But Now You Know

The search for truth in human action

The Workers’ Rights Manifesto


Ideas | Truth vs Myth | Your Rights | Learn from History

Philosophy of Liberty | Worker’s Rights | Get Out of Jury Duty | Is Conscription Slavery?

anarcho-capitalist-workerYou and I, as a workers, have certain rights that are naturally ours, and that nobody should be allowed to violate. These rights are choices we are free to make, unless the powerful try to steal them.

  1. The right to work for the amount we choose.

    What we earn should be a matter between ourselves and our employers, not something controlled or approved by some government, union boss, or other busy-body.

  2. The right to work for whom we choose.

    Where we work should be a matter of which job offer we accept, not controlled by some law or union rule saying that we are the wrong race, or sex, or what someone with our amount of experience is allowed to do.

  3. The right to keep the product of our labor, and do with it as we choose.

    The product of our labour is the amount we agree to sell our services to an employer for. It is ours by right, and any authority who takes it from us for their own purposes is wrong, be it taxes or union dues. Having earned it, we have a right to keep it even if we change its form, by buying something with it or willing it to our heirs.

  4. The right to decide how we work.

    What if we don’t want three weeks off, but would like a little extra pay, instead? What if we want to buy health insurance with a huge deductible for two hundred bucks a year, instead of paying two hundred bucks per month for full insurance, because we have a lot saved up in the bank in case we get sick? Nobody should be able to bully us, with tax “incentives”, regulations, or collective bargaining contracts, into taking a generic benefits package that has stuff we don’t need, instead of the money or benefits I would prefer.

  5. The right to work the way we choose.

    We have a right to decide what is “safe”, for ourselves, instead of being locked into some instantly-outdated and rigid “standard”. We likewise have the right to decide what way to do things, and again not be shackled by red tape and rules invented by some bureaucracy.

  6. The right to become owners / management, and be proud of it.

    If we work hard, and make the sacrifice of saving our rightful income (product of labor), or work in our own time to create a great new idea, we have a right to invest it to create new wealth, becoming an owner, and not be punished for it, or looked down upon as something other than a worker.

Philosophy of Liberty | Worker’s Rights | Get Out of Jury Duty | Is Conscription Slavery?

12 Comments »

  1. […] by those Democrats, from collective bargaining and strikes. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed that a union is a monopoly, over both the workers and employer, that strikes withhold services from legitimately customers, arbitrarily, in order to extort more […]

    Pingback by Government Workers Who Strike, Violate the Public Trust « But Now You Know | December 5, 2011 | Reply

  2. […] role, and of their potential to move beyond their basic position. They have a right to the ambition of moving up into a less disposable role…but to pretend they are the “means of production” is […]

    Pingback by The True Means of Production « Pithy Pontifications | July 13, 2010 | Reply

  3. capitalism is coercive, it doesn’t matter if it is state, anarchist or even if someone calls it free market; it’s a work or starve system noneless.

    Comment by 9r33n | November 2, 2009 | Reply

    • Nonsense.

      Socialist governments can demand that you pay taxes on your own land, forcing you to work instead of subsisting through growing your own garden.

      In capitalism — which must always include a free market — you are free to simply live for yourself, if you prefer.

      You need only trade, to the extent you want to benefit from the efforts of others.

      Comment by kazvorpal | November 2, 2009 | Reply

  4. […] other words, I’d rather protect my right to earn pay based on what I’m worth, not my seniority, and not be given useless token […]

    Pingback by Why Workers Dislike Unions « But Now You Know | September 7, 2009 | Reply

  5. […] The Workers’ Rights Manifesto […]

    Pingback by Check out the Worker’s Rights Manifesto « But Now You Know | July 28, 2009 | Reply

  6. “In a free market, you cannot have a coercive monopoly – one that is not desired by all in the economy. And you’re probably NEVER going to get everyone to agree that they want one.”

    Well, I absolutely agree on that.

    However, there is an implicit premise that you’re missing. Capitalism is not a “free market.” Even the Marxists know better than that.

    “So “monopoly capitalism” is an oxymoron.”

    Please do point out actually existing alternatives to capitalist property rules.

    “The only monopolies you find in economic history are those imposed by coercion…and since that almost always means government,”

    Once again you are correct, as a general rule, but unfortunately the rest of your sentence…

    “it’s safe to say that monopoly is the natural result of socialism.”

    *snicker*

    Can I be generous and assume that you meant State Socialism, or do you really believe anything not capitalist must be government-run?

    “You can always take your labor and go somewhere else…”

    You can always leave the country if you disagree with its policies, too. The premise behind this kind of bankrupt arguments is that of total refusal to confront immorality. If we always ran away from evil and refused to confront it, it would take over our societies, our families and ourselves.
    (Surprise! It has! In fact, non-confront is pretty much the central value of our Western societies.)

    “therefore the price you choose to sell it at, to any one employer, is the fair price, in a free market.”

    Nope, sorry. The only valid price of labour is its cost. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is exploitation.

    Comment by Francois Tremblay | July 28, 2009 | Reply

    • > However, there is an implicit premise that you’re missing.
      > Capitalism is not a “free market.” Even the Marxists know
      > better than that.

      You skipped my first statement, where I pointed out the the opposite is true; Karl Marx, himself, said that you cannot have capitalism, unless you have a free market. Anything else is mercantilism, or socialism, et cetera.

      > “So “monopoly capitalism” is an oxymoron.”

      > Please do point out actually existing alternatives
      > to capitalist property rules.

      Your retort doesn’t seem to make sense.

      A monopoly is a coercive condition in which a person has no alternative than to get a specific good or service from a single source.

      Private property rights, on the other hand, are the sole means of fairly establishing who has control of items of scarcity.

      > “it’s safe to say that monopoly is
      > the natural result of socialism.”

      > *snicker*

      > Can I be generous and assume that you meant State
      > Socialism, or do you really believe anything not
      > capitalist must be government-run?

      I mean control of economic choices by a central authority. That is the fundamental defining trait of socialism. The supposedly-legitimate power to coerce others is what defines government, this does mean a government is required,

      The only way you end up with a single supplier for any common good or service is if there is coercion involved. Otherwise, someone will always end up filling the demand for alternatives.

      So a coercive government is required for a monopoly, in order to prevent new competition from cropping up to fulfill that demand.

      > “You can always take your labor and go somewhere else…”

      > You can always leave the country if you disagree with its
      > policies, too.

      You live in the country. You don’t live in the company. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of businesses in your area, unless you live in the boonies, which is your own choice.

      You have a right only to choose what to do with yourself and yours, not to be given things by other people without their consent.

      > The premise behind this kind of bankrupt arguments is that
      > of total refusal to confront immorality. If we always ran
      > away from evil and refused to confront it, it would take
      > over our societies, our families and ourselves.

      Socialism and “evil” both share the very same core premise: the violation of the choices of others. No socialist argument you can seriously make here will lack “force someone” as a function of its fulfillment.

      > “therefore the price you choose to sell it at, to any
      > one employer, is the fair price, in a free market.”

      > Nope, sorry. The only valid price of labour is its cost.
      > Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is exploitation.

      Precisely: The only valid means of determining the price of something is what people are willing to trade for it. If you are an expert at carving wooden statues of pickles, and nobody would pay a penny for them, then your labour is worthless. If your neighbor can, with the same amount of labor, create a wonderfully comfortable chair, and people will pay more for his chairs than the uncomfortable, pickle-styled chairs you make with the same effort, then his chairs are WORTH more.

      The labour theory of value is self-evidently invalid. A raisin requires more labor than a diamond, yet is truly worth less.

      Comment by kazvorpal | July 28, 2009 | Reply

      • “You skipped my first statement, where I pointed out the the opposite is true; Karl Marx, himself, said that you cannot have capitalism, unless you have a free market.”

        Then he was self-evidently wrong, and no communist I know would agree with him.

        “Your retort doesn’t seem to make sense.”

        You said capitalism wasn’t a monopoly. I asked you to show me the alternatives. Simple.

        “Private property rights, on the other hand, are the sole means of fairly establishing who has control of items of scarcity.”

        Capitalist property rights are the only means of fairly establishing who has control of scarce items? Are you serious? What exactly is “fair” about it? It’s pure atomicism, disconnected from the facts of production and social life.

        “I mean control of economic choices by a central authority. That is the fundamental defining trait of socialism.”

        Yea… no. You apparently don’t know what socialism is. Socialism means that the means of production are controlled by the workers. That is the “fundamental defining trait.” Whether a central authority is involved or not entirely depends on the type of socialism we’re talking about. Libertarian socialists (my general position) are against intervention of governments in the economy, judging that historically and currently governments have done everything they could to give more wealth and power to the rich and powerful, by partitioning and selling off the commons, lobbying for immoral laws, restricting or forcing immigration/emigration, and more importantly, imposing the capitalist model and its drive for profits above people, leading to the current neo-liberalist imperialist American policy.

        “You live in the country.”

        I don’t live in a “country.” I live on land. I don’t recognize the arbitrary borders drawn up by this or that ruling class as having any relation to reality.

        “You don’t live in the company. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of businesses in your area, unless you live in the boonies, which is your own choice.”

        Once again, what is the alternative to wage work exactly? Living as a hermit?

        “You have a right only to choose what to do with yourself and yours, not to be given things by other people without their consent.”

        You seem to be a rather poor judge of what I have a right to.

        “No socialist argument you can seriously make here will lack “force someone” as a function of its fulfillment.”

        Funny, you’re the one arguing that everyone should be forced to not confront evil. Whatever happened to your belief in not forcing people?

        “Precisely: The only valid means of determining the price of something is what people are willing to trade for it.”

        Nope… it’s not. The only valid means of determining the price of something is how much it cost to make. In a FREE MARKET, that is. You don’t believe in the free market, so obviously you don’t believe in LTV.

        “If you are an expert at carving wooden statues of pickles, and nobody would pay a penny for them, then your labour is worthless. If your neighbor can, with the same amount of labor, create a wonderfully comfortable chair, and people will pay more for his chairs than the uncomfortable, pickle-styled chairs you make with the same effort, then his chairs are WORTH more.”

        Wrong. They are not “worth more.” They are more desirable. There is a big difference.

        “The labour theory of value is self-evidently invalid. A raisin requires more labor than a diamond, yet is truly worth less.”

        Since you have absolutely no way of knowing that, I will chalk this sentence up to pure bravado… unless you actually have the evidence regarding the real costs of both items.

        Comment by Francois Tremblay | July 28, 2009 | Reply

        • > Then he was self-evidently wrong,
          > and no communist I know would agree with him.

          Not that one can really take the opinions of someone still a communist in this day and age all that seriously, but no. He DEFINED the term “capitalism”. He is the guy who invented it. If you don’t like how he, and every real economist, uses it, then that’s your own problem.

          > You said capitalism wasn’t a monopoly.
          > I asked you to show me the alternatives. Simple.

          The alternatives to capitalism being a monopoly? Do you mean like two different economic systems occupying the same society?

          Capitalism is the only one that ALLOWS this.

          If you live in a free market society, you are free to form a voluntary socialist, communist, monarchist, or any other sub-society you wish. You can form any kind of economy you choose.

          The only thing you cannot do is FORCE people to participate in it with you. This is, of course, the opposite of socialism/Communism, where everyone must be forced to participate, because it’s so ineffective that it only works through a combination of coercion and nobody seeing how well the alternatives function.

          > Capitalist property rights are the only means of fairly
          > establishing who has control of scarce items? Are you
          > serious? What exactly is “fair” about it? It’s pure
          > atomicism, disconnected from the facts of production and
          > social life.

          Property is fact. It’s physics.

          The only fair way to deal with scarcity is private property rights, because it’s the only way consistent. Each person can obtain property, and do with it as he chooses…no sudden changes in management without the consent of the existing manager.

          It also is the only system that DOES fairly deal with production. The producer owns what he produces, then trades it with others for their wealth, at a price everyone agrees upon. This is perfectly fair.

          It also is a perfect measure of social value, as one only gains wealth this way by benefiting society…others only trade what they agree his production is worth.

          > Yea… no. You apparently don’t know what socialism is.
          > Socialism means that the means of production are
          > controlled by the workers.

          No, I said defining trait, not propaganda nonsense.

          ALL implemented socialist has ONE thing in common, and it’s not control of the means of production by workers (a thing that is not only impossible, but would lead to society’s collapse).

          That one thing is that a central authority controls the economic choices of the individuals of the society, coercively.

          The whole “workers control the means of production” is a nonsense phrase used to sucker the workers, who were once an ignorant majority in society, into surrendering consent to authoritarian government, now that Divine Right was gone.

          Workers DO NOT PRODUCE. The creators of wealth, in any healthy society, are those who invent new ideas, those who provide the resources to create them, and those who organize their creation. Those are all unique roles that only a few can fill. The “workers” are cogs, as is demonstrated by their ease of replacement. If the workers are in control, the economy dies. Nothing new is created, and impediments to even producing the existing things build up to failure.

          > Libertarian socialists (my general position) are against
          > intervention of governments in the economy, judging that
          > historically and currently governments have done
          > everything they could to give more wealth and power to the
          > rich and powerful, by partitioning and selling off the
          > commons, lobbying for immoral laws, restricting or forcing
          > immigration/emigration, and more importantly, imposing the
          > capitalist model and its drive for profits above people,
          > leading to the current neo-liberalist imperialist American
          > policy.

          Libertarian socialist is a nonsense term. It’s oxymoronic, like jumbo shrimp and military intelligence, except not simply a pun, but an actual incompatibility.

          Socialism can ONLY be imposed by force. Any other means leaves people free to ignore the centralized control.

          What’s going to stop a worker from saving up his wealth for decades, then using it to fund the creation of a business based upon some special idea of his, for which he recruits other workers as investors, then uses his career skills as a manager, and offers to pay wages to other, less experienced workers to make his product?

          Only coercion.

          And when people like him dominate the economy over the “shared means of production” companies, it’s all over.

          Meanwhile, you are railing against socialism in the United States, which is what you are describing in our megacorporate, government contracting, imperialist crimes.

          > I don’t live in a “country.” I live on land. I don’t
          > recognize the arbitrary borders drawn up by this or that
          > ruling class as having any relation to reality.

          Philosophically, I agree. But as a sane person, I recognize how it is so impractical as to be meaningless, in application. Unless you’re so wealthy that you can obtain an island in international waters.

          > Once again, what is the alternative to wage work exactly?
          > Living as a hermit?

          Creating your own wealth. A large segment of the populace lives without depending on wages. They start businesses, work by commission, et cetera.

          A whole bunch of you libertine socialists could always get together and form a commune. They ALWAYS fail, because you must have trade and property rights to organize society, but plenty of them receive little or no grief from the outside world, before they do.

          > You seem to be a rather poor judge
          > of what I have a right to.

          No, I simply know what natural rights are, which you apparently do not.

          > Nope… it’s not. The only valid means of determining the
          > price of something is how much it cost to make. In a FREE
          > MARKET, that is. You don’t believe in the free market, so
          > obviously you don’t believe in LTV.

          It takes about 1.5 seconds for any rational person to see how insanely useless the “what it costs to make” definition of value must be.

          It costs far more to make a finely crafted statue of a pickle out of a very rare, delicate wood than to make a diamond.

          Value can only reflect what is something’s worth to society, not something as meaningless as production cost. The more it costs to make something, the more valuable it is? So if you can find a more expensive way to produce X, it becomes worth more?

          The ways in which this instantly falls down are almost endless. Efficiency becomes punished. Usefulness becomes meaningless. You would end up with a whole economy full of useless, insanely unproductive objects and people, mostly sitting around in warehouses starving to death.

          > Since you have absolutely no way of knowing that, I will
          > chalk this sentence up to pure bravado… unless you
          > actually have the evidence regarding the real costs of
          > both items.

          Which is the unassailable mystery to you: How to make raisins, or how to make diamonds?

          You can more or less stumble across a diamond downstream from where it eroded out of rock. A grape must be cultivated, harvested, and then dried in a very specific way, and is more expensive to package and ship, as it’s far more delicate.

          But the specifics are irrelevant. Obviously if you made an exhaustive list of things, and tallied their production cost, you would get MANY examples of things of tremendous value, that cost far less to produce than many less-valuable things.

          In fact, in a society where value is based on this, production would grow ever more expensive, as that’s where one would obtain value…rather than obtaining it through improving things and making production more efficient, cheaper.

          Comment by kazvorpal | March 29, 2010 | Reply

  7. “The product of our labour is the amount we agree to sell our services to an employer for.”

    Oops… you were doing so good, until that sentence.

    Apparently you’re confusing the actual product of our labour with what we’re ready to sell them for in monopoly capitalism.

    Comment by Francois Tremblay | July 28, 2009 | Reply

    • There is, by definition, no such thing as “monopoly capitalism”.

      Both the Marxists and free market economists agree that, in order to have capitalism, you must have a free market.

      In a free market, you cannot have a coercive monopoly – one that is not desired by all in the economy. And you’re probably NEVER going to get everyone to agree that they want one.

      So “monopoly capitalism” is an oxymoron.

      The only monopolies you find in economic history are those imposed by coercion…and since that almost always means government, it’s safe to say that monopoly is the natural result of socialism.

      You can always take your labor and go somewhere else…therefore the price you choose to sell it at, to any one employer, is the fair price, in a free market.

      Comment by kazvorpal | July 28, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: