6 ms·

It should be recognised that meeting the needs of consumers and meeting high standards for the workers is a difficult thing to get right. Meeting the needs of c

by ue_ 10y ago

It should be recognised that meeting the needs of consumers and meeting high standards for the workers is a difficult thing to get right. Meeting the needs of consumers when it comes at the expense of worker rights I would argue is a bad thing outright. The consumer is not always right, especially when the consumer is so influenced by advertising and the culture of consumption. I would much rather not meet the need of a single customer if it meant I could have freedom from being forced to sell my labour.

harryh 10y ago
You don't have to get a job. Plenty of people don't. You could live off the dole, or go be a hobo in the woods somewhere. You aren't forced to sell your labour. It's just that most people do so because they want to things they can get in exchange.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >You could live off the dole, or go be a hobo in the woods somewhere. These things only come about due to people realising that capitalism without some kind of governmental safety net is utterly barbaric. It is also impractical, from a philanthropic position, even if I do not sell my labour, others must do it, which I believe is still an injustice. I do not think it is just that someone must choose between selling their labour and living in destitution and poverty, nor do I think it is just that workers are not rewarded fully for their work. It is entirely forceful for any semblance of a life free from worry about if one can make it to the next month from the money his government gives him. This holds doubly for those working where exploitation is much more visible, such as sweatshops. Furthermore in order to support those who do not work, one must pay taxes, which cannot well co-exist with the rights of freedom, equality and dubiously property. Read Proudhon's "What is Property?" for something interesting. Here's an interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNxSHcQqiMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNxSHcQqiMc
  - harryh 10y ago
    If your needs extend beyond what you are able to personally do for yourself it's impossible to satisfy them without someone laboring for your benefit. The world is gonna be a lot better off if that someone is compensated for doing so.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      >The world is gonna be a lot better off if that someone is compensated for doing so. I agree, so why must we be under a system which unfairly compensates those who do no work at all, while those who do the work are routinely exploited? The world is gonna be a lot better off without sweatshop labour and disregard for the environment insofar as profits are made.
      - harryh 10y ago
        So you agree that it's fine for people (perhaps even yourself!) to work for a wage for delivering goods and services to customers. You just don't want people to be able to make a return on invested capital. And you also want to have labor & environmental standards. It seems you've moved the goalposts.
        ue_ 10y ago
        In my ideal anarchistic society it is fine to do that. After all, it would be unjust to force you either way to do a particular thing with your product (labour time). But nobody would choose to do that, as they would know that their labour is being exploited. All wage labour is like this, provided that you are selling it to someone with the express intent for profit. In a society that has prisons and punishment, though, those who exploit labour would be treated the same as those who steal or force people into unconscionable contracts. The profit motive as shown through history has almost always caused massive environmental damage. Labour standards merely give the illusion of a world without exploitation. In reality your prpgrammer in SV is exploited the same way, but to a lesser degree, than the sweatshoo workers.
        harryh 10y ago
yummyfajitas 10y ago
I would much rather not meet the need of a single customer if it meant I could have freedom from being forced to sell my labour. I too would like it if others would meet my needs and I could disregard the needs of all other human beings. Given that you don't value my needs and desires at all, why should I value yours?
- someguydave 10y ago
  >Given that you don't value my needs and desires at all, why should I value yours? I would prefer a society where I can count on cooperation rather than defection from strangers in most encounters.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    It is ue_ who wants to defect, not me.
    - someguydave 10y ago
      Indeed. I suspect ue_ also broadly opposes policies that tend to build high-trust societies as well. By the way, why did Nordic socialism work so well?
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        The main policy that produces high-trust society is to build a monoethnic society comprised of Nordic people. Everyone opposes that besides a few people on the alt-right. The Nordic countries have been moving away from Nordic socialism for 20 years because it doesn't actually work very well, even with a society comprised of Nordic people.
        someguydave 10y ago
        >The Nordic countries have been moving away from Nordic socialism for 20 years because it doesn't actually work very well, even with a society comprised of Nordic people. Indeed. I suspect the main downfall of mono-ethnic social states is the development of hyper-vigilance against individual defection. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante One wonders if the same effect eventually develops in all societies that are composed of outbred ethnic groups.

by ue_ 10y ago

harryh 10y ago

You don't have to get a job. Plenty of people don't. You could live off the dole, or go be a hobo in the woods somewhere. You aren't forced to sell your labour. It's just that most people do so because they want to things they can get in exchange.

ue_ 10y ago
>You could live off the dole, or go be a hobo in the woods somewhere. These things only come about due to people realising that capitalism without some kind of governmental safety net is utterly barbaric. It is also impractical, from a philanthropic position, even if I do not sell my labour, others must do it, which I believe is still an injustice. I do not think it is just that someone must choose between selling their labour and living in destitution and poverty, nor do I think it is just that workers are not rewarded fully for their work. It is entirely forceful for any semblance of a life free from worry about if one can make it to the next month from the money his government gives him. This holds doubly for those working where exploitation is much more visible, such as sweatshops. Furthermore in order to support those who do not work, one must pay taxes, which cannot well co-exist with the rights of freedom, equality and dubiously property. Read Proudhon's "What is Property?" for something interesting. Here's an interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNxSHcQqiMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNxSHcQqiMc
- harryh 10y ago
  If your needs extend beyond what you are able to personally do for yourself it's impossible to satisfy them without someone laboring for your benefit. The world is gonna be a lot better off if that someone is compensated for doing so.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >The world is gonna be a lot better off if that someone is compensated for doing so. I agree, so why must we be under a system which unfairly compensates those who do no work at all, while those who do the work are routinely exploited? The world is gonna be a lot better off without sweatshop labour and disregard for the environment insofar as profits are made.
    - harryh 10y ago
      So you agree that it's fine for people (perhaps even yourself!) to work for a wage for delivering goods and services to customers. You just don't want people to be able to make a return on invested capital. And you also want to have labor & environmental standards. It seems you've moved the goalposts.
      - ue_ 10y ago
        In my ideal anarchistic society it is fine to do that. After all, it would be unjust to force you either way to do a particular thing with your product (labour time). But nobody would choose to do that, as they would know that their labour is being exploited. All wage labour is like this, provided that you are selling it to someone with the express intent for profit. In a society that has prisons and punishment, though, those who exploit labour would be treated the same as those who steal or force people into unconscionable contracts. The profit motive as shown through history has almost always caused massive environmental damage. Labour standards merely give the illusion of a world without exploitation. In reality your prpgrammer in SV is exploited the same way, but to a lesser degree, than the sweatshoo workers.
        harryh 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

I would much rather not meet the need of a single customer if it meant I could have freedom from being forced to sell my labour. I too would like it if others would meet my needs and I could disregard the needs of all other human beings. Given that you don't value my needs and desires at all, why should I value yours?

someguydave 10y ago
>Given that you don't value my needs and desires at all, why should I value yours? I would prefer a society where I can count on cooperation rather than defection from strangers in most encounters.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  It is ue_ who wants to defect, not me.
  - someguydave 10y ago
    Indeed. I suspect ue_ also broadly opposes policies that tend to build high-trust societies as well. By the way, why did Nordic socialism work so well?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      The main policy that produces high-trust society is to build a monoethnic society comprised of Nordic people. Everyone opposes that besides a few people on the alt-right. The Nordic countries have been moving away from Nordic socialism for 20 years because it doesn't actually work very well, even with a society comprised of Nordic people.
      - someguydave 10y ago
        >The Nordic countries have been moving away from Nordic socialism for 20 years because it doesn't actually work very well, even with a society comprised of Nordic people. Indeed. I suspect the main downfall of mono-ethnic social states is the development of hyper-vigilance against individual defection. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante One wonders if the same effect eventually develops in all societies that are composed of outbred ethnic groups.