6 ms·

> If both enter into the contract freely Ah, yes, the "freedom" thing again. When you're on a salary that barely keeps you afloat, that you cannot really affo

> If both enter into the contract freely Ah, yes, the "freedom" thing again. When you're on a salary that barely keeps you afloat, that you cannot really afford to lose, suddenly you start reading different meanings into that word.

gozur88 10y ago
Other people have freedoms, too, one of which is to not associate with you financially.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  That being a worthy juxtaposition of my "8 acres" point: it's not hard to find, acquire, and move to enough land to survive on independently. Fire up zillow.com, pick a state (assuming USA here), set a very low maximum price for search, and you'll likely find something somewhere useable for homesteading. Contending that "freedom" somehow requires others to associate with you, or requires an effort-free poverty-line income, is to grossly misunderstand the nature of "freedom". Your "freedom" starts with the bottom-line obligation to work hard enough to sustain yourself, by whatever means morally available without compelling others to comply or supply.
ctdonath 10y ago
Hence my argument: what is the barest "barely" that can keep you afloat? 8 acres is your fair share of Earth. Here's a $20 bag of assorted nutritious seeds. (If you're really uptight about this, I'll throw in a $40 sack of rice as enough to get you to first harvest.) There we have the stark reality of "barely keeps you afloat" and "cannot really afford to lose": subsistence farming. Harsh as it sounds, that's the real-world baseline. Capitalism gives you the option of doing something other than self-sufficient farming. You can put in the same effort, with the equivalent "cannot really afford to lose" work-or-starve option, and leverage the available contract - or not. The notion that you're somehow not "free" to accept or reject the contract (if living at that bare edge of survival) is practically no different than subsistence farming. I acknowledge that "freedom" seems rather moot at that level, but so long as the effort required is little different from the effort for subsistence farming, that's the hard reality of being a human living on Earth. If you're accepting the contract because of "work or starve" in the context of effort I'm harping on, and you have the liberty to pick between whatever contracts are available ("start digging & planting" always being one) then yes that's "freedom". If you're compelled under threat of abuse/injury/death to work for a disproportionately meager return, and/or literally confined with no options, then that is an immoral denial of the "freedom" I'm referring to. To wit: the natural law of "produce or starve" is not to be confused with, nor equated to, compulsory hard labor within incarceration sustained with a scant moldy loaf. (I'm writing this much about the subject because I'm trying to sort thru & refine ideas, bouncing 'em off HN for insight.)
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Where do I sign up to get my 20 acres? And do I get free agriculture school? Because capitalists took the land from indigenous people who were surviving and then intentionally destroyed the social institutions that would've let them revive their culture on a land grant. Ironically, capitalists eventually did the same thing to the descendants of the settlers, with a little less outright slaughter. Therefore, I would say society owes all of us at least the land and the education—real hands on education and family-style support—before anyone can start saying wage "slavery" is a choice.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    For $10,000 (we'll arrange it via a tax refund, turbotax.intuit.com), I'll have you on 20 acres of land next week (zillow.com) with the complete set of Foxfire books documenting Appalachian live-off-the-land survival (amazon.com), plus a set of basic tools needed (amazon.com), plus a camper to get you comfortably started (craigslist.com). As for "hands on" and "family style support", you're demanding luxuries that many settlers didn't have. I'm reading the Foxfire books, they're all you'll need for a good fair start.
    - erikpukinskis 10y ago
      We don't have $10,000 each.
- mch82 10y ago
  How are the following assumptions addressed? 1. Every 8-acre plot of land is suitable for sustaining a person 2. Every person is legally free and able to relocate to an 8-acre plot of land
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    1. Your real "land / population" fair share is 16 acres. About half of Earth's land mass is "rank wilderness", practically inhospitable. Hence 8 acres, practically all of which has something naturally growing on it, indicating you can adapt that land accordingly. Yes, some land will be more productive than other for varying needs; you're welcome to engage in some form of trade. Rough estimate is one typically needs 1-3 acres to grow enough food for one person. 8 acres should be more than enough, enough so to generate quite a surplus. Multiplying that by # of family members leverages productivity further, giving a simple family of 4 some 32 acres to work with, and into 50-100 acres for a larger family (leveraging another HNer's calculations, that can push a half-million $ revenue). 2. Most people are legally free; those who aren't are either incarcerated (and subject to equivalent subsistence by the state), or are the subject of criminal abuse (and freeing them is a major purpose of the state). Wasn't all that long ago that the USA was first settled by people who literally picked up what little they had and walked (or rode a mundane covered wagon) hundreds or thousands of miles across unpaved terrain to reach their settlement. I just looked on zillow.com for land in the 8 acre range. There is enough available for well under $10,000 (with just a few seconds' search effort) to make the thought experiment viable. "Able to relocate" is little more than picking up a briefcase and hitching a ride no more than halfway across the state. And it is a thought experiment. It is not a comprehensive analysis of encyclopedic depth and peer-reviewed correctness; it is a back-of-the napkin sanity check of what would roughly constitute a bottom-line standard, bracketing the discussion skewed by "soak the rich" redistributive thinking. Insofar as there will be complications: yes, there will be complications; figure it out, yes you may have to break ties (we're talking survival here), yes it will require effort (we're talking survival here), no it may not be pleasant (we're talking survival here). There's a recurring discrepancy I see on the subject: - some people expect "functional poverty" be achievable with virtually zero effort by the individual, all resources & energy supplied by others - some people expect "functional poverty" requires an all-out effort by the individual, with virtually zero resources & effort supplied by others. My great-grandparents having hauled themselves into Central Nowhere, Utah and elicited a decent living from the dirt there, without prolific & compulsory government welfare programs to do so, I'm rather firmly in the latter group. Bottom line is: one is expected to work AT LEAST as hard is required for subsistence farming on an average 8-acre lot. Whether the reality is actually farming an 8-acre lot, or working a mundane job in a factory, or writing apps on a borrowed MacBook, it is not unreasonable to expect/require an individual to produce at least that much in exchange for basic sustenance. This notion that the capable idle should be sustained, thru the confiscation of at least that much productivity from others, for the mere act of breathing is preposterous. Survival isn't free; you're expected to work at least that hard.
sinxoveretothex 10y ago
Nobody owes it to you to make sure you keep surviving. Imagine yourself back in a time where a flood or some random "act of god" could destroy your harvest and make it so you and your whole family died of hunger through no fault of your own (or anyone else's). Today, thanks to centuries of improvements, one doesn't have to know how to build a house or even how to acquire food or clean water. These things are given even to people who do nothing but drink and play video games all day on government dime. Do you realize? We live in a time and place where not being basically given food, water, sanitation and shelter, even for contributing absolutely nothing of value is seen as shocking. And then, some of the people from that time and place go on this crazy thing that allows them to communicate with half the population of the world in realtime and complain about "barely keeping afloat"! The very notion would have been laughable 100 years ago. Hell, it's disconnected from the reality of even a large part of the world TODAY.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  >Nobody owes it to you to make sure you keep surviving. Actually our society has decided that that is not the case. >These things are given even to people who do nothing but drink and play video games all day on government dime. When will this welfare queen myth end?? This is not most people. >Do you realize? We live in a time and place where not being basically given food, water, sanitation and shelter, even for contributing absolutely nothing of value is seen as shocking. I don't see the problem. >And then, some of the people from that time and place go on this crazy thing that allows them to communicate with half the population of the world in realtime and complain about "barely keeping afloat"! I don't see the problem.
  - demonshalo 10y ago
    >Actually our society has decided that that is not the case. Yet society could easily have decided the other way around. I bet you wouldn't be calling the majority rule moral at that point. The argument of "social morality" is only used here because it is convenient for you and aligns with your own values. Just think about those "societies that decided on policies that you disagree with". Those are the ones you would call immoral. Saudi Arabia, Iran, N.K. and Afghanistan comes to mind (?) > When will this welfare queen myth end?? This is not most people. True. It's not most people. But then again, it's not about the number of people. It's about the idea that I owe you something simply because you breath. > I don't see the problem. That's the problem. > I don't see the problem. Again, that's the problem.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Jarwain 10y ago
I wouldn't necessarily say people are reading different meanings into the word, but rather that there are different meanings that exist for the word. Namely, the ideas of positive vs negative liberty

gozur88 10y ago

Other people have freedoms, too, one of which is to not associate with you financially.

ctdonath 10y ago
That being a worthy juxtaposition of my "8 acres" point: it's not hard to find, acquire, and move to enough land to survive on independently. Fire up zillow.com, pick a state (assuming USA here), set a very low maximum price for search, and you'll likely find something somewhere useable for homesteading. Contending that "freedom" somehow requires others to associate with you, or requires an effort-free poverty-line income, is to grossly misunderstand the nature of "freedom". Your "freedom" starts with the bottom-line obligation to work hard enough to sustain yourself, by whatever means morally available without compelling others to comply or supply.

ctdonath 10y ago

Hence my argument: what is the barest "barely" that can keep you afloat? 8 acres is your fair share of Earth. Here's a $20 bag of assorted nutritious seeds. (If you're really uptight about this, I'll throw in a $40 sack of rice as enough to get you to first harvest.) There we have the stark reality of "barely keeps you afloat" and "cannot really afford to lose": subsistence farming. Harsh as it sounds, that's the real-world baseline. Capitalism gives you the option of doing something other than self-sufficient farming. You can put in the same effort, with the equivalent "cannot really afford to lose" work-or-starve option, and leverage the available contract - or not. The notion that you're somehow not "free" to accept or reject the contract (if living at that bare edge of survival) is practically no different than subsistence farming. I acknowledge that "freedom" seems rather moot at that level, but so long as the effort required is little different from the effort for subsistence farming, that's the hard reality of being a human living on Earth. If you're accepting the contract because of "work or starve" in the context of effort I'm harping on, and you have the liberty to pick between whatever contracts are available ("start digging & planting" always being one) then yes that's "freedom". If you're compelled under threat of abuse/injury/death to work for a disproportionately meager return, and/or literally confined with no options, then that is an immoral denial of the "freedom" I'm referring to. To wit: the natural law of "produce or starve" is not to be confused with, nor equated to, compulsory hard labor within incarceration sustained with a scant moldy loaf. (I'm writing this much about the subject because I'm trying to sort thru & refine ideas, bouncing 'em off HN for insight.)

erikpukinskis 10y ago
Where do I sign up to get my 20 acres? And do I get free agriculture school? Because capitalists took the land from indigenous people who were surviving and then intentionally destroyed the social institutions that would've let them revive their culture on a land grant. Ironically, capitalists eventually did the same thing to the descendants of the settlers, with a little less outright slaughter. Therefore, I would say society owes all of us at least the land and the education—real hands on education and family-style support—before anyone can start saying wage "slavery" is a choice.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  For $10,000 (we'll arrange it via a tax refund, turbotax.intuit.com), I'll have you on 20 acres of land next week (zillow.com) with the complete set of Foxfire books documenting Appalachian live-off-the-land survival (amazon.com), plus a set of basic tools needed (amazon.com), plus a camper to get you comfortably started (craigslist.com). As for "hands on" and "family style support", you're demanding luxuries that many settlers didn't have. I'm reading the Foxfire books, they're all you'll need for a good fair start.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    We don't have $10,000 each.
mch82 10y ago
How are the following assumptions addressed? 1. Every 8-acre plot of land is suitable for sustaining a person 2. Every person is legally free and able to relocate to an 8-acre plot of land
- ctdonath 10y ago
  1. Your real "land / population" fair share is 16 acres. About half of Earth's land mass is "rank wilderness", practically inhospitable. Hence 8 acres, practically all of which has something naturally growing on it, indicating you can adapt that land accordingly. Yes, some land will be more productive than other for varying needs; you're welcome to engage in some form of trade. Rough estimate is one typically needs 1-3 acres to grow enough food for one person. 8 acres should be more than enough, enough so to generate quite a surplus. Multiplying that by # of family members leverages productivity further, giving a simple family of 4 some 32 acres to work with, and into 50-100 acres for a larger family (leveraging another HNer's calculations, that can push a half-million $ revenue). 2. Most people are legally free; those who aren't are either incarcerated (and subject to equivalent subsistence by the state), or are the subject of criminal abuse (and freeing them is a major purpose of the state). Wasn't all that long ago that the USA was first settled by people who literally picked up what little they had and walked (or rode a mundane covered wagon) hundreds or thousands of miles across unpaved terrain to reach their settlement. I just looked on zillow.com for land in the 8 acre range. There is enough available for well under $10,000 (with just a few seconds' search effort) to make the thought experiment viable. "Able to relocate" is little more than picking up a briefcase and hitching a ride no more than halfway across the state. And it is a thought experiment. It is not a comprehensive analysis of encyclopedic depth and peer-reviewed correctness; it is a back-of-the napkin sanity check of what would roughly constitute a bottom-line standard, bracketing the discussion skewed by "soak the rich" redistributive thinking. Insofar as there will be complications: yes, there will be complications; figure it out, yes you may have to break ties (we're talking survival here), yes it will require effort (we're talking survival here), no it may not be pleasant (we're talking survival here). There's a recurring discrepancy I see on the subject: - some people expect "functional poverty" be achievable with virtually zero effort by the individual, all resources & energy supplied by others - some people expect "functional poverty" requires an all-out effort by the individual, with virtually zero resources & effort supplied by others. My great-grandparents having hauled themselves into Central Nowhere, Utah and elicited a decent living from the dirt there, without prolific & compulsory government welfare programs to do so, I'm rather firmly in the latter group. Bottom line is: one is expected to work AT LEAST as hard is required for subsistence farming on an average 8-acre lot. Whether the reality is actually farming an 8-acre lot, or working a mundane job in a factory, or writing apps on a borrowed MacBook, it is not unreasonable to expect/require an individual to produce at least that much in exchange for basic sustenance. This notion that the capable idle should be sustained, thru the confiscation of at least that much productivity from others, for the mere act of breathing is preposterous. Survival isn't free; you're expected to work at least that hard.

sinxoveretothex 10y ago

Nobody owes it to you to make sure you keep surviving. Imagine yourself back in a time where a flood or some random "act of god" could destroy your harvest and make it so you and your whole family died of hunger through no fault of your own (or anyone else's). Today, thanks to centuries of improvements, one doesn't have to know how to build a house or even how to acquire food or clean water. These things are given even to people who do nothing but drink and play video games all day on government dime. Do you realize? We live in a time and place where not being basically given food, water, sanitation and shelter, even for contributing absolutely nothing of value is seen as shocking. And then, some of the people from that time and place go on this crazy thing that allows them to communicate with half the population of the world in realtime and complain about "barely keeping afloat"! The very notion would have been laughable 100 years ago. Hell, it's disconnected from the reality of even a large part of the world TODAY.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
>Nobody owes it to you to make sure you keep surviving. Actually our society has decided that that is not the case. >These things are given even to people who do nothing but drink and play video games all day on government dime. When will this welfare queen myth end?? This is not most people. >Do you realize? We live in a time and place where not being basically given food, water, sanitation and shelter, even for contributing absolutely nothing of value is seen as shocking. I don't see the problem. >And then, some of the people from that time and place go on this crazy thing that allows them to communicate with half the population of the world in realtime and complain about "barely keeping afloat"! I don't see the problem.
- demonshalo 10y ago
  >Actually our society has decided that that is not the case. Yet society could easily have decided the other way around. I bet you wouldn't be calling the majority rule moral at that point. The argument of "social morality" is only used here because it is convenient for you and aligns with your own values. Just think about those "societies that decided on policies that you disagree with". Those are the ones you would call immoral. Saudi Arabia, Iran, N.K. and Afghanistan comes to mind (?) > When will this welfare queen myth end?? This is not most people. True. It's not most people. But then again, it's not about the number of people. It's about the idea that I owe you something simply because you breath. > I don't see the problem. That's the problem. > I don't see the problem. Again, that's the problem.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Jarwain 10y ago

I wouldn't necessarily say people are reading different meanings into the word, but rather that there are different meanings that exist for the word. Namely, the ideas of positive vs negative liberty