“Work or starve” is a common argument used against free-market capitalism. Proponents of the “work or starve” argument argue that capitalism forces one to work or be forced with the prospect of starvation or destitution. This is a mistaken approach since “work or starve” is not a feature of capitalism but rather of the world we live in. By conflating positive rights with negative rights, a perverted type of justice is imagined.We know that humans must regularly consume some basic necessities in order to survive. For such necessities to be procured, they must be produced in some way. For example, water can be found, and food can be cooked. Regardless of the way in which these necessities are produced, it is known that their production is a necessary
Topics:
Soham Patil considers the following as important: 6b) Mises.org, Featured, newsletter
This could be interesting, too:
Artis Shepherd writes Caplan’s Errors on the UAE and Open Borders
Joaquin Monfort writes USD/CHF Price Forecast: Reaches overbought levels
Ryan McMaken writes We’re Already on Track for a Trillion Deficit this Year
Jane L. Johnson writes It’s Greek to Us: Angry Generation Z Women Reenact “Lysistrata” Post-Election
“Work or starve” is a common argument used against free-market capitalism. Proponents of the “work or starve” argument argue that capitalism forces one to work or be forced with the prospect of starvation or destitution. This is a mistaken approach since “work or starve” is not a feature of capitalism but rather of the world we live in. By conflating positive rights with negative rights, a perverted type of justice is imagined.
We know that humans must regularly consume some basic necessities in order to survive. For such necessities to be procured, they must be produced in some way. For example, water can be found, and food can be cooked. Regardless of the way in which these necessities are produced, it is known that their production is a necessary step prior to their consumption. Labor must be exerted for the procurement of commodities that are wanted. Consumption cannot precede production. Thus, it follows that the natural consequence of not working is starvation.
Capitalism, however, is subject to the criticism that it is not proactive in the quest to eliminate inequality. Socialists propose to alleviate the need to work by expropriating the property of the wealthy and redistributing it as they see fit. This is an immoral approach since it violates property rights. It is also ignorant of economic laws since all property was initially produced or procured in some way. Eventually, there will be nothing left to expropriate and scarcity will have to be taken seriously once again. For theft to work, there must be someone to rob, and eventually there will be a lack of targets as people refuse to work since they cannot keep what they produce. By seizing property with the intent to redistribute it to those who didn’t work for it, society is impoverished by consuming more than is produced.
There are also plenty of other fallacies that are pushed through the “work or starve” argument. One such example is that people ought to be guaranteed their means of sustenance. In the United States, this has taken the form of minimum wage legislation. By setting an arbitrary limit for how low wages can go, those who cannot produce enough value to justify their employment are laid off as overall productivity declines. Further, such legislation assumes that business owners take responsibility for the well-being and sustenance of their workers simply by hiring them. While a job is often a ticket out of poverty for many, it does not grant the employee the right to be taken care of at the expense of the business owner. The business owner is only compelled to pay the agreed upon wage in exchange for the labor of the employee.
One is not entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor simply because they exist. Without working to provide for their own sustenance either directly or through trade, humans will naturally have deteriorated health. If one refuses to work, they are liable to the consequences that await them and have nothing to blame other than their own laziness.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Tags: Featured,newsletter