They fail to see that such laws are basically a surrender of their rights to employ whomever they might choose under free-market conditions.
They fail to see that such laws are basically a surrender of their rights to employ whomever they might choose under free-market conditions.They seem to believe that the intervention they support is good intervention because, in their opinion, it will strengthen their side against the common enemy "labor." They believe it will increase their freedom and enchain their "opponents." Alas, employers, too, are victims of the current tendency to think of wealth production in terms of "class warfare," rather than in terms of social cooperation for mutual advantage in a free and peaceful market.Tags: Online Paper Writing Service ReviewsModernism EssaysGambling And Sports EssaysDay Trading Business PlanDissertation Writers ReviewMaking A Essay FlowEssay On Why I Love BasketballEssay Articles Confederation FailedCurricular Activities Essay
In the United States, an example of this trend is clearly seen in the demand arising from some employers and their associations for the individual states to enact so-called right-to-work laws.
The proposed laws would outlaw all employment contracts which specify that all employees must pay dues to the union chosen by the majority of an employer's employees in a government supervised election.
There are, of course, many methods for destroying wealth and setting up a dictatorship, but the original method of the Marxists, as mentioned above, was to propose crippling intervention which would be "economically insufficient and untenable." Then, when this original intervention made matters worse, they could easily create a demand for further "despotic inroads on the rights of property" until finally all economic activity was directed by the Socialist State as the sole owner or controller of the means of production.
Marx decreed that this program of government intervention would eventually lead to the abolition of private property and the establishment of the Socialist State. It was a series of such "despotic inroads" on private property that eventually converted the German economy into a National Socialist dictatorship.
We also use this information to show you ads for similar films you may like in the future.
Like Oath, our partners may also show you ads that they think match your interests.These employers, commonly considered as "haves," are actually advocating a program outlined by Karl Marx for the destruction of the very capitalistic system which has provided them with their present wealth and positions. If they will not read, study and digest the 881 pages of The immediate aim of the Communists is … In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.…Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage-labor.…Such step-by-step intervention, if followed to its logical conclusion, will produce the same results in any country, even in the United States.The major mistake in the thinking of those who advocate the so-called right-to-work laws is their thought that these laws will remedy some of the sins of the federal labor laws that now grant special privileges to labor unions.If one wants to correct their manifest unsuitableness and preposterousness by supplementing the first acts of intervention with more and more of such acts, one must go farther and farther until the market economy has been entirely destroyed and socialism has been substituted for it.(Ludwig von Mises, The mass myopia of our age has been a reactionary reverence for government intervention.The proletariat will use its political supremacy, to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class.…Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.Government intervention is therefore considered a moral and economic weapon to be used for the welfare of all the "have-nots." The crusade for creature comforts is no longer considered to be a struggle against the niggardliness of nature.Instead, it is dreamily idealized as a campaign for the political allotment of each group's "fair share" of the wealth produced by others.