2 ms·

> you might feel different about that “free market” ideal which doesn’t really exists. Instead look to nature for the truth where you have exploiters in most sp

> you might feel different about that “free market” ideal which doesn’t really exists. Instead look to nature for the truth where you have exploiters in most species around every corner. So we must always be vigilant. It's fine to have that opinion, I just don't think people should pretend that it's in alignment with the ideals of a completely free market society. Where I lose patience is if someone doesn't have the guts to say that coercion is a major part of our current economy. If the belief is that we can't entice people to work unless they're scared of poverty, that's just a very different argument than saying that the current systems of coercion are actually voluntary and free. > I and the rest of the community would remember that person and treat them accordingly. We live in a society, and there are consequences to actions. Both exploitation and parasitism. Sure, just as long as we both understand that some of those consequences are also sometimes expressed through people voting for policy changes.

josephcsible 5y ago
> If the belief is that we can't entice people to work unless they're scared of poverty Hasn't the last year or so taught us that, unfortunately, that is the only motivator to work that's actually effective enough?
- danShumway 5y ago
  Which is, again, a belief you can have. Just don't call it a free market, call it what it is: a forced/captive market. If you really believe that poverty is the only motivator, then fine. Just own it, don't argue that motivating people through threats of poverty somehow makes them more free.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    How does that make it not a free market? You're not getting tossed in a gulag for refusing to work.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      Your belief is that if people aren't scared of poverty they won't work. Literally you are saying if they're not forced to work by the threat of poverty, they won't. And of course being forced to work isn't voluntary. Now we don't have debtors prison, so nobody is actively going to take them and throw them into a gulag, but I already talked quite a bit about why that distinction doesn't matter above, so not sure what to say other than go back and reread previous comments if it's something you're confused about.
crazydoggers 5y ago
I guess I don’t see the coercion. To me I come from a background where grandparents either plowed the fields or died. Where famines caused starvation of relatives and friends. So coercion doesn’t make sense to me. To me it’s nature, and I do my part for society how I can. One of my favorite quotes is from Star Trek: “As with all living things, each according to his gift”. It’s a play on the Marxist adage “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. It leaves off the second part since what an individuals needs are and what should be supplied to everyone is a quagmire of a problem, given that humans can be selfish and unfair (hence why socialist countries tend to corruption just like the rest). And I fully agree that voting for policy change is a must. So is demonstrating, organizing, etc etc. I just think goals should be clear, and a willingness to understand ones own role, rather than only point fingers. BTW, I’ve upvoted your comments even if I disagree with them, since they’re insightful and constructive. More of this is needed, and less moral outrage, so thanks.
- danShumway 5y ago
  I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that coercive force is only real if it's consciously applied by another person. But I don't think that distinction makes sense or that it really matters to most people. Freedom is closely tied to agency. If you don't have agency to decide whether or not you're going to work, then that's what involuntarily labor is, you're working because you have no choice. In your grandparent's situation, they worked the fields because nature took away their freedom, they didn't have a choice about whether or not to work the fields (unless you count dying as a choice, but most people don't). There may not have ever been a person coming and holding a gun to their head and telling them to plow the field, but at the end of the day their situation was the same. To someone being forced into an abusive job, it doesn't really matter to them why they're being forced into that job. If someone is blackmailing them or threatening them to do that job, then they don't really have a free choice. If a government has socialized the entire economy and is forcing them to work that job under threats of imprisonment, that's not really a free choice either. And in the same way, if the economy gives them no mechanism to move away or improve their life, and if they have no choice except to keep working or to starve, then they are still being forced to work. Their choice is still exactly the same as it would be under any other coercive system. Natural systems can be coercive, there doesn't need to be a human deliberately forcing the system to work that way. It's about whether or not someone can realistically make a choice. To me, it is very strange to describe a situation where a worker has no real leverage to choose to do something different, and to describe that person as being free -- regardless of the scenario that has put them into that position. This gets back to a previous criticism, which is that "nature" is very often neither fair nor free. If there is any major praise of collectivism, it's that humans decided to build systems that were more fair and more free than nature would be on its own.

josephcsible 5y ago

> If the belief is that we can't entice people to work unless they're scared of poverty Hasn't the last year or so taught us that, unfortunately, that is the only motivator to work that's actually effective enough?

danShumway 5y ago
Which is, again, a belief you can have. Just don't call it a free market, call it what it is: a forced/captive market. If you really believe that poverty is the only motivator, then fine. Just own it, don't argue that motivating people through threats of poverty somehow makes them more free.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  How does that make it not a free market? You're not getting tossed in a gulag for refusing to work.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    Your belief is that if people aren't scared of poverty they won't work. Literally you are saying if they're not forced to work by the threat of poverty, they won't. And of course being forced to work isn't voluntary. Now we don't have debtors prison, so nobody is actively going to take them and throw them into a gulag, but I already talked quite a bit about why that distinction doesn't matter above, so not sure what to say other than go back and reread previous comments if it's something you're confused about.

crazydoggers 5y ago

I guess I don’t see the coercion. To me I come from a background where grandparents either plowed the fields or died. Where famines caused starvation of relatives and friends. So coercion doesn’t make sense to me. To me it’s nature, and I do my part for society how I can. One of my favorite quotes is from Star Trek: “As with all living things, each according to his gift”. It’s a play on the Marxist adage “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. It leaves off the second part since what an individuals needs are and what should be supplied to everyone is a quagmire of a problem, given that humans can be selfish and unfair (hence why socialist countries tend to corruption just like the rest). And I fully agree that voting for policy change is a must. So is demonstrating, organizing, etc etc. I just think goals should be clear, and a willingness to understand ones own role, rather than only point fingers. BTW, I’ve upvoted your comments even if I disagree with them, since they’re insightful and constructive. More of this is needed, and less moral outrage, so thanks.

danShumway 5y ago
I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that coercive force is only real if it's consciously applied by another person. But I don't think that distinction makes sense or that it really matters to most people. Freedom is closely tied to agency. If you don't have agency to decide whether or not you're going to work, then that's what involuntarily labor is, you're working because you have no choice. In your grandparent's situation, they worked the fields because nature took away their freedom, they didn't have a choice about whether or not to work the fields (unless you count dying as a choice, but most people don't). There may not have ever been a person coming and holding a gun to their head and telling them to plow the field, but at the end of the day their situation was the same. To someone being forced into an abusive job, it doesn't really matter to them why they're being forced into that job. If someone is blackmailing them or threatening them to do that job, then they don't really have a free choice. If a government has socialized the entire economy and is forcing them to work that job under threats of imprisonment, that's not really a free choice either. And in the same way, if the economy gives them no mechanism to move away or improve their life, and if they have no choice except to keep working or to starve, then they are still being forced to work. Their choice is still exactly the same as it would be under any other coercive system. Natural systems can be coercive, there doesn't need to be a human deliberately forcing the system to work that way. It's about whether or not someone can realistically make a choice. To me, it is very strange to describe a situation where a worker has no real leverage to choose to do something different, and to describe that person as being free -- regardless of the scenario that has put them into that position. This gets back to a previous criticism, which is that "nature" is very often neither fair nor free. If there is any major praise of collectivism, it's that humans decided to build systems that were more fair and more free than nature would be on its own.