5 ms·

>Because ethical considerations that treat each party as an autonomous agent are satisfied. Autonomy isn't the only concern in moral actions (see cases of expl

>Because ethical considerations that treat each party as an autonomous agent are satisfied. Autonomy isn't the only concern in moral actions (see cases of exploitation where autonomy is respected), and it's certainly not the only concern in justice - the capabilities approach recognizes autonomy, but it also recognizes it is bounded by structural factors outside the individual's control. >Thats your opinion, when you're the one writing the checks, you get to decide what size to make them. That's beside the point, though. The market (the actors within it) does not, in many cases, produce just outcomes. At the sight of an unjust desert, telling someone that they can decide to be just if only they were in that position is irrelevant to the issue of desert that has already occurred. Unless your position is that every result is deserved (which seems very hard to defend), there's room for more than one subjective opinion, and me writing one check won't fix it. >In a free market, when each party has the ability to terminate the relationship, then both parties are equally powerful in their ability to walk away. Each party has the ability; in many cases, only one has the capability. It's a structural issue with many employers and a far greater number of employees. Something being mutually beneficial or a Pereto improvement doesn't motivate me at all, because even mutually beneficial arrangements can be exploitative. >Yes and the employee has the capacity to make much more money because of their access to capital that they aren't responsible for This is irrelevant to bargaining power; the employee can barter with his skills, of course, but not if they're replacable (at a low cost or otherwise). >Its unclear to me why you would even be in a position to tell two parties that their mutual employment transaction was exploitation without knowing the specifics. I agree, but the definition of exploitation as generally agreed upon or argued for is not "subjective". I'm not sure what the two parties or their mutual employment has to do with whether or not there is exploitation. >sleight-of-hand about calling employment "slavery" and chattering on and on about being forced to toil in a factory on some fatcat's toolroom lathe You're right, I don't think it's slavery or comparable to slavery. I think capitalism is a massive improvement on feudalism and on sharecropping. >and when you point out that lathe operator is a skilled job making well over a living wage Most exploitation-theorists would say the wage is in many cases irrelevant. It being a skilled job isn't that important. The issue is employment in cases where bargaining power is low (structurally or caused by an actor). Starvation is only the worst case. >without allowing them the basic human right of deciding how much their labor is worth. They don't decide that, it's "decided" by the market - and by extension society in general. I'm also not sure why it would be a human right to decide that. You can make all the decisions you want - and someone with more power can override them. If I dedide my labour is worth $100k, I'm laughed out of every office I step into. What use is the right? >Its just a biological/physical set of facts that you want to stay alive, you need to eat to stay alive, and someone has to make the food. By this metric there is no such thing as a "need". That's ridiculous, or I'm misinterpreting you. >In a planned economy, only those with the planners' permission can make food. I don't argue for a planned economy (in the traditional sense; I'm still working out my thoughts), but this isn't really true in the Marxian idea of a "planned economy".

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Autonomy isn't the only concern in moral actions (see cases of exploitation where autonomy is respected), and it's certainly not the only concern in justice - the capabilities approach recognizes autonomy, but it also recognizes it is bounded by structural factors outside the individual's control. You're free to form whatever opinions you like; the autonomy of other human beings is a grundnorm that is either respected because its a human right, or violated because the violator has some value they wish to impose on other humans who don't share that value. > That's beside the point, though. The market (the actors within it) does not, in many cases, produce just outcomes. Perhaps I would agree. Thats still an agreement between persons about the affairs of others. It would be more unjust to interfere in the affairs of consenting, autonomous adults because we didn't like their preferences. > Each party has the ability; in many cases, only one has the capability. Thats why I specified free market. In a free market, by definition, parties are free to choose or decline to transact. > It's a structural issue with many employers and a far greater number of employees. To the extent that is true, it is because of things that limit the spread of capital and reduce marginal profitability. > Something being mutually beneficial or a Pereto improvement doesn't motivate me at all, because even mutually beneficial arrangements can be exploitative. You're going to have to explain why I would care that you think something is exploitation. A Pareto improvement means the parties to the transactions both improved their status, your opinion is not even relevant. > This is irrelevant to bargaining power; the employee can barter with his skills, of course, but not if they're replacable (at a low cost or otherwise). Of course, and with easily replaceable skills I'm at a loss as to why you think he would be entitled to a stronger bargaining position. > I agree, but the definition of exploitation as generally agreed upon or argued for is not "subjective". The generally agreed upon definition of exploitation certainly doesn't include employment in a first world country. > The issue is employment in cases where bargaining power is low (structurally or caused by an actor). Starvation is only the worst case. This is created by restricting barriers to ownership of capital so there aren't competing employers. > They don't decide that, it's "decided" by the market The market isn't a thing, its just what we call the emergent decisions of all the market participants. The worker decides what his wage is worth when he agrees to sell it. > I'm also not sure why it would be a human right to decide that. Because its a grundnorm. Slavery offends the morality of all decent people. > You can make all the decisions you want - and someone with more power can override them. If I dedide my labour is worth $100k, I'm laughed out of every office I step into. I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm suggesting that social norms that respect the autonomy of people are the ethical ones. Of course someone with power can steal your tools or your warehouse of products. That would be a scenario where my autonomy wasn't respected. If your labor is worth $100k a year and no one wants it for that, then oh well. Maybe it's not really worth that much? If its worth that much to you then don't work. But if you want to live and eat and can't make the wage that you want, well maybe your desires are larger than your entitlement. > What use is the right? It would be a prerequisite to the demand. > By this metric there is no such thing as a "need". That's ridiculous, or I'm misinterpreting you. Needs are contingent on goals. Given no goals, one needs nothing. > Marxian idea of a "planned economy". The left is collectively engaged in a process of pushing authoritarianism while claiming anarchism and it's not really helping the working people with their struggle to survive, when all these people enable corporate dystopia by inviting known-to-be-corrupt politicians to collude with corporations in writing regulations that suppress competition, consumers' rights, and the working class. Marxians should probably read more Marx.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Autonomy isn't the only concern in moral actions (see cases of exploitation where autonomy is respected), and it's certainly not the only concern in justice - the capabilities approach recognizes autonomy, but it also recognizes it is bounded by structural factors outside the individual's control. You're free to form whatever opinions you like; the autonomy of other human beings is a grundnorm that is either respected because its a human right, or violated because the violator has some value they wish to impose on other humans who don't share that value. > That's beside the point, though. The market (the actors within it) does not, in many cases, produce just outcomes. Perhaps I would agree. Thats still an agreement between persons about the affairs of others. It would be more unjust to interfere in the affairs of consenting, autonomous adults because we didn't like their preferences. > Each party has the ability; in many cases, only one has the capability. Thats why I specified free market. In a free market, by definition, parties are free to choose or decline to transact. > It's a structural issue with many employers and a far greater number of employees. To the extent that is true, it is because of things that limit the spread of capital and reduce marginal profitability. > Something being mutually beneficial or a Pereto improvement doesn't motivate me at all, because even mutually beneficial arrangements can be exploitative. You're going to have to explain why I would care that you think something is exploitation. A Pareto improvement means the parties to the transactions both improved their status, your opinion is not even relevant. > This is irrelevant to bargaining power; the employee can barter with his skills, of course, but not if they're replacable (at a low cost or otherwise). Of course, and with easily replaceable skills I'm at a loss as to why you think he would be entitled to a stronger bargaining position. > I agree, but the definition of exploitation as generally agreed upon or argued for is not "subjective". The generally agreed upon definition of exploitation certainly doesn't include employment in a first world country. > The issue is employment in cases where bargaining power is low (structurally or caused by an actor). Starvation is only the worst case. This is created by restricting barriers to ownership of capital so there aren't competing employers. > They don't decide that, it's "decided" by the market The market isn't a thing, its just what we call the emergent decisions of all the market participants. The worker decides what his wage is worth when he agrees to sell it. > I'm also not sure why it would be a human right to decide that. Because its a grundnorm. Slavery offends the morality of all decent people. > You can make all the decisions you want - and someone with more power can override them. If I dedide my labour is worth $100k, I'm laughed out of every office I step into. I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm suggesting that social norms that respect the autonomy of people are the ethical ones. Of course someone with power can steal your tools or your warehouse of products. That would be a scenario where my autonomy wasn't respected. If your labor is worth $100k a year and no one wants it for that, then oh well. Maybe it's not really worth that much? If its worth that much to you then don't work. But if you want to live and eat and can't make the wage that you want, well maybe your desires are larger than your entitlement. > What use is the right? It would be a prerequisite to the demand. > By this metric there is no such thing as a "need". That's ridiculous, or I'm misinterpreting you. Needs are contingent on goals. Given no goals, one needs nothing. > Marxian idea of a "planned economy". The left is collectively engaged in a process of pushing authoritarianism while claiming anarchism and it's not really helping the working people with their struggle to survive, when all these people enable corporate dystopia by inviting known-to-be-corrupt politicians to collude with corporations in writing regulations that suppress competition, consumers' rights, and the working class. Marxians should probably read more Marx.