5 ms·

> You're making a lot of unsubstantiated assertions that are in the realm of conspiracy theory. Care to say what? > Someone wealthier offering a higher wage t

> You're making a lot of unsubstantiated assertions that are in the realm of conspiracy theory. Care to say what? > Someone wealthier offering a higher wage than the other options available to a person, and a person consequently choosing to work for them, is not authoritarianism. No, that's literally choosing between the least bad authoritarian entity available for oneself. > What your argument is based on is inflammatory appeals to emotion It is? So let's push democracy into the economic sphere as well since according to you there would be no difference. One worker, one vote.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>No, that's literally choosing between the least bad authoritarian entity available for oneself. You're misdefining "authoritarian". Nothing I described in that example is authoritarian. >>So let's push democracy into the economic sphere as well since according to you there would be no difference. You're free to manage your own property however you wish.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  > You're misdefining "authoritarian" No, the economic sphere is strictly top-down authoritarian where workers is in a dependency situation wrt to their boss. The pandemic has made that abundantly clear. > You're free to manage your own property however you wish. Only if you actually have property to begin with, which most don't by no fault of their own. And what a few do have, by no merit of their own.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>No, the economic sphere is strictly top-down authoritarian where workers is in a dependency situation wrt to their boss. It's a voluntarily assumed dependency. Your incoherent moral argument would suggest that something the worker wants - a job to be offered to them - is harming them, and that this offer that the worker chooses over other options - is an act of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism implies non-consensual interactions. People being forced by nature to work in order to feed themselves is not 'non-consensual' in any legal or social sense, and the people offering them jobs in this environment are not authoritarians as a result. A top-down hierarchical structure also does not define authoritarianism. What's authoritarian is the state preventing people from trading their labor for income, to enforce the incoherent moral principles of socialist ideology. >>Only if you actually have property to begin with, which most don't by no fault of their own. And what a few do have, by no merit of their own. That doesn't give you a right to rob others of their property.
    - 8note 5y ago
      Property itself is voluntary. If you don't consent to that property as a concept, there is no theft or trespass if you use the same land the farmer does to grow your own food. It's not robbery, the property is an illusion. The only reason you can call it a right is that it's being forced upon us, and thus everything related to it is too. The job is part of an authoritarian labour division, and the property is the authoritarian part
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Property itself is voluntary. If you don't consent to that property as a concept, there is no theft or trespass if you use the same land the farmer does to grow your own food. It's not robbery, the property is an illusion. You could say the same thing about a person's right to their own body. If you don't consent to their body being theirs, there is no rape or violence when you touch them without their consent. Bodily autonomy is an illusion according to this malevolent, bad faith argument. It's self-evident, from the perspective of any coherent moral framework, that people have a moral right to exclusive access to their own body, and the wealth they produce or acquire in voluntary trade, and that the people who disagree with this have no respect for others, or regard for the best interests of society at large. Just think how absurd it would be in the Fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper, if the Grasshopper used your argument to demand the Ant forfeit the food he had painstakingly stored up for the winter, and the disastrous social consequences if this pathological moral framework were socially accepted.
        cloudfifty 5y ago
        You can't compare an individuals rights with systemic rights and try to draw moral equivalency between those. That's just dishonest. An individuals right starts and ends with that individual. Private property rights however encompasses the entire system, and all the people within that system, and must therefore be evaluated completely differently, including wrt morals.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>No, that's literally choosing between the least bad authoritarian entity available for oneself. You're misdefining "authoritarian". Nothing I described in that example is authoritarian. >>So let's push democracy into the economic sphere as well since according to you there would be no difference. You're free to manage your own property however you wish.

cloudfifty 5y ago
> You're misdefining "authoritarian" No, the economic sphere is strictly top-down authoritarian where workers is in a dependency situation wrt to their boss. The pandemic has made that abundantly clear. > You're free to manage your own property however you wish. Only if you actually have property to begin with, which most don't by no fault of their own. And what a few do have, by no merit of their own.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>No, the economic sphere is strictly top-down authoritarian where workers is in a dependency situation wrt to their boss. It's a voluntarily assumed dependency. Your incoherent moral argument would suggest that something the worker wants - a job to be offered to them - is harming them, and that this offer that the worker chooses over other options - is an act of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism implies non-consensual interactions. People being forced by nature to work in order to feed themselves is not 'non-consensual' in any legal or social sense, and the people offering them jobs in this environment are not authoritarians as a result. A top-down hierarchical structure also does not define authoritarianism. What's authoritarian is the state preventing people from trading their labor for income, to enforce the incoherent moral principles of socialist ideology. >>Only if you actually have property to begin with, which most don't by no fault of their own. And what a few do have, by no merit of their own. That doesn't give you a right to rob others of their property.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Property itself is voluntary. If you don't consent to that property as a concept, there is no theft or trespass if you use the same land the farmer does to grow your own food. It's not robbery, the property is an illusion. The only reason you can call it a right is that it's being forced upon us, and thus everything related to it is too. The job is part of an authoritarian labour division, and the property is the authoritarian part
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>Property itself is voluntary. If you don't consent to that property as a concept, there is no theft or trespass if you use the same land the farmer does to grow your own food. It's not robbery, the property is an illusion. You could say the same thing about a person's right to their own body. If you don't consent to their body being theirs, there is no rape or violence when you touch them without their consent. Bodily autonomy is an illusion according to this malevolent, bad faith argument. It's self-evident, from the perspective of any coherent moral framework, that people have a moral right to exclusive access to their own body, and the wealth they produce or acquire in voluntary trade, and that the people who disagree with this have no respect for others, or regard for the best interests of society at large. Just think how absurd it would be in the Fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper, if the Grasshopper used your argument to demand the Ant forfeit the food he had painstakingly stored up for the winter, and the disastrous social consequences if this pathological moral framework were socially accepted.
      - cloudfifty 5y ago
        You can't compare an individuals rights with systemic rights and try to draw moral equivalency between those. That's just dishonest. An individuals right starts and ends with that individual. Private property rights however encompasses the entire system, and all the people within that system, and must therefore be evaluated completely differently, including wrt morals.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago