Then you don't believe in the equal worth of individuals. The high school drop-out and Harvard grad get one vote in social issues. Advocating the Harvard grad having more power than the drop-out is not democratic.
This is not politics. This is economics.
Define "truly anarchist market." I base this on the fact it requires a state to recognize the stock system. Shares, like copyrights and patents require a legal system to "exist."
By its definition. A system with no inherent rules built in. There has never been an anarchist market, and it is doubtful that one could even exist.
Workers do put money in it.
And they get a say proportional to how much they put into it.
In fact, they're the ones making the money.
Which is totally different from putting money into a company.
It's representative democracy without the democracy and limited representatives.
If I put in $100million I should get more say in what the company does. What you are doing is the equivalent of arguing that the state of Alaska should get an equal say as the state of California.
Real democracy could certainly exist. It's infeasible if you believe in a class system.
Class has nothing to do with it. We would have to vote on every issue, most of which we are totally uneducated on. We would going to the polls every week. How long would it take to count the ballots? What about recounts? Direct democracy sounds great on paper but is highly limited by technology, infrastructure, and the people who would comprise it.
The CEOS making millions each year could have the company crash and burn and still get off better than the workers.
I do agree with the point that if a CEO drags a company down directly through his actions (and not some unforeseeable market crash) he should be paid the bare minimum required by law.
