trc (04/23/83)
Response to Guy Harris: Non-trivial situations are those in which the company feels it has a lot to gain by coercion. This will almost always involve large numbers of employees, or set a precedent that threatens them. Thus, my second comment on the forming of unions answers the question "What about non-trivial situations?" Your comment about the truly coercive actions in the 30's is true, but has doesnt contradict my stance, which is that there is no such animal as economic coercion. I believe that a just legal system is not impossible or impractical. We have come fairly close in the US, by originally setting ourselves up as a republic - a government of laws, not just of Man. This concept has been more or less adhered to, though of late judges seem to be taking a lot on themselves. It is not necessary to live in the best of all possible worlds in order to get a just legal system. In fact there would be no need for a legal system in such a world! I dont think that a system has to always come to the absolutely correct decision in order to be just - it merely has to make the correct decision based upon the evidence available. And as to the difficulty of arriving at a world in which a just legal system is possible, it is generally true that people get just about the type of system that they deserve, in the long run. If they are strong and demand their rights boldly, they will get a just system. If they are weak and demand that the system protect them, they will get a system that takes over their lives. We seem to be getting the latter now. Tom Craver houti!trc
soreff (04/23/83)
There can be situations where a non-trivial goal of a company can be achieved by coercing a small number of employees. Suppose that the company wishes to surpress some information, on hazardous products or working conditions, for example. If only a few employees have the information, then coercing those few may suffice to surpress the information. -Jeffrey Soreff (hplabs!soreff)
courtney (05/10/83)
#R:houti:-26200:hp-pcd:17400022:000:1840
hp-pcd!courtney May 9 13:10:00 1983
Tom Craver says:
"There is no such animal as economic coercion."
What do you call it:
-when one would be willing to grow one's own food, or provide for one's
own needs... but to do so would require access to land... but to have
access to land, one needs MONEY to pay the rent or BUY it and pay TAXES
for it. This FORCES (coerces) one to acquire money by getting a job.
When jobs are limited (as they almost always are), the employers can
coerce individuals to do labor which is worth more than their
compensation ("surplus value"). Nobody CHOOSES to do work for
compensation which it less than the value of their efforts, they are
COERCED to do so.
-when the land of a country is owned by a small minority, who choose to
grow BANANAS and SUGAR and other crops for EXPORT to rich countries.
As a result, there is no longer enough land available for the people of
that country to grow enough food to FEED THEMSELVES. They must then
BUY their staple foods from OTHER COUNTRIES. To do so, they must have
CASH to buy their food, *COERCING* them to find a job... the only jobs
available are the jobs offered by multi-national investors, who pay
BELOW POVERTY WAGES, exploiting profit from the huge surplus value of
the people's labor and land.
-when there exists an unregulated MONOPOLY of essential goods (that is
why the US regulates "public utilities").
Tom Craver says:
"if they [the people of a country] are strong and demand their rights
boldly, they will get a just system."
Is that why the people of EL SALVADOR and CHILE and IRAN and AFGHANISTAN
and POLAND...
Is that why those STRONG and BOLD people who DEMANDED THEIR RIGHTS
are now living in such JUST SOCIETIES?
Courtney Loomis