4 ms·

> 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 judge

by 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
- jules 9y ago
  > 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. Holding people captive is the opposite of voluntary. > Here are a few examples to start with First example: Colorado National Guard massacres workers who refuse to work. Second example: a company, working together with the sheriff, kidnaps and kills people who refuse to work. These examples do not show that the dispossessed have to resort to physical violence because that's their only resort left. The physical violence was initiated by the companies working together with the government. Just read the description on Wikipedia: > Those who went on strike were promptly evicted from their company homes, and they moved to tent villages prepared by the union. The tents were built on wood platforms and furnished with cast iron stoves on land leased by the union in preparation for a strike. So far so good. > Baldwin–Felts had a reputation for aggressive strike breaking. Agents shone searchlights on the tent villages at night and fired bullets into the tents at random, occasionally killing and maiming people. They used an improvised armored car, mounted with a machine gun the union called the "Death Special" to patrol the camp's perimeters. The steel-covered car was built in the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company plant in Pueblo, Colorado from the chassis of a large touring sedan. Frequent sniper attacks on the tent colonies drove the miners to dig pits beneath the tents where they and their families could be better protected. The workers were using their right to refuse to work! What the workers needed was precisely government enforcement of the law that you can't just go around shooting people. This is the exact opposite of what you implied it was.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    >> 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. >Holding people captive is the opposite of voluntary. Yet, you were saying that compelling me to work 20 hours a day, which would effectively give me no time at all to find another job, was perfectly fine and still voluntary.
    - jules 9y ago
      You don't see the difference between physically keeping you captive and offering you a job for 20 hours per day?

by jules 9y ago

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

jules 9y ago
> 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. Holding people captive is the opposite of voluntary. > Here are a few examples to start with First example: Colorado National Guard massacres workers who refuse to work. Second example: a company, working together with the sheriff, kidnaps and kills people who refuse to work. These examples do not show that the dispossessed have to resort to physical violence because that's their only resort left. The physical violence was initiated by the companies working together with the government. Just read the description on Wikipedia: > Those who went on strike were promptly evicted from their company homes, and they moved to tent villages prepared by the union. The tents were built on wood platforms and furnished with cast iron stoves on land leased by the union in preparation for a strike. So far so good. > Baldwin–Felts had a reputation for aggressive strike breaking. Agents shone searchlights on the tent villages at night and fired bullets into the tents at random, occasionally killing and maiming people. They used an improvised armored car, mounted with a machine gun the union called the "Death Special" to patrol the camp's perimeters. The steel-covered car was built in the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company plant in Pueblo, Colorado from the chassis of a large touring sedan. Frequent sniper attacks on the tent colonies drove the miners to dig pits beneath the tents where they and their families could be better protected. The workers were using their right to refuse to work! What the workers needed was precisely government enforcement of the law that you can't just go around shooting people. This is the exact opposite of what you implied it was.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  >> 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. >Holding people captive is the opposite of voluntary. Yet, you were saying that compelling me to work 20 hours a day, which would effectively give me no time at all to find another job, was perfectly fine and still voluntary.
  - jules 9y ago
    You don't see the difference between physically keeping you captive and offering you a job for 20 hours per day?