4 ms·

You had to stretch so far for that it's meaningless. You can't equate physical restraint, corporal punishment, and complete lack of self determination in your

You had to stretch so far for that it's meaningless. You can't equate physical restraint, corporal punishment, and complete lack of self determination in your personal life with... the risk of losing your health coverage. That's not a difference in degree at all. It's a difference in kind, and the distinction isn't even close.

escape_goat 9y ago
The risk of losing one's health coverage is a burden of varying severity. For a person with an chronic disease, it seems insurmountable. For a person whose child has an incurable illness, who hopes at least that that child will not die untreated and in pain, it is worse. Do not weigh it lightly in such cases. Few people, after all, are slaves. We do not therefore dismiss their lack of freedom. I feel that you have let me down somewhat with your previous explanation of the difference between the employee and the slave, because it is clear then that you do not at all abide by the difference you set out. It is not, after all, the employee's ability to pursue his own self-interest that makes him free rather than a slave.
- gozur88 9y ago
  >It is not, after all, the employee's ability to pursue his own self-interest that makes him free rather than a slave. Actually, yes it is. I'm sorry you feel let down, but your side of this discussion is frankly indefensible.
  - escape_goat 9y ago
    Perhaps so. It's difficult to argue from the contrary, and I lacked the skill to follow on convincingly from my starting point. I had meant to highlight the deficiencies of your assurance that the ability to (in theory) choose alternate employment meant that employees were free of coercion. I think that when you introduce the supplemental notion of the qualitative difference, you take some steps back from a stock libertarian talking point that you might or might not have intended to support. At least, a proper response would require some elaboration of the notion of employee liberty. I can sympathize if you don't have time or energy for that, and I'm happy to let the matter rest inconclusively. For what its worth, I'd actually be rather interested in whatever ideas you developed to articulate your position, as they would be a more useful reference point than I currently possess the next time I encounter someone making a reference to employee liberty I feel deserves to be tested.
anigbrowl 9y ago
There's lots of examples of historical slavery in quite decent conditions compared to your worst-case scenario, and likewise many examples of employment that looks OK on the surface but is actually awful. There is a qualitative difference, but also a considerable degree of practical overlap.

escape_goat 9y ago

The risk of losing one's health coverage is a burden of varying severity. For a person with an chronic disease, it seems insurmountable. For a person whose child has an incurable illness, who hopes at least that that child will not die untreated and in pain, it is worse. Do not weigh it lightly in such cases. Few people, after all, are slaves. We do not therefore dismiss their lack of freedom. I feel that you have let me down somewhat with your previous explanation of the difference between the employee and the slave, because it is clear then that you do not at all abide by the difference you set out. It is not, after all, the employee's ability to pursue his own self-interest that makes him free rather than a slave.

gozur88 9y ago
>It is not, after all, the employee's ability to pursue his own self-interest that makes him free rather than a slave. Actually, yes it is. I'm sorry you feel let down, but your side of this discussion is frankly indefensible.
- escape_goat 9y ago
  Perhaps so. It's difficult to argue from the contrary, and I lacked the skill to follow on convincingly from my starting point. I had meant to highlight the deficiencies of your assurance that the ability to (in theory) choose alternate employment meant that employees were free of coercion. I think that when you introduce the supplemental notion of the qualitative difference, you take some steps back from a stock libertarian talking point that you might or might not have intended to support. At least, a proper response would require some elaboration of the notion of employee liberty. I can sympathize if you don't have time or energy for that, and I'm happy to let the matter rest inconclusively. For what its worth, I'd actually be rather interested in whatever ideas you developed to articulate your position, as they would be a more useful reference point than I currently possess the next time I encounter someone making a reference to employee liberty I feel deserves to be tested.

anigbrowl 9y ago

There's lots of examples of historical slavery in quite decent conditions compared to your worst-case scenario, and likewise many examples of employment that looks OK on the surface but is actually awful. There is a qualitative difference, but also a considerable degree of practical overlap.