5 ms·

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

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.
      - ue_ 10y ago
        >Nordic socialism This is not socialism in any sense of the word. They have a social democracy.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      What kind of policies are you referring to? I don't quite understand.
      - someguydave 10y ago
        It's a good question, and I didn't mean to be insulting about it - I apologize if is how you took it. Here's a random paper I just googled up that at least introduces the problem: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/2bf67b79-61a2-42fd-b98c-e58385ced442.pdf https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/2bf67b79-61a2-42fd-b... The short story: there's an association between declines in social trust and people of different ethnicities living in the same society. It's not clear which way the arrow of causality points, but there is some reason to think that a highly multi-ethnic society leads to decay of social trust (ie defection)
        ue_ 10y ago
        Not at all, I was merely curious as to what you meant. With regard to this problem, I had heard of it before, and I hope there is some kind of solution. I haven't read the paper yet, but I have a feeling it takes root in petty tribalism and legitimate differences in culture. Thanks.
- baddox 10y ago
  I can't think of a society where defection from strangers is more likely than cooperation.
ue_ 10y ago
>I too would like it if others would meet my needs and I could disregard the needs of all other human beings. These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to. I value your needs, I value what you want. But I do not value the fact that your need must only be satisfied by my being forced to sell my time for your need. I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced. Either way, I would argue that the freedom of the whole world, of all the workers, is more important than desires for new cars, computers, jewellery etc. When we are producing so many products and yet people cannot afford to live with clean water, clothes or not having to worry about starving, lack of health insurance etc. then I think we have a problem. Capitalism does not function for the purpose of the needs of humans. Not by a long shot, so please do not frame it that way. It is merely a side effect. And I'm not asking you to value my needs, I'm asking you to value the needs of your fellows and, if you are a working person, yourself. Again, I do not want to satisfy needs under threat of destitution, poverty and death.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to. The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. You help him to do it. I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced. So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Somehow I doubt that the absence of force is what you had in mind.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Furthermore, this exploutation is not necessary for the boss to have a high standard of living, never mind bare survival. >So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Yes, that's correct.

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.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      >Nordic socialism This is not socialism in any sense of the word. They have a social democracy.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    What kind of policies are you referring to? I don't quite understand.
    - someguydave 10y ago
      It's a good question, and I didn't mean to be insulting about it - I apologize if is how you took it. Here's a random paper I just googled up that at least introduces the problem: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/2bf67b79-61a2-42fd-b98c-e58385ced442.pdf https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/2bf67b79-61a2-42fd-b... The short story: there's an association between declines in social trust and people of different ethnicities living in the same society. It's not clear which way the arrow of causality points, but there is some reason to think that a highly multi-ethnic society leads to decay of social trust (ie defection)
      - ue_ 10y ago
        Not at all, I was merely curious as to what you meant. With regard to this problem, I had heard of it before, and I hope there is some kind of solution. I haven't read the paper yet, but I have a feeling it takes root in petty tribalism and legitimate differences in culture. Thanks.
baddox 10y ago
I can't think of a society where defection from strangers is more likely than cooperation.

ue_ 10y ago

>I too would like it if others would meet my needs and I could disregard the needs of all other human beings. These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to. I value your needs, I value what you want. But I do not value the fact that your need must only be satisfied by my being forced to sell my time for your need. I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced. Either way, I would argue that the freedom of the whole world, of all the workers, is more important than desires for new cars, computers, jewellery etc. When we are producing so many products and yet people cannot afford to live with clean water, clothes or not having to worry about starving, lack of health insurance etc. then I think we have a problem. Capitalism does not function for the purpose of the needs of humans. Not by a long shot, so please do not frame it that way. It is merely a side effect. And I'm not asking you to value my needs, I'm asking you to value the needs of your fellows and, if you are a working person, yourself. Again, I do not want to satisfy needs under threat of destitution, poverty and death.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to. The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. You help him to do it. I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced. So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Somehow I doubt that the absence of force is what you had in mind.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Furthermore, this exploutation is not necessary for the boss to have a high standard of living, never mind bare survival. >So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Yes, that's correct.