4 ms·

>Life is suffering, staying alive takes effort. I agree. But it shouldn't necessarily have to be that way, especially for those who cannot take the effort to s

by ue_ 10y ago

>Life is suffering, staying alive takes effort. I agree. But it shouldn't necessarily have to be that way, especially for those who cannot take the effort to survive, or live on the brink of death despite taking the effort. > are in fact selling your fragile life to you I don't think people should have to buy their lives from other people. How did these people get my life anyway? Why do they have the right to sell it to me? This seems to be starting with a default position of them having my life. I demand it back. Edit: >You are, in effect, specializing in relieving some common suffering, and hoping that others specialize in relieving the suffering you do not know how to relieve. Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. My point is that you shouldn't have to work for anyone but yourself, and you shouldn't let others make a profit from your work while they apply almost no work at all. Are you implying that the bourgeoisie specialise in relieving suffering?

microcolonel 10y ago
> But it shouldn't necessarily have to be that way. If it's not that way, it soon will get worse. An optimal amount of suffering lies on a ray between tyrannical order, and unbounded chaos. Excess order drives chaos. Excess chaos creates unbearable suffering, which drives order. > I demand it back. They want theirs back too! Society is an open question as to how this can be done decently.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >If it's not that way, it soon will get worse. An optimal amount of suffering lies on a ray between tyrannical order, and unbounded chaos. Excess order drives chaos. Excess chaos creates unbearable suffering, which drives order. Please excuse me, but are you trying to be obscurantist and vague with this? I just don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Why must we have suffering at all, when it can be avoided? Why must there be exploitation? I'm talking in concrete cases here - people are being exploited for their labour. There is no "golden middle" for suffering. The idea that there must be, or that a middle solution is best, is a logical fallacy. >They want theirs back too! Who does? The capitalists? I'm not taking their life; rather, I am selling my labour-time as a worker to them, in order to survive, reproduce, and replenish the worker force. I start with the fundamental idea: nobody should have to sell their time to someone else in order to survive for themselves.
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    > Who does? The capitalists? It sounds like you've set yourself up in a dichotomy between yourself and "the capitalists", if you keep this up, you'll be constantly baffled. The slave, by definition, is being denied alternatives by the master. If there were a master which had better housing, and less violent staff, the slave can not apply for that job. You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. You are free, but that doesn't mean the world itself is pleasant to anyone. Your employer works for somebody too. > I'm not taking their life They aren't taking yours either. But if you give your effort to them, they can help save you from suffering the world on your own. I doubt you would prefer to live alone in a prairie, forest, or bog. I doubt you could survive even a week in such conditions. Furthermore, what would it be worth to live alone in the prairie, forest, or bog? Nothing you discover, say, or think will ever mean anything if you refuse to serve others.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. Theoretically yes, but in practice you might quickly end up against all kinds of constraints, especially if you got a bad start. But if you give your effort to them, they can help save you from suffering the world on your own. This of course works both ways, the workers are saving the capitalist from suffering by giving them shares of the goods they produce. There is no reason the capitalist should profit from this arrangement more than the workers.
      - microcolonel 10y ago
        If the capitalist does not offer compensation at a profit, then there is no reason for the capital. If you take it by force, he no longer has any reason to operate it. Why should the capitalist suffer for free, and the worker destroy the capitalist's work for no gain?
        10y ago

by ue_ 10y ago

microcolonel 10y ago

> But it shouldn't necessarily have to be that way. If it's not that way, it soon will get worse. An optimal amount of suffering lies on a ray between tyrannical order, and unbounded chaos. Excess order drives chaos. Excess chaos creates unbearable suffering, which drives order. > I demand it back. They want theirs back too! Society is an open question as to how this can be done decently.

ue_ 10y ago
>If it's not that way, it soon will get worse. An optimal amount of suffering lies on a ray between tyrannical order, and unbounded chaos. Excess order drives chaos. Excess chaos creates unbearable suffering, which drives order. Please excuse me, but are you trying to be obscurantist and vague with this? I just don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Why must we have suffering at all, when it can be avoided? Why must there be exploitation? I'm talking in concrete cases here - people are being exploited for their labour. There is no "golden middle" for suffering. The idea that there must be, or that a middle solution is best, is a logical fallacy. >They want theirs back too! Who does? The capitalists? I'm not taking their life; rather, I am selling my labour-time as a worker to them, in order to survive, reproduce, and replenish the worker force. I start with the fundamental idea: nobody should have to sell their time to someone else in order to survive for themselves.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  > Who does? The capitalists? It sounds like you've set yourself up in a dichotomy between yourself and "the capitalists", if you keep this up, you'll be constantly baffled. The slave, by definition, is being denied alternatives by the master. If there were a master which had better housing, and less violent staff, the slave can not apply for that job. You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. You are free, but that doesn't mean the world itself is pleasant to anyone. Your employer works for somebody too. > I'm not taking their life They aren't taking yours either. But if you give your effort to them, they can help save you from suffering the world on your own. I doubt you would prefer to live alone in a prairie, forest, or bog. I doubt you could survive even a week in such conditions. Furthermore, what would it be worth to live alone in the prairie, forest, or bog? Nothing you discover, say, or think will ever mean anything if you refuse to serve others.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness. Theoretically yes, but in practice you might quickly end up against all kinds of constraints, especially if you got a bad start. But if you give your effort to them, they can help save you from suffering the world on your own. This of course works both ways, the workers are saving the capitalist from suffering by giving them shares of the goods they produce. There is no reason the capitalist should profit from this arrangement more than the workers.
    - microcolonel 10y ago
      If the capitalist does not offer compensation at a profit, then there is no reason for the capital. If you take it by force, he no longer has any reason to operate it. Why should the capitalist suffer for free, and the worker destroy the capitalist's work for no gain?
      - 10y ago