"Labour, like all other things which are purchased and sold, and which may be increased or diminished in quantity, has its natural price [sic] and its market price. The natural price of labour is that price which is necessary to enable the labourers, one with another, to subsist and perpetuate their race, without either increase or dimunution."
The iron law of wages is one of the fundamental propositions underlying the traditions of classical liberalism, libertarianism, and conservatism. It is merely a economic prescription, however, because it ignores the existence of trade unions, guilds, rebellion, and revolution. It is hypocritical, because it is predicated on the assumption that government will be controlled by the rich, and that the rich will try and pass LAWS that outlaw labour's ability to combine to increase their bargaining strength. This has happened in the past and is well documented. If so, the so-called "Iron Law of Wages" is not an objective statement on the nature of wages, but a subjective statement of intent of Ricardo's class.
4 comments:
This is why we should not live within a society of laws, but a society of rights. Laws are the majority or the wealthy dictating to the minority or the poor how to live. Rights serve to protect individual free will and only violations of individual rights should be prosecuted. Laws are written by dictators.
Who protects the rights? The rich. Your reasoning is flawed. Rights are merely highly respected laws. All the rights in the constitution were written by people.
The government protects the rights, and government officials were never meant to be the rich.
The problem is, eventually, people start manipulating the text of their own law, and governments grow too large. The rich corrupt officials because the officials are given the ability to write new LAWS. The people within government decide they will do what they want, and their rich supporters want, regardless of what the people want.
Eventually, society will revolt against their parasitic abusive government. The question we must ask is what kind of government we will want after the revolt.
Do we want to only move back half way through cycle and give our government a new mandate to do what it likes as long as it thinks its right, until we end up in the same situation we're heading now (at least here in the west)? Or do we want to move as far away as possible from a large, abusive government, as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson fought to do?
Is the greater good really what society should be based around when I know society will go through these cycles again and again after my passing anyway?
Wouldn't a society pushing self-dependence and individual liberty at least serve more purpose to an individual during his/her life?
There will never be a government that has the ANSWER. The perfect formula of socialism and individual liberty will never exist because power corrupts.
60 years is a drop of water in the waterfall that is human history.
So if we know government will continue to cycle through each other for all eternity, whats the point? Whats the point of sacrificing 30% of my wages to a state that is doomed to fail anyway? Why not live and let live, or at least push to be as close to that as possible? We're all dead in the end anyway, you mise well fight to live your life the way you want to.
The government protects the rights, and government officials were never meant to be the rich.
The rich men pay the politicians money. It has nothing to do with how much officials are paid.
The problem is, eventually, people start manipulating the text of their own law,
If the people become apolitical and lazy.
The rich corrupt officials because the officials are given the ability to write new LAWS. The people within government decide they will do what they want, and their rich supporters want, regardless of what the people want.
It might be benefical to eliminate the legilature, but then the constitution and bill of rights would not be able to applied in relation to changes in events.
Moreover,you are assuming that the officals who protect the bill of rights are uncorruptable. They are not. Currently, the rich just pay off the politicians, because that's enough. If it weren't enough, then I would see no reason why they wouldn't pay off the officials who would protect the constitution and bill of rights.
Eventually, society will revolt against their parasitic abusive government. The question we must ask is what kind of government we will want after the revolt.
Will they?
Do we want to only move back half way through cycle and give our government a new mandate to do what it likes as long as it thinks its right, until we end up in the same situation we're heading now (at least here in the west)? Or do we want to move as far away as possible from a large, abusive government, as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson fought to do?
Again, I disagree that bigger is worse. Small democracies can definitely become corrupt, and definitely have: think ancient Greece.
Is the greater good really what society should be based around when I know society will go through these cycles again and again after my passing anyway?
Yes. I would think that the greater good would also be important in a smaller republic.
Wouldn't a society pushing self-dependence and individual liberty at least serve more purpose to an individual during his/her life?
I don't see the current social framework really affecting independence or the benefits of independence. Wages are high, investment is high, and innovation the highest it has ever been.
There will never be a government that has the ANSWER. The perfect formula of socialism and individual liberty will never exist because power corrupts.
Gonna hold you to this statement.
60 years is a drop of water in the waterfall that is human history.
Yes, but a huge drop in the history of capitalism and republicanism.
So if we know government will continue to cycle through each other for all eternity, whats the point?
How do you know that? Are you Nostradamus?
I see no reason to think that it will cycle on forever. You are merely making an assumption.
Whats the point of sacrificing 30% of my wages to a state that is doomed to fail anyway? Why not live and let live, or at least push to be as close to that as possible? We're all dead in the end anyway, you mise well fight to live your life the way you want to.
Sounds like you have caught the same bug that causes corruption:
Greed and a lust for power. Your philosophy is as corrupt as the men and women you are battling against. Nice contradiction, eh?
Post a Comment