Quote Originally Posted by Lukie View Post
this isn't really the route i was trying to take it.

say i'm a business owner, i should be able to (based on performance and at my discretion) hire, fire, promote, or demote people as i see fit. do you agree with that?
For the most part, yes. But not entirely. Keep in mind that this is part of the argument that is used to justify abuse.

Economics is about aggregate effects, not isolated and myopic effects. Something that makes sense on a small economic scale doesn't necessarily on a large scale. It is very important to make sure that the large scale is addressed correctly because if it is not then the small scale suffers.

So basically, I want a balance between your rights as a business employer and other peoples rights as business employees as well as the rights of other competing business owners etc etc. Egalitarianism like that is truly the only way we know how to avoid totalitarianism



Here's an example of why we need macro regulations despite how things appear on the micro. If you fire your lowest value employee you're probably making a good move and the economy isn't hurt and maybe it's even a wee bit better, but when every business fires their lowest value employee the entire economy suffers a ton as well as nearly every other employee of any business in the entire economy suffers. We are currently seeing this happen in our economy. So many people have gotten fired that the glut of supply has allowed owners to suppress wages and pocket the profits.

It's basic Tragedy of the Commons. When some people do things for their benefit, it benefits, but when everybody does that something, the entire system teeters

The answer to your question is both yes and no. Societies are made up of a whole lot of interdependencies and they must all be addressed. A narrow view does not do that