6 ms·

Although I doubt we'd come to any agreement (I don't subscribe to liberalism nor the same ideas of contextual freedom you do), I'm curious: what would you say a

Although I doubt we'd come to any agreement (I don't subscribe to liberalism nor the same ideas of contextual freedom you do), I'm curious: what would you say about the freedom to sell oneself into slavery? Is there such thing as "voluntary servitude" to you? I think a more nuanced view is required: how do these freedoms arise, what makes one person work for another, is the subjecitvist-individualist philosophy the end of liberal politics, how do desires form and conatus aligns under modern capitalism, and does the pursuit of happiness entail the requirement for the desire to employ others for a goal that they don't have an interest in (in the Spinozist sense of desire), what is the role of money (or money-capital) (and its pursuit) in the desires, and what role does the education system play in nurturing such desires? All these are questions of interest, and I don't think they can be whisked away with a sentence accusing the law of "infringing freedom". There are much greater injustices with regard to our freedom right in front of us in this mode of economic organisation.

sokoloff 8y ago
Stopping me from choosing to work 60 hours a week in order to get myself and family ahead seems quite different from stopping me selling myself into slavery, so I'll assume the question was merely exploratory. I don't believe that selling oneself into slavery ought to be legal. I do think that educational loans are fairly close to "voluntary servitude" and that educational lending ought to be legal.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Of course it's different to sell yourself into slavery, but it still asks the question: are you in favour of "the freedom for individual workers to contract as they see fit", or are you not? I'd say that the qualitative difference between longer and longer work weeks ("freely contracted", as you might say) and slavery tends to zero. The fact that you need to work 60 hours a week to get you and your family ahead is precisely the problem that the law is trying to solve - and any social law, for that matter. It's a worker's rights law, set amidst late capitalism in a modern "democratic" country, as such it will target two things: allowing employers to keep employing people (but not excessively) and allowing employees to survive (but not "for nothing"). This is the goal of any capitalist mode of organisation, and this is but a tug of the rope in favour of labour rather than capital, but capitalism is characterised by the endless tug here and there between capital and labour.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    If you put a gun to my head and force me to choose between "individuals can freely sell themselves into slavery" and "individuals do not have freedom to work as hard as they want", I'll choose the former.
swfsql 8y ago
> what makes one person work for another higher income [of goods and services] due to specialization, division of labor and goods/services liquidity. see: "The Story of Money and Trade" [10min] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbHw7VsNlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbHw7VsNlI Forget about money, think of higher-folded exchanges. A restriction into direct exchanges (the lack of any kind of money) would prevent a tremendous amount of wealth creation: we would spend most of our time working on various basic goods, and when trading would be factually required, we would spend most of our time looking for a trade-want coincidence (I want what you have while you want what I have). To put into perspective, it could take me a couple of decades to buy a telescope from someone with a direct exchange only. Indirect exchange save us time. Time saved that we can spend with our loved ones, stuff like that. Even without a single type of "money", people engaged in dealing with indirect exchanges (trying to save other people's time) and profiting in return. That's how money emerges: a product for indirect exchange for indirect exchanges, some kind of higher indirect exchange product. And people took the risk of "reaching" such emerged consensus, some must have failed during that process (that exists constantly, even today -- on every single choice anyone make). Now, money combines perfectly with specialization and division of labor, they enhance each other. Starting from Stewart Mill (I think), each person from a group can be wealthier if that person engage in specialization and trade with others. That's it. If you want to impoverish a subset from a group of people, simply isolate their trading options without their consent. Tariffs etc simply prevent some wealth creation. This is easy to visualize nowadays: isolate a state, or a city, or a neighborhood, or a house, or a person from trading/specializing. > what is the role of money So the role of money is to move human effort and resources around towards urgent needs. When some disaster happens, like a tornado, the impacted place suffers from water, for one. The price tends to rise. What is this? That's a toot. It's an alarm trying to ring, signaling to profit-seekers that this is urgent. The higher it is, the more urgent it is. It's like a symptom asking for treatment. A higher water price DOES MAKE water appear in that place rapidly. People will tend to save on their consume, and water from nearby unaffected places will tend to be taken into the affected one, since profit-seekers can make a profit when doing so. (sure, the water may rise a little on areas nearby the affected place, since water would be exported from them and be imported into the affected place) -- and this process would unfold for each next area, until, without a ruler, water would simply arrive into the affected area and the water price would finally be allowed to drop. But that would be because that resource would not be SO urgent. Now, if I were an evil psycho, I'd simply outlaw water price increase. That's exactly what bureaucrats do. For this price and coordination thing, see: "What If There Were No Prices? The Railroad Thought Experiment" [6m40] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4

sokoloff 8y ago

Stopping me from choosing to work 60 hours a week in order to get myself and family ahead seems quite different from stopping me selling myself into slavery, so I'll assume the question was merely exploratory. I don't believe that selling oneself into slavery ought to be legal. I do think that educational loans are fairly close to "voluntary servitude" and that educational lending ought to be legal.

claudiawerner 8y ago
Of course it's different to sell yourself into slavery, but it still asks the question: are you in favour of "the freedom for individual workers to contract as they see fit", or are you not? I'd say that the qualitative difference between longer and longer work weeks ("freely contracted", as you might say) and slavery tends to zero. The fact that you need to work 60 hours a week to get you and your family ahead is precisely the problem that the law is trying to solve - and any social law, for that matter. It's a worker's rights law, set amidst late capitalism in a modern "democratic" country, as such it will target two things: allowing employers to keep employing people (but not excessively) and allowing employees to survive (but not "for nothing"). This is the goal of any capitalist mode of organisation, and this is but a tug of the rope in favour of labour rather than capital, but capitalism is characterised by the endless tug here and there between capital and labour.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  If you put a gun to my head and force me to choose between "individuals can freely sell themselves into slavery" and "individuals do not have freedom to work as hard as they want", I'll choose the former.

swfsql 8y ago

> what makes one person work for another higher income [of goods and services] due to specialization, division of labor and goods/services liquidity. see: "The Story of Money and Trade" [10min] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbHw7VsNlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbHw7VsNlI Forget about money, think of higher-folded exchanges. A restriction into direct exchanges (the lack of any kind of money) would prevent a tremendous amount of wealth creation: we would spend most of our time working on various basic goods, and when trading would be factually required, we would spend most of our time looking for a trade-want coincidence (I want what you have while you want what I have). To put into perspective, it could take me a couple of decades to buy a telescope from someone with a direct exchange only. Indirect exchange save us time. Time saved that we can spend with our loved ones, stuff like that. Even without a single type of "money", people engaged in dealing with indirect exchanges (trying to save other people's time) and profiting in return. That's how money emerges: a product for indirect exchange for indirect exchanges, some kind of higher indirect exchange product. And people took the risk of "reaching" such emerged consensus, some must have failed during that process (that exists constantly, even today -- on every single choice anyone make). Now, money combines perfectly with specialization and division of labor, they enhance each other. Starting from Stewart Mill (I think), each person from a group can be wealthier if that person engage in specialization and trade with others. That's it. If you want to impoverish a subset from a group of people, simply isolate their trading options without their consent. Tariffs etc simply prevent some wealth creation. This is easy to visualize nowadays: isolate a state, or a city, or a neighborhood, or a house, or a person from trading/specializing. > what is the role of money So the role of money is to move human effort and resources around towards urgent needs. When some disaster happens, like a tornado, the impacted place suffers from water, for one. The price tends to rise. What is this? That's a toot. It's an alarm trying to ring, signaling to profit-seekers that this is urgent. The higher it is, the more urgent it is. It's like a symptom asking for treatment. A higher water price DOES MAKE water appear in that place rapidly. People will tend to save on their consume, and water from nearby unaffected places will tend to be taken into the affected one, since profit-seekers can make a profit when doing so. (sure, the water may rise a little on areas nearby the affected place, since water would be exported from them and be imported into the affected place) -- and this process would unfold for each next area, until, without a ruler, water would simply arrive into the affected area and the water price would finally be allowed to drop. But that would be because that resource would not be SO urgent. Now, if I were an evil psycho, I'd simply outlaw water price increase. That's exactly what bureaucrats do. For this price and coordination thing, see: "What If There Were No Prices? The Railroad Thought Experiment" [6m40] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4