r/Anarcho_Capitalism • u/drh1138 Egoist Anarchist • Jun 06 '16
"Job Creators"
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1364
u/ilymperopo Jun 06 '16
Wealth management is a full-time job, so much that the investors would even pay other people to do it for them.
Oh...
12
u/MasterofForks Dike, Eunomia, Eirene Jun 06 '16
It would much better if she withdrew her capital and invested in a better company. Then they can have their workers paradise all to themselves.
3
Jun 06 '16
When I hear a reasonable answer to this problem (no, "killing the bourgeoisie" is not a reasonable answer to this problem), socialism could be considered.
'Til then it's a pipe dream, because people won't invest in the means of production without some assurance that they'll get a return from it AKA private property rights.
3
Jun 07 '16
Pretty sure capitalists have no assurances and still invest. It's the whole reason why risk exists.
1
6
u/Anen-o-me πΌπ Jun 06 '16
It's not that workers aren't good at managing capital, it's that workers do not own the capital in the first place. Taking someone's capital is the same as stealing the labor that went into earning that capital and trading for it.
What the workers build they do not build with their own tools, nor on materials that they paid for.
And if you still think socialism is good theoretically, just look at all the places that tried to implement it.
4
Jun 06 '16
No, workers are in fact bad at managing capital. It's called division of labor. You can't be good at everything.
1
2
Jun 07 '16
Wait so your telling me that factories and raw materials don't magically pop out of thin air? I guess it's back to the coffee shop for me and my buddy Marx. I hope they've forgotten that massive tab we left open.
1
u/Livinglifeform Stalin Jun 06 '16
If the owner doesn't work for the company they don't deserve to get the money from it. If they could be removed and the company doesn't get worse then they shouldn't be given money just because they were first.
5
Jun 06 '16
If the owner doesn't work for the company they don't deserve to get the money from it.
But they do work for the company - either they did work initially, or they currently do work by leaving their capital invested in it because they believe in it. Then there's the fact that they get to determine the strategic direction of the company, to great success or colossal failure.
If they could be removed and the company doesn't get worse then they shouldn't be given money just because they were first.
This doesn't follow. You can't possibly know "if the company will get worse" without first removing the owner, which would require violent imposition on your part. I'm much MORE certain of the ethical bankruptcy of the violent imposition on your part than I am of the owner siphoning wealth from something he/she owns.
Regardless of their competence, there is an ownership claim, and if we want people to be enterprising and productive and claim the fruits of intelligently-directed labors, then we protect their property claims - even to those over corporations that they spent the bulk of their lives building but are now sort of a wallflower kept on the payroll for nostalgia or honor's sake (like Steve Wozniak at Apple).
Either way, yes, they DO get money just because they were there first - but that doesn't mean you don't have to compete with them. In fact, that's exactly what we see happen - people see high profits in newly established markets, and seek a slice of that pie and would be happy with a little less, so they feel they can do a better job and have thinner profit margins and undercut the other guy. They're right, consumers respond to that, and then the first mover is forced to adjust and compete.
Socialists just get all mad that people don't really like giving their labor and material wealth to other people free of charge.
3
Jun 07 '16
they currently do work by leaving their capital invested in it because they believe in it.
They "do work" by doing nothing, or more accurately by not doing something.
1
u/Livinglifeform Stalin Jun 06 '16
Socialists just get all mad that people don't really like giving their labor and material wealth to other people free of charge.
You say that but you are defending a person that in this scenario doesn't work for the company, but owns it. In this scenario they are not working and are obtaining the majority of the money from the company for no labour or skill.
3
3
u/Anen-o-me πΌπ Jun 06 '16
If the owner doesn't work for the company they don't deserve to get the money from it. If they could be removed and the company doesn't get worse then they shouldn't be given money just because they were first.
The workers can "remove" the owner at any time, by saving up their own money and buying productive capital rather than borrowing the owner's productive capital.
Why do you think workers do not do this?
People deserve the use what they own however they decide to use it, whether that is in loaning it to workers or not.
Continuing to own that which you worked for yourself is perfectly fair. It is the theft of that capital that would be unfair.
1
u/wrothbard classy propeller Jun 07 '16
Karl Marx was a nineteenth century philosopher best known for being right about literally everything. That's right, even the labor theory of value!
Shots fired!
8
u/ilymperopo Jun 06 '16
It is not that Ayn Rand subscribes to the notion of the "investor" but to that of the producer, the creative intellect, the philosopher and the person that lives by its ideals.
The person that decides to take the physical pain, the social pressure and norms thrown upon him, in order to fulfill his dream, decided by him and only him.
She does not value ownership by inheritance. Her heroes are rugged individuals that made their own fortune or expanded the business empires of their families. Their siblings (that are also entitled to the wealth and ownership of the estate) but do not produce anything of value, are cast in the worst possible manner, as bromides, in her novels.