Bernie Sanders, champion of the downtrodden

Tom_Reingold said:

It can't be voluntary. How old are you that you haven't noticed that we have to have laws? Your trepidation is well placed because the history of the human race surely has seen some bad laws. The antidotes to bad laws are activism and good laws, not the dismantlement and categorical distrust of all government at all times. I don't know what your ideal society is, but it doesn't seem to be modeled after anything tried and proven. Prove me wrong if you like.

Why can't collective action be voluntary.  There is voluntary collective action all the time.  What does my age have to do with anything? 

My trepidation is well founded. You, me, everyone. We get one go around. Then we rot in a box.  While I'd agree that we need laws, we only need the laws necessary to protect our natural rights.  Any law that does more than that is a bad law.  

Any law that requires me to act in some way to either provide someone else with a service, fight someone else, deny my right to any activity or substance that hurts nobody but myself is a bad law.  

I collectively act all the time.  My company has charity events and I'm at everyone. This comes without coercion.  We, as a team go make sandwiches for poor kids or we put packages together for poor moms.  Nobody makes us do this stuff. Yet, we act collectively.

Tom_Reingold said:

Your company issues edicts. That is, in theory, no more dysfunctional than e government having rules and laws.

No.  My company is there to make $$.  I am there to trade my labor with them for $$.  The reason I show up to work everyday is because I value the $$ I make there more than I value the time and labor I spend there.  They employ me because they value my work more than it costs to employ me.  

The second either party does not feel the arrangement is a good trade this agreement can be severed.  If my company was to "issue an edict" that I don't like, I am free to end my employment with that company.  This is way less problematic than an overreaching government. 

Interesting to bring up a private company as an example of voluntary action. Sure, people who work together overall choose to be cooperative -- but what happens if someone isn't? What if they stubbornly refuse? Ultimately, the can (and probably will) be fired, won't they? If you already have a better offer lined up, maybe that's no big deal,but if not, losing your job can at minimum be unpleasant, and at worst be a serious financial (and hence material) blow to your livelihood. So there is some implied threat encouraging all this voluntary cooperation.

Now, I don't think this negates the idea that people choose to cooperate at work, any more than the distant threat of jail negates the idea that people choose to cooperate in a country. It's interesting to me that you draw a distinction, though. When I noted that people are free to NOT choose the United States, you noted that while it's certainly possible to emigrate and renounce one's citizenship, it's not easy. You also pointed out that there's a tax, which I did not know about, and which I believe should be abolished.

Tax aside, though, why should difficulty matter? There's no natural right to labor free of laboriousness, so far as I know. And what, exactly, is difficult about it? I would have said ties to friends and family, but I don't think someone who claims society is "just a bunch of individuals" can make that appeal.

PVW said:

Interesting to bring up a private company as an example of voluntary action. Sure, people who work together overall choose to be cooperative -- but what happens if someone isn't? What if they stubbornly refuse? Ultimately, the can (and probably will) be fired, won't they? If you already have a better offer lined up, maybe that's no big deal,but if not, losing your job can at minimum be unpleasant, and at worst be a serious financial (and hence material) blow to your livelihood. So there is some implied threat encouraging all this voluntary cooperation.

First, I didn't bring up a  private company @Tom_Reingold did. It's a good to compare and contrast the various spheres of society.  Don't you think?

And its true.  One can get fired from work if they don't comply with the workplace rules.  Generally speaking, nobody comes with guns to put you in a cage if you don't comply like another sphere that I won't mention here.  

You have no right to your job.  You have an agreement with your employer.  Each party should be able to sever the agreement when it no longer works for them.  As unpleasant as that might be for either side.  

PVW said:


Now, I don't think this negates the idea that people choose to cooperate at work, any more than the distant threat of jail negates the idea that people choose to cooperate in a country. It's interesting to me that you draw a distinction, though. When I noted that people are free to NOT choose the United States, you noted that while it's certainly possible to emigrate and renounce one's citizenship, it's not easy. You also pointed out that there's a tax, which I did not know about, and which I believe should be abolished.

The distant threat of jail?  Define distant.  That's awfully big of you.  You don't like the thousands of ill conceived and sometimes vague laws and regulations no reasonable person could grasp?  Well then get out!  Amerikuh, Love it or leave it!

PVW said:

Tax aside, though, why should difficulty matter? There's no natural right to labor free of laboriousness, so far as I know. And what, exactly, is difficult about it? I would have said ties to friends and family, but I don't think someone who claims society is "just a bunch of individuals" can make that appeal.

I don't really understand this.  You argument is that it is OK for America to violate your rights because if you just pay a tax and part of the wealth you've accumulated you get to flee?  That is a really really bad argument. 

Anyhoo.  Still waiting to hear by what authority the Government gets to take some of my labor.  Not one answer.  Much of this thread is distinctly about not answering that question.  Pretty interesting...

Takata air bags are causing problems because they used a volatile substance that explodes spontaneously upon prolonged exposure to humidity. GM decided to use Takata's airbags instead of Autoliv's airbags because Takata's are cheaper. GM knew the cheaper airbags had a greater risk of causing unintentional deaths, but they went ahead anyway.

Citation, NY Times

The government may fine GM, or they may impose standards on how airbags are made. They may even set a maximum risk of death from such devices.

This is an example of hundreds more where government regulation does something that the free market could never do. As a consumer, I can't research these things, and the information I need is not accessible, nor is it comprehensible to the average person, nor does the average person have the time to investigate all the products in his/her life. The free market does not take care of this magically. We can't know everything about everything at all times in order to make informed decisions. This kind of protection is worth some money.

Your arguments are based on an ideal of society that has never been produced or tested. I don't have time to go into it, but I think a decent, well-argued challenge is contained in the Reich book I have cited. If you come away disagreeing with Reich, you will at least have a well-reasoned rationale, and I'd love to hear it.