4 ms·

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 relativ

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.
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  Okay, we’ll I agree with your assessment. But it’s turtles all the way down… Ultimately every human, and every creature on earth is coerced to work for survival. Thats the only way I can interpret your definition of coercion. It’s okay to say you want a society where people can feel free to escape that. But that utopia which we haven’t yet reached needs to be earned. I don’t, and I don’t think anyone has a solution or answer for how to get there. But as of today, if you want to be free not to work, the only way to do it is to take from someone else who has been coerced by nature to survive and provide. In the mean time, our society has at least allowed us to provide, each according to our gifts so we don’t all have to be farmers or hunters. Bettering working and labor conditions should be the goal of all of us in society. Unfortunately it’s not. But as I’ve said in other threads, that’s something that has been and will continue to be fought for. No philosophy can free any human from that.

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.

crazydoggers 5y ago
Okay, we’ll I agree with your assessment. But it’s turtles all the way down… Ultimately every human, and every creature on earth is coerced to work for survival. Thats the only way I can interpret your definition of coercion. It’s okay to say you want a society where people can feel free to escape that. But that utopia which we haven’t yet reached needs to be earned. I don’t, and I don’t think anyone has a solution or answer for how to get there. But as of today, if you want to be free not to work, the only way to do it is to take from someone else who has been coerced by nature to survive and provide. In the mean time, our society has at least allowed us to provide, each according to our gifts so we don’t all have to be farmers or hunters. Bettering working and labor conditions should be the goal of all of us in society. Unfortunately it’s not. But as I’ve said in other threads, that’s something that has been and will continue to be fought for. No philosophy can free any human from that.