3 ms·

> 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 -

> 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.

claudiawerner 6y ago
>the autonomy of other human beings is a grundnorm that is either respected because its a human right There are good critiques of the concept and value of autonomy, and to what degree we have autonomy (beyond the metaphysical sense) in a capitalist market. Also, I'm not saying autonomy is irrelevant, I'm saying it's not the only thing that's relevant. Morality entails more than respecting autonomy. >It would be more unjust to interfere in the affairs of consenting, autonomous adults because we didn't like their preferences. I mostly agree, but there is a strand of libertarianism which would argue such interference is permissible if it comes in the form of soft power (advertising, taking certain products off the market, etc.) >You're going to have to explain why I would care that you think something is exploitation. The point is that you don't have to care for it to be exploitation. You don't have to care that 2+2=4, but we structure our science around the mathematical principles that lead to that result anyway. You don't have to care that murder (for example) is wrong, and the murderer doesn't have to care that murder is impermissible. >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. Perhaps not individually, but as a general trend in society it leads to a mass of people being in poor positions to bargain and a smaller number of people being in very good positions. I don't think that's a good thing, because it leads (very realistically) to some being at the mercy (speaking in terms of resources required to live or sustain a family) of others by virtue of factors beyond their control. That restricts autonomy beyond the economic sphere. >This is created by restricting barriers to ownership of capital so there aren't competing employers. I've already mentioned the concept of the local maximum in employment; even if there are multiple reasonable options for employment all options are possible, it does not follow that any will be good options. >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. This is the just-world fallacy; the market, as already clarified, does not necessarily produce just outcomes, and it's unclear why it should be thought it does. Why does the market decide my entitlement? Should it, speaking in terms of economic systems, decide my entitlement? For slaves, their masters decided their entitlement. Now it's a market which was created by a set of laws and property rights, and maintained as such. Is it really beyond question? >It would be a prerequisite to the demand. The demand is useless if nobody will agree to it. >Needs are contingent on goals. Given no goals, one needs nothing. Sure, I have a "goal to survive", but this seems to cheapen both the concept of goals in a goods economy and the idea of survival which supercedes all other goals to the point of being a biological impulse we are prepared to kill for. It's lower than any psychology or even any other need. It's a physical process. When we say somebody has no goals, we don't assume they are just okay with dying and would be apathetic if we killed them. >The left is collectively engaged in a process of pushing authoritarianism while claiming anarchism Perhaps we have different ideas of authority and anarchism. Besides that, Marx was clear that socialists should not rationally support non-socialist platforms, which I agree with to a large extent. The labourer and the capitalist have opposing interests (speaking class-wise). Better wages were never on the Marxist agenda.

claudiawerner 6y ago

>the autonomy of other human beings is a grundnorm that is either respected because its a human right There are good critiques of the concept and value of autonomy, and to what degree we have autonomy (beyond the metaphysical sense) in a capitalist market. Also, I'm not saying autonomy is irrelevant, I'm saying it's not the only thing that's relevant. Morality entails more than respecting autonomy. >It would be more unjust to interfere in the affairs of consenting, autonomous adults because we didn't like their preferences. I mostly agree, but there is a strand of libertarianism which would argue such interference is permissible if it comes in the form of soft power (advertising, taking certain products off the market, etc.) >You're going to have to explain why I would care that you think something is exploitation. The point is that you don't have to care for it to be exploitation. You don't have to care that 2+2=4, but we structure our science around the mathematical principles that lead to that result anyway. You don't have to care that murder (for example) is wrong, and the murderer doesn't have to care that murder is impermissible. >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. Perhaps not individually, but as a general trend in society it leads to a mass of people being in poor positions to bargain and a smaller number of people being in very good positions. I don't think that's a good thing, because it leads (very realistically) to some being at the mercy (speaking in terms of resources required to live or sustain a family) of others by virtue of factors beyond their control. That restricts autonomy beyond the economic sphere. >This is created by restricting barriers to ownership of capital so there aren't competing employers. I've already mentioned the concept of the local maximum in employment; even if there are multiple reasonable options for employment all options are possible, it does not follow that any will be good options. >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. This is the just-world fallacy; the market, as already clarified, does not necessarily produce just outcomes, and it's unclear why it should be thought it does. Why does the market decide my entitlement? Should it, speaking in terms of economic systems, decide my entitlement? For slaves, their masters decided their entitlement. Now it's a market which was created by a set of laws and property rights, and maintained as such. Is it really beyond question? >It would be a prerequisite to the demand. The demand is useless if nobody will agree to it. >Needs are contingent on goals. Given no goals, one needs nothing. Sure, I have a "goal to survive", but this seems to cheapen both the concept of goals in a goods economy and the idea of survival which supercedes all other goals to the point of being a biological impulse we are prepared to kill for. It's lower than any psychology or even any other need. It's a physical process. When we say somebody has no goals, we don't assume they are just okay with dying and would be apathetic if we killed them. >The left is collectively engaged in a process of pushing authoritarianism while claiming anarchism Perhaps we have different ideas of authority and anarchism. Besides that, Marx was clear that socialists should not rationally support non-socialist platforms, which I agree with to a large extent. The labourer and the capitalist have opposing interests (speaking class-wise). Better wages were never on the Marxist agenda.