4 ms·
>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
by 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 agoIf 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 agoSo 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 agoIn 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.