6 ms·

The transaction of you working for me is still voluntary. No person forced you to work for me. I did not cause you to starve. If I disappeared off the face of t

by jules 9y ago

The transaction of you working for me is still voluntary. No person forced you to work for me. I did not cause you to starve. If I disappeared off the face of the planet you would still starve. That I offer you a job improves your options relative to what you would otherwise have had. I can only "force" you to work 20 hours a day if all your other options are even worse, and I am the one who improves your options the most. If however I put a gun to your head and tell you to work 20 hours a day I actively make your options worse by force. Capitalism is by no means a perfectly well defined system that you can deduce from a set of axioms. You can have a discussion about which property rights the government should enforce, such as whether it should enforce intellectual property. But certain systems are clearly fall outside of the bounds of what constitutes a free market, such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head to make you give me your wallet.

s73ver_ 9y ago
"The transaction of you working for me is still voluntary." Only in the most extreme interpretation of the word. "No person forced you to work for me. " Maybe not, but the idea that I will be fired if I don't do what you say means that it's not entirely voluntary. "I can only "force" you to work 20 hours a day if all your other options are even worse, and I am the one who improves your options the most." Again, that's not voluntary. That's exploitation. "If however I put a gun to your head and tell you to work 20 hours a day I actively make your options worse by force." Guns are not the only way to exercise force. Company towns were full of force. Just not physical. "such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head." Guns are not the only expression of force. Failure to see that is a huge fallacy.
- jules 9y ago
  If you disagree with this definition of voluntary, that's fine. Let's choose another string of letters to denote what I wrote in the previous comment, and change my other comment and replace the string "voluntary" with that new string of letters. > Maybe not, but the idea that I will be fired if I don't do what you say means that it's not entirely voluntary. Being fired is simply no longer engaging in the transaction where one party trades their money for the labour of the other party. > Guns are not the only expression of force. Failure to see that is a huge fallacy. I did not say that they were.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    "If you disagree with this definition of voluntary, that's fine. Let's choose another string of letters to denote what I wrote in the previous comment, and change my other comment and replace the string "voluntary" with that new string of letters." That won't make it any better. You're still hand waving away a lot of exploitation. "Being fired is simply no longer engaging in the transaction where one party trades their money for the labour of the other party." Which is a threat of force often used when the employer wants the employee to do something that may be unethical, or simply wrong (like making someone work 20 hours a day). "I did not say that they were." But the way you're phrasing things, and focusing on them, indicates that you believe that physical force is the only force that matters.
    - jules 9y ago
      > That won't make it any better. You're still hand waving away a lot of exploitation. I'm not hand waving away any exploitation. I did not pass any moral judgement, for or against. I described what an unregulated market is. To do so I used the word "voluntary", and I explained what I meant by that word in that context. In particular, it does not include the use of a gun to make somebody give you their wallet. I'm seriously amazed that we are having a whole discussion as a result of me saying that "unregulated market" doesn't mean that you can shoot people. > Which is a threat of force often used when the employer wants the employee to do something that may be unethical, or simply wrong (like making someone work 20 hours a day). Only if your definition of "threat of force" is so broad as to include not giving you money. Is it also a threat of force if an employee says that they will quit their job if they don't get a raise? It may be a threat, but a threat of _force_? > But the way you're phrasing things, and focusing on them, indicates that you believe that physical force is the only force that matters. That is not what you said. You said "_Guns_ are not the only expression of force. Failure to see that is a huge fallacy."
      - pyrale 9y ago
        The point you don't seem to realize in that string of comments is that the amount of extorsion that happens in an unregulated market becomes so large over time that it eventually leads to the dominant player stripping the dominated player of any hint of dignity and reduce him to total dependence. You cannot just look the other way and pretend there is still free choice when these people are captive and not even able to search for a new job. This inhumane treatment inevitably ends up with physical violence, because it is the only resort left when the dominant's autnority is questioned. You don't need to trust me, just look at the events of labour-related violence in the US at the turn of 20th century. Observe what happened before the situation became violent, and you will realize that in dozens of examples, the mechanisms that led to violence are the same: a class of workers that were dispossessed of so many rights that physically removing them did not look despicable as a business option. Here are a few examples to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars
- closeparen 9y ago
  >That's exploitation. Exploitation is an incoherent doctrine. A moral crime, where the victim is strictly better off for having been victimized! A crime where each successful enforcement action makes all parties strictly worse off, but where the person who suffers most from enforcement is the "victim." In a just world, someone who supports this doctrine would be made to suffer in proportion to the suffering they willfully and violently inflict on the most vulnerable by removing their access to "exploitative" situations. Wanting people to enjoy a high standard of living is noble. Wanting to get there by banning all labor transactions that don't confer an uppper-class lifestyle is lunacy. Redistribute the income. Make direct provision for services. Whatever. Don't pat yourself on the back for removing the best option of someone with no options. That's about the vilest and most evil thing a human being can do. Give them better ones.

by jules 9y ago

s73ver_ 9y ago

"The transaction of you working for me is still voluntary." Only in the most extreme interpretation of the word. "No person forced you to work for me. " Maybe not, but the idea that I will be fired if I don't do what you say means that it's not entirely voluntary. "I can only "force" you to work 20 hours a day if all your other options are even worse, and I am the one who improves your options the most." Again, that's not voluntary. That's exploitation. "If however I put a gun to your head and tell you to work 20 hours a day I actively make your options worse by force." Guns are not the only way to exercise force. Company towns were full of force. Just not physical. "such as systems in which I am allowed to put a gun to your head." Guns are not the only expression of force. Failure to see that is a huge fallacy.

jules 9y ago
If you disagree with this definition of voluntary, that's fine. Let's choose another string of letters to denote what I wrote in the previous comment, and change my other comment and replace the string "voluntary" with that new string of letters. > Maybe not, but the idea that I will be fired if I don't do what you say means that it's not entirely voluntary. Being fired is simply no longer engaging in the transaction where one party trades their money for the labour of the other party. > Guns are not the only expression of force. Failure to see that is a huge fallacy. I did not say that they were.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  "If you disagree with this definition of voluntary, that's fine. Let's choose another string of letters to denote what I wrote in the previous comment, and change my other comment and replace the string "voluntary" with that new string of letters." That won't make it any better. You're still hand waving away a lot of exploitation. "Being fired is simply no longer engaging in the transaction where one party trades their money for the labour of the other party." Which is a threat of force often used when the employer wants the employee to do something that may be unethical, or simply wrong (like making someone work 20 hours a day). "I did not say that they were." But the way you're phrasing things, and focusing on them, indicates that you believe that physical force is the only force that matters.
  - jules 9y ago
    > That won't make it any better. You're still hand waving away a lot of exploitation. I'm not hand waving away any exploitation. I did not pass any moral judgement, for or against. I described what an unregulated market is. To do so I used the word "voluntary", and I explained what I meant by that word in that context. In particular, it does not include the use of a gun to make somebody give you their wallet. I'm seriously amazed that we are having a whole discussion as a result of me saying that "unregulated market" doesn't mean that you can shoot people. > Which is a threat of force often used when the employer wants the employee to do something that may be unethical, or simply wrong (like making someone work 20 hours a day). Only if your definition of "threat of force" is so broad as to include not giving you money. Is it also a threat of force if an employee says that they will quit their job if they don't get a raise? It may be a threat, but a threat of _force_? > But the way you're phrasing things, and focusing on them, indicates that you believe that physical force is the only force that matters. That is not what you said. You said "_Guns_ are not the only expression of force. Failure to see that is a huge fallacy."
    - pyrale 9y ago
      The point you don't seem to realize in that string of comments is that the amount of extorsion that happens in an unregulated market becomes so large over time that it eventually leads to the dominant player stripping the dominated player of any hint of dignity and reduce him to total dependence. You cannot just look the other way and pretend there is still free choice when these people are captive and not even able to search for a new job. This inhumane treatment inevitably ends up with physical violence, because it is the only resort left when the dominant's autnority is questioned. You don't need to trust me, just look at the events of labour-related violence in the US at the turn of 20th century. Observe what happened before the situation became violent, and you will realize that in dozens of examples, the mechanisms that led to violence are the same: a class of workers that were dispossessed of so many rights that physically removing them did not look despicable as a business option. Here are a few examples to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars
closeparen 9y ago
>That's exploitation. Exploitation is an incoherent doctrine. A moral crime, where the victim is strictly better off for having been victimized! A crime where each successful enforcement action makes all parties strictly worse off, but where the person who suffers most from enforcement is the "victim." In a just world, someone who supports this doctrine would be made to suffer in proportion to the suffering they willfully and violently inflict on the most vulnerable by removing their access to "exploitative" situations. Wanting people to enjoy a high standard of living is noble. Wanting to get there by banning all labor transactions that don't confer an uppper-class lifestyle is lunacy. Redistribute the income. Make direct provision for services. Whatever. Don't pat yourself on the back for removing the best option of someone with no options. That's about the vilest and most evil thing a human being can do. Give them better ones.