Why does the Right acquiesce to negative stereotypes?

conorh91

"If you're on the left whilst you're young, you have no heart; if you're not on the right whilst you're older, you have no head"

So goes one of the dullest, most idiotic adages in political science.

For the purposes of this thread, right wing political groupings might be defined, inter alia, as the supporters of the US Republican Party; the UK's Conservative Party; the French UMP; the German CDU; and the Progressive Democrats in Ireland, as well as an internal faction of the Fine Gael back-bench in Ireland.

I would consider myself on the centre-right, and nevertheless feel that my outlook is equally divided between a commitment to personal liberty and social equality. The media seem to believe that aiming towards social equality is a position that "the left" are entitled to confiscate for themselves.

I cannot speak for everybody else who finds themselves in agreement with liberal ideas of economic freedom, but I find that one of the most liberating things about economic freedom is that it almost inevitably leads to economic equality.

An outlook which views freedom as the pre-eminent objective is not incompatible with the pursuit of equality.

What is it about the media, or the left, which fails to understand this? And, dare I ask, does the right sometimes fail to acknowledge this? Why are we so damn bad at expressing a view on equality? Is it the case that those of us on the centre-right have allowed our views to be subsumed into economic extremism,such as is advanced by right-wing trolls, more interested in retweets and 'thanks' count than advancing credible alternatives?

I am in favour of low taxes and I also want low poverty and low unemployment. I want this for my own sake, and for others' sake. Why does the right sometimes neglect to articulate this position, instead seeming to prefer an inflammatory tone?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Niall Keane

Fantastic first two posts, they sum up perfectly the position of the right.

Poetic satire even!

as for the right and freedom...please?

the right and especially the neo-liberal right (often mis-titled as libertarians or even anarchists) expect the apparatus of the state - (law and punishment in confiscation of property and/or imprisonment and the threat there of) to prop up their economic "freedom", to protect their "contracts". But of course don't want to be taxed / pay for such hired goons. Perhaps some feel that the answer to have private police and courts / prisons etc. The USA is certainly well on the way there, and what an equal opportunity culture that is?

What is really being advocated, the end game, is through financial power to have the actual power to be modern feudal princes. But there is the economic reason the dark ages were well "dark" for everyone save a few nobles. Advancement wasn't exactly fantastic in such "liberal for the rich" times. Lots of effort and money spent on rent-seeking opportunity, (conquests, civil wars, etc.) but not a lot on progressing human endevour, mush like today. We haven't sent a human to the moon or another planet since the 70's around the same time the neo-liberal agenda of worshiping profit-seeking took hold. Let's not even go into how state provided research through universities etc. has invented and fueled the entire information / tech sector. And now look at where our universities are going, having to finance themselves, they prostitute their research out to corporations seeking profit orientated goals, reducing the scope of research into profitable areas AS PERCEIVED TODAY, but most great scientific discoveries that offer revolutionary human progress happen by accident, or unintentionally - ask any physicist. Don't forget either, Fees come back denying some education and reducing the potential of human capital in our society. The right will talk of loans and such and paying your way, but this is just a smoke-screen for developing more rent-seeking opportunity for existing capital.

Fundamentally seeking individual freedom without a parallel drive towards mutual aid, is based on the self-sufficient myth. There is no business today standing on its own two feet, by that I mean has not benefited form the research and development paid for by public taxes, none who do not receive the benefit of publicly educated employees, and none who put their hands in their pockets and voluntarily finance such.

The right talks of cutting or reducing all welfare including child benefits, free education, etc. ie all that does not offer short-term and guaranteed ROI. (note work for welfare / jobbridge is ok, as that is essentially corporate welfare) Its natural, they have short term goals next quarters profit margins, share prices etc. These are not compatible with long term societal provisions. Hell, like that famous neo-liberal they lack the vision to provide for their own retirement and old-age medical expenses. It takes a certain level of stupidity not to recognise the VALUE of investing in children etc. and providing open-ended and broad opportunity to maximise the potential number of Einstein's out there.
But that stupidity, ultimately, is the right's position, some neo-liberals even suggest businesses could educate their employee's children but at the same time suggest education should be "task relevant", i.e. people / children should be conditioned not educated to be useful for industry. (farmed?) After all we are talking about human "resources" not human beings! Of course when we look at the neo-liberal policy leaders like the American "Bush" family, we can understand why education and human progress is held at such low esteem by the right.

Forget education, how about shelter, how many business provide childcare for their employees? Or do they just expect someone else to do that and not have to pay at all? Does the next employee generation just pop into existence? ;-) The nature of capitalist enterprise is to keep overheads as low as possible and to maximise profits for the SHAREHOLDER. They cannot be trusted to keep themselves alive by providing for the next generation THEY WILL NEED voluntarily.

And when we examine international trade agreements such as TTIP, allowing corporations the "freedom" to challenge and potentially overrule democratic decisions of once sovereign states behind the closed doors of special international courts invented and presided over by the same international law firms who drew up the agreements, drafted the laws and advised their funded politicians to vote on, we really understand the right's agenda and why even the shambolic semblance of democracy and state control (funded by taxes) is to them an annoying uncertainty, a "risk factor", a hindrance!

Of course, as history teaches us, there is only so much people will take before they take the heads off the nobles.

Valmont

Niall Keane wrote:

Of course, as history teaches us, there is only so much people will take before they take the heads off the nobles.

And history has taught us that the far-left always think violence is the answer.

1. Murder capitalists/overlords
2. ?
3. Socialist utopia

Saipanne

Is there really just a left and right, though?

Are Milton Friedman and Mussolini in the same basket?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

+1 to the above point. I remember when I was in school there was a debate which centred on the pros and cons of space exploration, the cons being of course that money should be spent on more worthy causes such as feeding people and the like. Highly ironic now that this argument is used in the opposite way.

jank

Niall Keane wrote: »

Fantastic first two posts, they sum up perfectly the position of the right.

Poetic satire even!

as for the right and freedom...please?

the right and especially the neo-liberal right

...
...

take the heads off the nobles.

It is interesting that you take the opportunity to instead of answering the OP's question then to attack a caricature of 'the right' and not even put forward any opinion on what the left can do. Easier to throw mud then build a bridge I suppose.

conorh91

Niall Keane wrote: »

What is really being advocated, the end game, is through financial power to have the actual power to be modern feudal princes.

I tried to read all of your post yesterday. I got about this far and got fed up. I just skirted over the remainder of it now, and I wish I'd just trusted my instinct yesterday.

Do you just save these stock responses in a word document, and then copy+v them as the need arises? Your post has nothing to do with my question. You're drawing what jank correctly described as a caricature of the right merely, in my view, so that you can reassure yourself that yours is the virtuous theory, that yours is the principled one.

The left have frequently had no option but to concede defeat in economic history. Socialism, communism and Keynesian economics are in a state of disrepute. The left nevertheless cling to their beliefs in the sure knowledge that theirs are 'principled' -- at least they have that much.

What, then, if the right were also to be seen to favour social justice? Well, that just wouldn't be on, would it? Hence your stock response to anyone threatening your place on the perch of principle.

As it happens, I do believe there are plenty of extremist trolls on the right. John McGuirk, who seems to have done absolutely nothing in his career except speak on panel discussions, is an excellent example of a troll with only a very shallow understanding of the ideas he purports to promote, more out of attention-seeking that real conviction. Aka a bullshitter.

But there are plenty of people on the right who care very much about others, and who genuinely believe that the best way the State can serve others is by giving them freedom and allowing them to chart their own success in life through their own abilities. I suspect on that front, I have a lot more faith in people than you do.

Saipanne wrote: »

Is there really just a left and right, though?

Are Milton Friedman and Mussolini in the same basket?

According to Niall, I suspect so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Niall Keane

Valmont wrote: »

And history has taught us that the far-left always think violence is the answer.

1. Murder capitalists/overlords
2. ?
3. Socialist utopia

ah yes.. the old the socialist hasn't a clue how to run the country....

as if the capitalists have? you can dress it up in glossy manifestos to publish before election time, but they are never followed and never work in a broad societal sense, of course they sure do for the circle of pals... Getting them blessed by inept departments and cronies hardly counts as peer review? It is the same class who design and approve of policy, a risk-averse class of people, the greatest risk being of course, any threat to their own modus operandi and status. You can't expect the Orwellian pig to police themselves? After all they believe that "some animals are more equal than others", because I'm worth it? and the poor are lazy and deserve it!??? and such "values" and "valuing" of people and policy colour their judgement, as is natural! Impartiality is a myth, and economics is not like physics!

btw the far left anarchist position is to allow for direct democracy, you know with instant recall, and not professional politicians, but communities forming their agendas and picking one of their own to voice such, not picking the lesser of two evils , prepacked and tailored by corporate sponsors as they do now.

This promotes "evolution" not utopia, it means mistakes, but mistakes owned by the people not imposed upon them, and it means swift correction, not parties hanging on to power when they know they no longer have the mandate of the people save in artificial legalistic grounds.

and yes it means no rent-seeking, which capitalism itself now recognizes to be the "seeds of its own destruction" (G<R ) That is why Proudhon stated that "Property is Theft", not that people should not be secure and have their own place, quite the opposite, believing in occupancy equating to ownership and other homestead ideas, but rather that rent-seeking is theft.

Back in his day rent-seeking was just renting, but today whole sectors of parasites exist in many different forms. And they often protect and prevent innovation, development and new entrants to markets to keep their deals sweet. Its all trickle-up.

Look at average Joe in Ireland and what is stolen form him?

he's a PAYE worker, in Dublin city say...

The company he works "under" adopts the traditional rule of good business:
1/3 Profit, 1/3 rent / rates etc. and 1/3 wages

So for Joe 4 out of every 12 days he's working for himself, ok right? but wait...

1/2 of what he gets is taxed directly or indirectly, at least, probably more!

So that's 2 days out of 12!

but again wait....

now Joe goes home and hands over half his take-home pay to his landlord....

So for every 12 days Joe works, he gets to keep 1 for his family, the rest is given to rent-seekers. (Given how tax is now spent in this country, and how little of it provides for poor Joe and family who - "earn too much" haha! )

So 2 in 24 days, (a working month is 20 days), so in a year of slavery Joe sees the benefit of less than 24 days. Effectively 11 months is for them, and 1 for him.

But working is for saps, and all the capitalists know this, lazy money is where its at! Rent-seeking baby!!!

Time is the only capital we can't increase, but with capitalism you can be lucky and fall out of bed in to riches, be born with them, or have great luck and timing and gain them, the necessary capital to be part of the game, part of the parasites who as I have demonstrated steal more than 90% of the work time of Average Joe with their trickle-up economic games.

Oxfam tell us 1% of the worlds population own 99% of the wealth, is it any wonder when Average Joe and family hand them so much?

And the right is basically about protecting that system!

jank

Niall Keane wrote: »

Oxfam tell us 1% of the worlds population own 99% of the wealth, is it any wonder when Average Joe and family hand them so much?

Much like the rest of the rant the above is not true.

he's a PAYE worker, in Dublin city say...

The company he works "under" adopts the traditional rule of good business:
1/3 Profit, 1/3 rent / rates etc. and 1/3 wages

So for Joe 4 out of every 12 days he's working for himself, ok right? but wait...

1/2 of what he gets is taxed directly or indirectly, at least, probably more!

So that's 2 days out of 12!

but again wait....

now Joe goes home and hands over half his take-home pay to his landlord...

If Joe is a PAYE worker then why is he paying 1/3 of his income in rent as a 'company' and then pay another bit on top of this to his landlord?

Me thinks you need to edit your story to make it at least plausible if not even remotely reflective on reality.

Niall Keane

jank wrote: »

Much like the rest of the rant the above is not true.




If Joe is a PAYE worker then why is he paying 1/3 of his income in rent as a 'company' and then pay another bit on top of this to his landlord?

Me thinks you need to edit your story to make it at least plausible if not even remotely reflective on reality.

No my friend, perhaps it is you who needs to think a bit more and not embarrass yourself? who generates the money to finance the business rent? Consider the service sector?

Does a law firm have directors who dig deep into their pockets (from their inheritance say) to pay for the business premises rent? Or is it already factored into the business plan and part of the total earnings of the firm cover it? eh? so 1/3 of what the business earns goes on rent, that's a typical figure, ergo 1/3 of what is earned , so proportionally, 1/3 what everyone earns in the business contributes towards the rent. Get it now?

so if there was no rent, in theory 1/3 of total income would be freed up, shared in the same proportion amongst the employees (and directors/ owners are usually employees too) everyone would DOUBLE their salary!!! (as salaries account for one third already, one 1/3 plus 1/3 is double 1/3, I know I'm really laboring here, but it seems maths isn't everyone's forte)

coolemon

conorh91 wrote: »

but I find that one of the most liberating things about economic freedom is that it almost inevitably leads to economic equality.

If you are saying what I think you are saying, I would love to see your evidence for that claim.

The state, by limiting economic freedom, successfully imposes improved levels of economic equality through redistribution.

Indeed where there is "more freedom" - such as is the case with transnational flows of capital - and where states are ineffectively able to redistribute it due to the existence of tax havens, and what not - inequality grows. Indeed it is one of the main reasons for the continuing growth of economic inequality on a global scale.

coolemon

Valmont wrote: »

And history has taught us that the far-left always think violence is the answer.

1. Murder capitalists/overlords
2. ?
3. Socialist utopia

And the right?

Without violence your capitalist order would fall asunder.

That's why states exist. With armies, prisons, private property laws, police and what not.

But that's not violence, right.

conorh91

coolemon wrote: »

If you are saying what I think you are saying, I would love to see your evidence for that claim.

The 20 countries, like Ireland, who rank highest in terms of economic freedom, also rank highest in terms of income equality. Countries with the lowest economic freedom rank lowest in terms of income equality. That's correlation, so now we must show cause.

To do that, we might look at Ireland.

Ireland is something of an ideal case study, since the vastly contrasting fortunes of the country pre-1958 and post-1958 indicate a country that floundered in inequality under a period of strict economic controls, and which has flourished and become more equal when those controls were lifted and a liberal attitude was taken to inward investment.

Now I'm not saying we're perfectly liberal, nor is that necessarily desired. I'm not advancing the argument that all government is bad. I'm simply saying that economic freedom is a causal factor in this highly-relevant case study, and I believe similar and stronger arguments can be made internationally.

Ronald Reagan put it more succinctly: "The best social programme is a job".

coolemon

conorh91 wrote: »

giving them freedom and allowing them to chart their own success in life through their own abilities.

That's an interesting statement.

How does that relate to reality though?

Class position, by and large, reproduces itself.

You would swear the way you are talking that "greatness" and "ability" derives from "within" the person as a sort of attribute independent of overwhelming societal influences and experiences.

People don't chart their own success. People chart a path within a given set of social conditions which impose limitations on what options are available at any given time.

So when you look at successful "leading scientists and scholars we see identifiable trends in their background and path to that "success" - http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/educational-backgrounds-leading-scientists-scholars/

And with "leading" lawyers, churnalists, medics, chief executives and vice chancellors we see the same - http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/educational-backgrounds-leading-lawyers-journalists-vice-chancellors-politicians-medics-chief-executives/

And so on and so forth.

coolemon

conorh91 wrote: »

The 20 countries, like Ireland, who rank highest in terms of economic freedom, also rank highest in terms of income equality. Countries with the lowest economic freedom rank lowest in terms of income equality. That's correlation, so now we must show cause.

But sure those rankings are so two dimensional one cannot possibly draw such universal conclusions. I assume you mean indexes like this one - http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

That's a list of mainly first world countries versus developing countries. Hardly a barometer - particularly when those first world countries, through a variety of means, are the very reason the particular economic and political arrangement in those developing countries exist in the first place.

If you want to talk comparison you have to look at growing global inequality and the inability to amend that inequality due to the existence of tax havens.

Where is your trickle down economics on a global scale, where wealth operates beyond the reins of nation states?

conorh91

coolemon wrote: »

But sure those rankings are so two dimensional one cannot possibly draw such universal conclusions.

Look if you're going to ask for data, and then reject data when it's given to you, don't expect a serious debate to continue.

You requested clarity on the basis for my statement. I explained. But I started the thread to ask why people associate the right with some kind of social psychopathology, not to convince you that right is right.

Niall Keane

conorh91 wrote: »

Look if you're going to ask for data, and then reject data when it's given to you, don't expect a serious debate to continue.

You requested clarity on the basis for my statement. I explained. But I started the thread to ask why people associate the right with some kind of social psychopathology, not to convince you that right is right.

and we explained.... because it is.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the_corporation/

as for data... there are many types and formats of such, what you supplied is typical of the right, simplistic 2D utilized to omit the whole picture.

jank

Niall Keane wrote: »

No my friend, perhaps it is you who needs to think a bit more and not embarrass yourself? who generates the money to finance the business rent? Consider the service sector?

Does a law firm have directors who dig deep into their pockets (from their inheritance say) to pay for the business premises rent? Or is it already factored into the business plan and part of the total earnings of the firm cover it? eh? so 1/3 of what the business earns goes on rent, that's a typical figure, ergo 1/3 of what is earned , so proportionally, 1/3 what everyone earns in the business contributes towards the rent. Get it now?

so if there was no rent, in theory 1/3 of total income would be freed up, shared in the same proportion amongst the employees (and directors/ owners are usually employees too) everyone would DOUBLE their salary!!! (as salaries account for one third already, one 1/3 plus 1/3 is double 1/3, I know I'm really laboring here, but it seems maths isn't everyone's forte)

Why would a business who pays no rent on a premise (if they own the building outright) double the wages of the employees?
What if the business owns the property but has incurred extra debt to pay it off?
The cash flow would be the same maybe but they would own the underlying asset outright.

If the business makes more money, sure the employees benefit via job security, bonuses and maybe even pay increases for a job well done, but they are not going to double their wages because they pay no rent. Do you actually have a real world example of this? Wages are set by the labour market, not the fact that their employer does or does not own property

Anyway wages are set by the labour market, not the fact the the company you work for may or may not own the building it works from. You are mixing up an employee of the company (a PAYE worker) with an owner or shareholder of the company.

So finally, why would a PAYE worker 'pay' 1/3 of his salary in rent (the capital is not his to begin with) and then pay rent again to a landlord (despite the fact that most employees own their home).

I have no idea what you actually getting at. Are you saying that there should be no private property and that all property should be public in some round about way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Niall Keane wrote: »

so if there was no rent, in theory 1/3 of total income would be freed up, shared in the same proportion amongst the employees (and directors/ owners are usually employees too) everyone would DOUBLE their salary!!! (as salaries account for one third already, one 1/3 plus 1/3 is double 1/3, I know I'm really laboring here, but it seems maths isn't everyone's forte)

Who would build these rent-free houses, out of interest?

A Primal Nut

The left know that Socialism and Communism cannot beat Capitalism when it comes to standards of living which is why they focus so much on equality. They write more articles criticizing rich people in Western Society then complaining about poverty. They'd rather live in a country where everyone is equally poor than a country where some are doing ok, some are middle class and some are rich. Communism achieved their goal on that front.

karma_

Valmont wrote: »

And history has taught us that the far-left always think violence is the answer.

1. Murder capitalists/overlords
2. ?
3. Socialist utopia

Capitalists of course don't have a long, long history of violently oppressing those on the left.

A modicum of honesty would be refreshing once in a while.

karma_

By the way, since no one else appears to have mentioned it, the quote in the OP is incorrect and currently makes little sense.

AngryHippie

Niall Keane wrote: »

laboring here, but it seems maths isn't everyone's forte)

Neither is logic. You are making some pretty major assumptions to get from zero rent to double wages. Let alone completely ignoring the consequences of everyone having double the wages, meaning everyone has double the purchasing power, which will just result in everyone getting charged twice as much for everything.

Its a mobius loop of logic, and its flawed. before maths, comes logic. figure out what a bean is, what a bean does and what a bean means, then count the beans.

By the way, addressing the 4th factor of production (Enterprise, which also has a cost) would be a major logical step across the holes in what you've put forward there.
Enterprise is the idea for the company
Enterprise is the motivation to set it up
Enterprise manages the company
Enterprise ends up owning the company and dividing the profits as they see fit

I cannot recall any company in the history of ever that decided split the profits between all the employees, who took no risk, and were paid for their contributions to the organization.

I would be enthralled to find an example, but even the collectives in the US who bought back fire-sale premises (Naomi Klein mentioned them in "this changes everything" but I cannot recall exactly where and when, somewhere in the mid-west in the aftermath of the recent depression) and re-established manufacturing did so by refinancing homes and bringing drive and capital to the new companies (thereby becoming shareholders, directors and masters of their own destiny).

AngryHippie

karma_ wrote: »

By the way, since no one else appears to have mentioned it, the quote in the OP is incorrect and currently makes little sense.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

Interesting little read.

fly_agaric

karma_ wrote: »

By the way, since no one else appears to have mentioned it, the quote in the OP is incorrect and currently makes little sense.

Or perhaps it was meant that way since being on the political left young or old is bad. You're against "freedom" and all that good stuff so heartless and brainless!

karma_

fly_agaric wrote: »

Or perhaps it was meant that way since being on the political left young or old is bad. You're against "freedom" and all that good stuff so heartless and brainless!

I sincerely doubt that.

The Corinthian

karma_ wrote: »

By the way, since no one else appears to have mentioned it, the quote in the OP is incorrect and currently makes little sense.

It's a misquote, of something that's almost cliched at this stage, but which did make sense to me, albeit in rather awkward English.

In my middle age I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people are essentially idiots up until they hit their mid twenties. I include my-once-self in that group.

This is because in youth we tend to be hot-headed, seeking to right the World's wrongs and will favour action over thought. By the time we grow older, we become more cynical, realistic and realize that good intention can often cause more harm than good and that we should consider the consequences of our actions before acting them out.

Niall Keane exemplified the position of leftist-youth quite well in his earlier post; evangelizing the usual underpants gnome logic that would solve everything and then ignoring any glaring criticisms that followed. His closing comment that "people will take before they take the heads off the nobles" was indicative of this action over thought philosophy, where revolution is presumed to lead to utopia as an article of faith rather than deductive conclusion.

Still... sometimes I miss the omniscience of my youth.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I cannot recall any company in the history of ever that decided split the profits between all the employees, who took no risk, and were paid for their contributions to the organization.

Labour managed enterprise - this was practiced to some degree of success in former Yugoslavia, but it is still less efficient than a capitalist enterprise, for various reasons.

Actually, coops are another example related to of this kind of model, so I wouldn't rule it out altogether.

AngryHippie

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, coops are another example related to of this kind of model, so I wouldn't rule it out altogether.

I'm pretty sure Evergreen was the organization that Naomi Klein made reference to.

However, in all of the examples given, the environmental conditions for the foundation of the co-operative were either

• At the stage where the original enterprise was being closed (i.e everyone out of a job - Nothing to lose)
• At the stage where the enterprise was being closed, but there were mechanisms in place for the workers having first bid in a bankruptcy fire sale
• There was a benefactor organization who "gifted" the start-up resources to be run by the co-operative

Now I'm not saying that it's flawed, or not possible, all I'm pointing out is that a very specific set of circumstances involving either distressed businesses, or some no-strings philanthropy are required for it to come into being.

The danger of the first (which has been brought into law in Venezuela) is that workers unions, or disgruntled workers could effectively force a business owner to sell, with themselves as the only possible buyers. Again, I'm not waving a red flag, nor am I spewing forth about commies, but there are very real risks involved with enshrining that policy in law. How will it pan out, I just don't know, and unfortunately, I don't have enough reading time to find answer all the questions I have on the topic, but Boards being Boards, i'm sure someone will lob some answers and links to save me the search time...;)

The Corinthian

AngryHippie wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Evergreen was the organization that Naomi Klein made reference to.

I was responding to what you wrote, not anyone else.

However, in all of the examples given, the environmental conditions for the foundation of the co-operative were either

• At the stage where the original enterprise was being closed (i.e everyone out of a job - Nothing to lose)
• At the stage where the enterprise was being closed, but there were mechanisms in place for the workers having first bid in a bankruptcy fire sale
• There was a benefactor organization who "gifted" the start-up resources to be run by the co-operative

I'm pretty sure that this was not the case with the Dairy Disposal Company, which went to become Kerry Co-op (later the Kerry Group).

Now I'm not saying that it's flawed, or not possible, all I'm pointing out is that a very specific set of circumstances involving either distressed businesses, or some no-strings philanthropy are required for it to come into being.

Not really, as there are a number of restaurant bars in operation in central Europe that have been following this model for quite a while. One exampe would be the Widder Gasthof in Winterthur, Switzerland, which has been run as a collective (with stakeholders/employees periodically buying into/out of the venture) and did not come out of any of the scenarios you described.

The danger of the first (which has been brought into law in Venezuela) is that workers unions, or disgruntled workers could effectively force a business owner to sell, with themselves as the only possible buyers. Again, I'm not waving a red flag, nor am I spewing forth about commies, but there are very real risks involved with enshrining that policy in law.

I agree, with you and am not trying to put this forward as some viable alternative model to capitalism. It has serious inefficiencies and flaws, as with the one you suggested, and frankly only works in certain SME sized ventures - with larger enterprises, it's shortcomings quickly become apparent.

My reason for responding was simply to point out that such ventures do exist, despite your not being to recall one.