Town Meetings And Workers Control example essay topic

"What touches all should be decided by all". This is a recurring theme in Michael Walzer's article "Town meetings and Workers' Control", in which he believes that decisions should reflect the views of everyone that it affects. "Much of what is considered 'private' life in liberal societies ought to be subject to public control". He argues that democracy requires workers control of firms. Walzer's main argument states, that for any authoritative decision that seriously affects others, there should be a subset of those affected, who should be able to authorize the decision, make the decision or approve it. The people who makeup the division should be those who are in that association, which make the decision possible or necessary.

To explicate his argument, Walzer explains how a process of decision making by officials can have a dramatic outcome that can result in affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Further explaining, Walzer invents a story about a man who owns property and creates a land of opportunity. This story describes how a town unites to make a decision that affects the whole town. In addition, Walzer describes how economics and politics should be treated as two separate entities. "What is the source of authority?" According to Walzer, although disagreeing, authority is derived from the ownership of the organizations by particular persons. This outlook comes from a capitalist organization.

This means that the participants are the subjects with no input, whereas the officials hold all the authority. All their claims to govern and formulate decisions rest on the legal and the moral implications of private property. However, this did not last long as Socialist argued that ownership should be exempt from certain decision-making that the political community as a whole should do. Now, views are comprised of a society rather than individuals with power.

In Walzer's story, he created a young character named J.J. that is determined to make a fortune. This is a success story with a twist about a prosperous political entrepreneur that lost in the end because he failed to disperse authority. J.J. obtained land on both sides of a river and built a ferry that he ran. Since J.J. was a gregarious and funny man, he attracted many passengers. Soon people were building on his land.

He liked this idea so he got more land and built a town. He created territorial law and built a town hall in which he lived. The townspeople paid taxes, rent, and were comfortable with his authority. When the town grew, J.J. appointed town officials that would help displace authority. One of those officials was the chief of police given to his son. However, many of the newer townsmen disagreed with this choice and held the first town meeting.

Although only a few participated, they still created a stir. The citizens formed a committee and called for more meetings in which they discussed the way the town government should run. As a group, they decided that the town government was the "public" business and therefore the public should have a direct relation to the outcomes. Then the idea for elections formulated, however J.J. was in total disagreement.

He argued "this is my town", and that he founded the place. His approach focused on the fact that he built the ferry, which started everything; he risked his capital on land so it could be built on and the townspeople knew how it ran before settling on the land. While everything he stated was true, the townspeople still argued that he was the founder not the owner. After a struggle, J.J. withdrew from office. .".. J.J. had occasionally confused business and politics". The main points of this story reflect the liberal views, which J. J portrays.

Enmeshed in this story, Walzer describes the traditional views of authority and the workers place in society. This story demonstrates how a certain view on property rights, in the case of ownership, can change the lives of the men and women that live on the land. He illustrates how the workers came together to fight for their rights and earn their right to have a voice in the decisions made by a government. This reminds me of a workers strike, where workers ban together to fight against authority.

They typically feel they are being cheated somehow and looking for justice. Walzer continues to stress the importance of decision making by all people that it touches in his discussion of economic associations. Walzer alludes to one of John Locke's assumptions that man can acquire objects though enterprise and invention, mixing them with his labor to obtain ownership. Disagreeing, Walzer states, "it's not the case that anything can be acquired that way, and if towns cannot be, there is no reason to think that companies can".

Next, Walzer makes a good comparison to the investment of money in bonds to the investment of land, neither of which gives you ownership. This is unlike a political community, which allows different kind of rights based on membership, not invested money. In addition, when new settlers wanted to join J-town, they knew what was to be expected and had knowledge that if you disagreed you could leave. Walzer compares J-town to a monastic order that required strict and unquestionable obedience.

He explains that here, new members are choosing a new way of life and they expect disciplinary rule. Walzer means that this is a special case in which we cannot take away the authority because it is the sole purpose of the place the member chooses to live. However, since this is only applicable under that circumstance means that it is not true for someone who joins a company. When you start a new job, you understand that there are rules that must be obeyed and you have supervisors that hold authority. On the other hand, you also know you still have a voice and cannot be taken advantage of, so labor unions are formed. In these unions, the legal rights of workers are protected.

Towns and companies are significantly different and Walzer makes the distinction. He begins with a simple point that a town is an association of residents whereas a company is an association of workers that live somewhere else. Walzer then points out that maybe the maxim "what touches all should be decided by all" should only apply to residential communities. I think he means that individuals have the responsibility to control the place where they live compared to a workplace where that is taken care of by the organization. He goes on to explain that the public wants what is best for them and gets this by involving the whole public. "This is why the meetings in J-town were so exiting".

Those meetings were just the beginning of a local republic. This contrasts to the workplace because here no one person "needs to own in order to safeguard his independence and solitude". I agree with Walzer "what touches all should be decided by all", because we live in a democratic society in which all people are created equal. I believe that we as a nation do a good job of letting the "average Joe" voice his opinion. As Walzer stated, we have labor unions that fight for worker's rights. Labor unions cover all sorts of organizations like firefighters and educators.

I also feel that Waltzer is correct when he explains that in a political sense everyone is involved. An example of this is the election process, which is a great way to involve communities politically. It is their responsibility to elect candidates, help with campaigns and then vote. Every vote counts and it is the perfect way to try to help you win a voice.

Elections can be as small as communities and rise all the way to Presidential. People are given the opportunity to change the authority; it is just up to them if they wish to participate. No matter the size, big or small, the town or company sphere should have a say. This is how politics works and according to Walzer, economics should be run the same way as well. Politics requires democracy, which is a great way to check powers. Walzer makes a good point when he argues that we should not restrict democracy in the economic sphere if it is exercised in the political sphere.

What firms do affects the lives of the workers in ways different from the rest of society. The worker's life is directly affected. His story was thought provoking and brought up interesting points. I can see how J.J. expected to be in charge, since he did found the settlement; however, I realized that was more like a dictatorship. If every founder thought the way J. J did, there would be complete chaos. Just because someone is the founder does not mean that they have the expertise to hold all power.

Walzer's fable is one of his supporting arguments, in which the town brings the attention to public versus private. I agree that the distinction affects all of us and it lays out the meaning of a true democracy. The basic principle of democracy states that we all have a say if it touches us all. A town, by nature, is a public association that should be decided by all. If people do not work together then ultimately, nothing will get anywhere.