(ABANDONED) The Economic Democracy Act

[Baptovia]

No Way! Ideally biased against free enterprise and free countries.

[Separatist Peoples]

Workers are paid to work...and they can buy shares in a company, but they still have very limited power and definately do not have a participatory relationship...

They do if they own shares in the company. And so what if they don't? If they want to be in control, they can start their own business. That is how free enterprise works.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Workers are paid to work...and they can buy shares in a company, but they still have very limited power and definately do not have a participatory relationship...

Can't workers start their own goddamn businesses, if they are so fed up with "being bossed around" and thirsty for "power"?



This smacks of Fluffyland "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" Your concept of redistribution (of wealth and power) ultimately means that in the long run everybody will be equal: equal in misery and equal in powerlessness.

Anathema est!

[Cerberion]

Workers are paid to work...and they can buy shares in a company, but they still have very limited power and definately do not have a participatory relationship...

They do if they buy as many shares as the major shareholder.

[The Grand Network]

If workers want power, they can earn it like the people who already have it. That's how capitalism works. Social Darwinism my friend. If you work hard for power, you might just climb the ladder and get power.

[Flibbleites]

How? If workers have the right to make decisions on how their industries are run then they will be more likely to work because they see that they actually have power and arent being bossed around by their bosses...they are working in a participatory format with their bosses. This doesnt mean workers can just do anything with their business...they are of course still limited by veto power...

To be honest, if I was a worker who was suddenly thrust into a position where my decisions could drastically affect the company like what you're proposing, I'd be scared as hell to use it for fear of making a wrong decision which causes the company to go out of business thereby costing myself and all my coworkers our jobs. As far as I'm concerned let the employees do the jobs they were hired for, let the unskilled workers do the unskilled work, let the managers manage, let the CEOs CEO, etc.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Moronist Decisions]

Micromanagement, and smacks of ideological ban. Opposed.
Joe Smyslow
Charges d'Affaires ad Interim

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

I am not giving total and unrestricted power to workers...I dont understand how you all think that in your "perfect" economies that through "social darwinism" most people can somehow reach the top of the economic ladder...that's not logical and it is called by many people (even capitalists) "market fundementalism"...the market isnt perfect and nice to those who work hard...wonder why we have social programs, unions, and other institutions to help the working class? Working hard isnt a sure fire way to succeed. If it was, places in the real world like Hong Kong, Chile, and Somalia (nations with loose or no labor laws) would be beautiful paradises where hard workers succeed (NOT!)...in these countries high inequality, high prices, high violence, oligarchy, and limited economic competition, and no way to empower workers to succeed have left the hard workers (many of them) helpless and powerless...same thing goes in nation states...the market cant be protected if you leave it to kill itself through no limits...

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Look at it this way...its like a flower. The market is a flower. If you leave the flower alone and dont give it water (programs and help to make the market better) then it dies...you all ARE KILLING enterprise and freedom by allowing it to destroy itself...

[Vocatus]

We have no problem with regulation or protection of workers. If anything, we strive on regulation. If one of our business owners so much as sneezes, a government auditor will be there with a hanky and a search warrant.

Nor do we have a problem with unions, or any other organizations or regulations designed to protect the rights of the workers, such as the right to adequate compensation, the right to a safe working environment, or numerous other rights of which the right to run the business you work in is not one.

We reiterate: Workers sell their labor. People who run the business buy it. As long as government-imposed regulations are satisfied, that is the end of the relationship.

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

So really you believe as long as workers have some rights it is fine...but the actual right to control their own economic structures...is wrong...its like saying we'll regulate slavery, but we won't abolish it. It's like copping out...being a little pro-democracy, but not all the way...

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

And I think you probably support more state control than you do worker-control (the hanky comment). Are you a state-socialist?

[Separatist Peoples]

Look at it this way...its like a flower. The market is a flower. If you leave the flower alone and dont give it water (programs and help to make the market better) then it dies...you all ARE KILLING enterprise and freedom by allowing it to destroy itself...

And we would rather the flower die from not being cared from through natural processes then kill it by smothering it and over-caring for it.

Also, flowers do just fine when left alone, and have for much longer then humans have been around.

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Im not over-caring for it...Im watering it just fine...so you are willing to sacrify the market (which u support) to "natural causes" ?...then you really arent "free market" at all...

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

We can make flowers better by giving them fertilizer and water...not letting them grow on their own...which generally ends up in failure..

[Separatist Peoples]

So really you believe as long as workers have some rights it is fine...but the actual right to control their own economic structures...is wrong...its like saying we'll regulate slavery, but we won't abolish it. It's like copping out...being a little pro-democracy, but not all the way...

ACTUALLY, many nations did exactly that. The US is one, but I get the feeling you don't really like the US, so I'll go ahead and say...um...Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, all of them at one point 'regulated' slavery and didn't abolish it. For quite some time, too, for most of them.

It isn't copping out to give workers some rights without giving them total control. Its a fair balance, especially since the business literally belongs to the owner, not the workers. If a business owner wants to crash their own company into the ground, they shouldn't have to justify the practice, considering it's their company.

[Vocatus]

So really you believe as long as workers have some rights it is fine...but the actual right to control their own economic structures...is wrong...its like saying we'll regulate slavery, but we won't abolish it. It's like copping out...being a little pro-democracy, but not all the way...

The right to direct economic structures belongs with those who own the economic structures. Any worker who feels the need to control the direction of a business can simply buy part of the business, thus acquiring some control over it.

We just don't see why you believe that working at a business should allow one to control how that business is run. Could you explain it in precise terms, without resorting to platitudes or broad ideological statements? What is the foundation for this supposed right?

And I think you probably support more state control than you do worker-control (the hanky comment). Are you a state-socialist?

Not precisely. The government of Vocatus tends not to control any businesses directly, but there is a whole slew of regulation created to protect the actual rights of workers and consumers both.

But you're right, we are very much against worker control. Unless the workers actually pay to purchase the means of production, in which case it's fine.

[Separatist Peoples]

We can make flowers better by giving them fertilizer and water...not letting them grow on their own...which generally ends up in failure..

We can, but I believe we can all agree that flowers, which have existed for millions of years, have done just fine growing on their own. Without human assistance. In fact, you can see wonderful examples of this in the following places: Rainforests, Mountainsides, Fields, Forests, hell, even Deserts! And I'd say that you analogy still holds true. Flowers (market systems) have existed with relatively little human interference for thousands of years. The fact that we are here today attests that, with little husbandry, the markets survived just fine.

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Well Seperatist Peoples the workers contribute to the business so they should have a(regulated) say in the business (which they currently dont)...and by the way I love the United States...I live here...I dont quite like our economic structure, but I do like that we have freedoms and that we produce great people. And think of how much better flowers (markets) could have been if there was somebody there to help them.

[Vocatus]

Well Seperatist Peoples the workers contribute to the business so they should have a(regulated) say in the business (which they currently dont)

Let us offer you an example:

Let's say someone owns an apple cider press. In order to operate this press he must buy apples from a farmer and hire someone to work the press.

The farmer is selling apples to the press owner. He has the right to be compensated for his apples. He has no say in how the press is run.

The worker is selling hours of operating the press to the owner. He has the right to be compensated for his labor. he has no say in how the press is run.

The situations are identical, yes?

[Separatist Peoples]

Well Seperatist Peoples the workers contribute to the business so they should have a(regulated) say in the business (which they currently dont)...and by the way I love the United States...I live here...I dont quite like our economic structure, but I do like that we have freedoms and that we produce great people. And think of how much better flowers (markets) could have been if there was somebody there to help them.

When people interfere with the flower gardens, too many would be over-fertilized, or accidentally trampled while others were being tended to, or forget to be watered, or overwatered, or killed while attempting to remove the weeds. No, the flowers would not do better with a caretaker, except in rare circumstances. I believe, and this is a deeply held personal belief, that there is absolutely no better caretaker then nature, and that people should not interfere with Her mechanisms. People are arrogant to believe that they know better then Nature does when it comes to life. That belief can still be attributed to our now extended metaphor.

And workers contribute because they are paid. If they want to forgo their pay in lieu of power, I suppose that then you could argue that they have a right to be a part of the business, but for the most part, workers work to be paid, not to make a business a better place. And they are paid. And there are systems in place to make sure it is done fairly. I don't see how this could be any more fair then it currently is.

And for God's sake, man, its spelled Separatist. S E P A R A T I S T. Not Seperatist... Sorry, but spelling is a pet peeve of mine...especially when my nation's name is right there.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well Seperatist Peoples the workers contribute to the business so they should have a(regulated) say in the business (which they currently dont)

Let us offer you an example:

Let's say someone owns an apple cider press. In order to operate this press he must buy apples from a farmer and hire someone to work the press.

The farmer is selling apples to the press owner. He has the right to be compensated for his apples. He has no say in how the press is run.

The worker is selling hours of operating the press to the owner. He has the right to be compensated for his labor. he has no say in how the press is run.

The situations are identical, yes?

This. And might I commend the delegate from Vocatus on helping maintain the "earthy" metaphors? I can almost smell fresh earth and rain.

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

No they arent...the farmer is seperate from the apple cider business...the workers are a part of it. They both get compensated, but their place in the means of production relative to one another are quite different.

[Separatist Peoples]

No they arent...the farmer is seperate from the apple cider business...the workers are a part of it. They both get compensated, but their place in the means of production relative to one another are quite different.

But the person operating the press that the farmer has hired to operate the press does no get a say as to where the apple juice gets sold, at what price it is sold, or even if the juice is sold for bad reasons. He is paid for his work. That is the end of the relationship.

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Hey...ive got an example...a citizen pays taxes to the gov., he then has a say in how his dollars are spent through reps...worker sells labor to business...he gets to decide through reps what affects his labor...similar principles. No it doesnt end there...the worker is a part of the business...not some mean to an ends.