers throwing down their tools and demanding ownership of the company.