The word "class" is the English lexicon is usually used in two ways.
The first is the popular sense that refers to social standing. A person can be from the "working class." A person can be part of the "middle class." In American society, there is by tradition no such thing as an "upper class." There might be a "leisure class" or an "upper middle class" or an "upper crust" but no "upper class" -- and that probably stems from the charming myth that we abolished such a thing with the elimination of Lords and Dukes. But thats not what it means in the legal lexicon, at all I agree with the decision, and it was unanimous On Jun 22, 11:18 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > What Does Class Action Mean?by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. > The news of the Supreme Court decision on Wal-Mart -- declining to approve a > massive lawsuit against an amazing company -- was reported as if it amounted > to some devastating blow to American life. Nonsense: the decision actually > permits normalcy in economic development to proceed without a new round of > destruction of wealth. Some lawyers might be sad, but it is great for the > rest of us. > The lawsuit grouped the interests of 1.6 million women who had worked for > 3,400 stores since 1998. One can only imagine the looting that would have > commenced had the decision gone the other way. It would have been > catastrophic. What the Supreme Court did was narrowly decline to wreck even > more American labor markets and the gears of free enterprise. It is a small > favor, but thank goodness for it. > The lawsuit that was turned back was called a "class-action lawsuit." The > word "class" is the English lexicon is usually used in two ways. > The first is the popular sense that refers to social standing. A person can > be from the "working class." A person can be part of the "middle class." In > American society, there is by tradition no such thing as an "upper class." > There might be a "leisure class" or an "upper middle class" or an "upper > crust" but no "upper class" -- and that probably stems from the charming myth > that we abolished such a thing with the elimination of Lords and Dukes. > A derivative sense of the term class is more colloquial. We say that a person > "has class," which means that he or she acts and behaves in ways that are > generally higher on the social strata than the norm. We might say something > is "classy," meaning pretty, beautiful, impressive, or suggestive of wealth > and opulence. > This is not the sense in which the term class is used for these lawsuits. The > second definition is the relevant one and it is mostly drawn from academia > and the Marxist tradition in particular. The Marxist theory is that all of > society is constantly seething in conflicting and exploitative social > relationships that pit group against group. > In Marx s view, the core economic conflict was labor versus capital. The idea > is that capitalists exploit the workers by sucking the surplus value of > production from them such that capital grows ever richer and labor ever > poorer. The guy built an entire system of thought based on this idea and it > has inspired revolutions around the world. > It s all a bit strange because it is so obviously untrue. If I hire you to > mow my grass, you are not being exploited. We are cooperating in mutually > beneficial exchange. No one has a gun to your head and we both are free to > negotiate the terms of the deal. You can work for anyone who wants to hire > you and I can hire anyone who is willing to work for me. This is called peace > and exchange; there is nothing exploitative about it. > Marx was just brewing buckets of envy in a time when people were confused > about the accumulation of capital and confused about demographic movements > and the like. His theory explained nothing and was based on nothing, but > somehow it stuck and it still festers, inspiring governments and theorists > around the world to try to reinvent Marxism. > One reinvention of Marxist theory is the idea that the gains of whites come > at the expense of blacks, or that the gains of men come at the expense of > women, or that the gains of abled people come at the expense of the disabled, > or that the gains of people in general come at the expense of the > environment. They all assume that there is something like a class of people > whose interests and outlook are homogeneous in every sense that matters. > This is obviously not the case with the people who joined -- or who were > joined without their permission, in the usual way -- the "class action > lawsuit" against Wal-Mart. First, there is no such thing as the interests of > women -- or of men, or blacks, or disabled people or the environment. > Interests are always radically heterogeneous because the world is filled with > unique individuals with subjective perspectives, ideas, and experiences. > Second, there was no class "acting" in this case. It was a bunch of lawyers > using some former Wal-Mart employees -- let s just say that these people were > being exploited by attorneys -- in the attempt to pick the deepest pockets > around. Had the lawsuit been won, the women would have received settlements > that would pay a day of parking meter fees. The lawyers would have looted it > all. > The American legal system should never let such a ridiculous lawsuit make any > headway in the court system at all. If we had strict property rights, freedom > of association and exchange, and freedom of contract, there would be no such > thing as a class-action suit. If we had a real free market, we would be > spared that massive social waste that was involved in this preposterous > lawsuit. > But then what about discrimination? It comes down to this. If Wal-Mart > systematically discriminated against women, there is a wonderful market > opportunity open for some other company to hire up all these millions of > downtrodden people and make a great killing in the market. It is for this > reason that irrational and invidious discrimination is not a feature of the > market economy. > There is no such thing as class in a free market. Its members are fluid and > based on a huge range of economic conditions that are mostly left to human > choice. Class is fluid and non-conflicting. Peace prevails. > As for the Marxist idea of class, yes, its appearance can be created but only > by legislation and lawsuits that pit one group against another group. It is > wholly artificial and a good example of how the state creates the very > problem it purports to solve. The Supreme Court should never be asked to > decide this sort of matter, but its majority opinion grants us a temporary > reprieve from more looting of the capitalist class (in the best sense of that > term).http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/what-does-class-action-mean184.html -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
