4 ms·

I have plenty of problems with this article, but I think it's a bit odd to consider dependency upon the institutions of - grocery stores - transportation - e

by bccdee 6y ago

I have plenty of problems with this article, but I think it's a bit odd to consider dependency upon the institutions of - grocery stores - transportation - electricity - various repair-people such as electricians and plumbers - an employer - a well-regulated economy as "being a independent outdoor cat," but then suddenly once you're renting your clothes instead of buying them that's a bridge too far, and you're "captive."

cle 6y ago
We can't control most of those things, since they are already established and institutionalized and very difficult to change. However during the transition from buying to renting clothes, we do have an opportunity to influence the outcome. You're right that the terminology of "freedom" and "captivity" is weird...I've always thought it's strange because historically it's been so relative. But I think quibbling over where to draw the line is missing the point, and basically has the same problem as what you're decrying. When we have the power to influence the outcome of something, we shouldn't resign in despair because we can't cleanly classify it...we can still make informed decisions under that uncertainty.
tengbretson 6y ago
No matter where you stand on a number line it is always possible to look to the left and say "that direction is negative."
- xapata 6y ago
  You've constructed a false linearity here. The concepts of freedom and captivity aren't well-suited to a linear continuum.
  - winston_smith 6y ago
    You've constructed a false irreducibility here. Freedom and captivity are opposed, and it's important to be able to say "this would be less free than that", even if that distinction isn't always clear cut.
john_moscow 6y ago
It's not about that, it's about the power structure. Imagine a hypothetical small town with several owner-operated grocery store, a local power station, owner-operated service companies, etc. Each of the involved actors is knowledgeable about what they are doing. They are hard to replace, their experience is important, so they have more bargaining power and can charge higher for their work. The wealth is more or less evenly distributed among the community. Most people can afford a house and a good living. They also have to maintain business relations with other people (as opposed to faceless corporations). They need each other, are nice to each other and can relate to each other's problems. Now look what happens when centrally managed grocery chains, power companies, repair services, etc. move in. All management is centralized. All locals are now employed by one of the big companies following corporate protocol. They are now easily replaceable, so 80% of the town works on a minimum wage after completing a one-week training course. Most of the wealth gets transferred to the corporations. Another 10% of the town works as middle management for the corporations, stuck playing dirty political games. The luckiest 10% keeps positions that cannot be taken by corporations: small niche businesses, trades, doctor practices. Since most of the people are replaceable, people don't really need other people. They depend on corporations instead, so maintaining interpersonal relations becomes unnecessary. People hate each other over small disagreements. They envy others' jobs. They consider life very unfair because in the absence of a clearly visible connection between the merit and the outcome, the grass on the other side always looks greener. The "well-regulated economy" usually implies raising the taxes for top earners and redistributing the wealth to lower earners. Except, the corporations usually find tricks to avoid it, so you end up taxing the few remaining non-replaceable people, and redistributing it down the road. Supply/demand comes into play, so asset prices rise accordingly, 80% of people still cannot afford a decent living from their salary. Self-improvement still doesn't pay, since the corporations want people to be replaceable. So, social tensions are still high, and on top of that, we start having a shortage of doctors, niche shops, etc., because with the higher taxes and hostile attitude from lower-earners, it's just not worth the hassle anymore. On top of that, we now have a class of social justice politicians, who appeal to groups of people by pitting them against other groups and promising better treatment at the expense of other groups. So not only the pie is shrinking, but we are now supposed to fight for it. If you want to fix the problem, you need to incentivize personal self-improvement again. Tax the hell out of monopolies, platforms and aggregators. Make sure running your small business (and learning how to make your customers happy) becomes viable again. Give the economic leverage back to the people putting their time into it, and not to the abstract corporations.

by bccdee 6y ago

cle 6y ago

We can't control most of those things, since they are already established and institutionalized and very difficult to change. However during the transition from buying to renting clothes, we do have an opportunity to influence the outcome. You're right that the terminology of "freedom" and "captivity" is weird...I've always thought it's strange because historically it's been so relative. But I think quibbling over where to draw the line is missing the point, and basically has the same problem as what you're decrying. When we have the power to influence the outcome of something, we shouldn't resign in despair because we can't cleanly classify it...we can still make informed decisions under that uncertainty.

tengbretson 6y ago

No matter where you stand on a number line it is always possible to look to the left and say "that direction is negative."

xapata 6y ago
You've constructed a false linearity here. The concepts of freedom and captivity aren't well-suited to a linear continuum.
- winston_smith 6y ago
  You've constructed a false irreducibility here. Freedom and captivity are opposed, and it's important to be able to say "this would be less free than that", even if that distinction isn't always clear cut.

john_moscow 6y ago

It's not about that, it's about the power structure. Imagine a hypothetical small town with several owner-operated grocery store, a local power station, owner-operated service companies, etc. Each of the involved actors is knowledgeable about what they are doing. They are hard to replace, their experience is important, so they have more bargaining power and can charge higher for their work. The wealth is more or less evenly distributed among the community. Most people can afford a house and a good living. They also have to maintain business relations with other people (as opposed to faceless corporations). They need each other, are nice to each other and can relate to each other's problems. Now look what happens when centrally managed grocery chains, power companies, repair services, etc. move in. All management is centralized. All locals are now employed by one of the big companies following corporate protocol. They are now easily replaceable, so 80% of the town works on a minimum wage after completing a one-week training course. Most of the wealth gets transferred to the corporations. Another 10% of the town works as middle management for the corporations, stuck playing dirty political games. The luckiest 10% keeps positions that cannot be taken by corporations: small niche businesses, trades, doctor practices. Since most of the people are replaceable, people don't really need other people. They depend on corporations instead, so maintaining interpersonal relations becomes unnecessary. People hate each other over small disagreements. They envy others' jobs. They consider life very unfair because in the absence of a clearly visible connection between the merit and the outcome, the grass on the other side always looks greener. The "well-regulated economy" usually implies raising the taxes for top earners and redistributing the wealth to lower earners. Except, the corporations usually find tricks to avoid it, so you end up taxing the few remaining non-replaceable people, and redistributing it down the road. Supply/demand comes into play, so asset prices rise accordingly, 80% of people still cannot afford a decent living from their salary. Self-improvement still doesn't pay, since the corporations want people to be replaceable. So, social tensions are still high, and on top of that, we start having a shortage of doctors, niche shops, etc., because with the higher taxes and hostile attitude from lower-earners, it's just not worth the hassle anymore. On top of that, we now have a class of social justice politicians, who appeal to groups of people by pitting them against other groups and promising better treatment at the expense of other groups. So not only the pie is shrinking, but we are now supposed to fight for it. If you want to fix the problem, you need to incentivize personal self-improvement again. Tax the hell out of monopolies, platforms and aggregators. Make sure running your small business (and learning how to make your customers happy) becomes viable again. Give the economic leverage back to the people putting their time into it, and not to the abstract corporations.