3 ms·
It's a fundamentally fallacious notion to say "Other people have it worse, why would you want better for yourself?". That's part of the problem with this sateme
by sophacles 4y ago
It's a fundamentally fallacious notion to say "Other people have it worse, why would you want better for yourself?". That's part of the problem with this satement: "A voluntary market interaction, that 95% of the world population would jump at the opportunity to engage in, is by no reasonable definition, exploitive." It applies equally to a statement like this: Other companies struggle with profits when they have union labor, why shouldn't amazon be forced to unionize their employees?
The other part of the the problem with that statement of course comes from the dictionary definition (one I think most people would consider a reasonable definition), it says:
making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit.
Punishing (the term they use is penalizing because it sounds nicer) people for being people and needing to use the restroom is unfair. So is punishing people for delivery delays caused by traffic. Both of those seem pretty unfair to me - maybe I'm unreasonable for thinking a person isn't at fault for traffic?
- ETH_start 4y ago>>"Other people have it worse, why would you want better for yourself?" "I want better for myself" != "if you don't offer me better, you're exploiting me". The implication of your assertion is fallacious. >>making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit. Nothing unfair about offering a wage for a job, and someone accepting it. >>Punishing (the term they use is penalizing because it sounds nicer) people for being people and needing to use the restroom is unfair. It's not a punishment. It's the terms of the deal, to ensure the employer is getting a certain unit of work for a given amount of pay. In a free society, companies are allowed to offer such terms. What's fair/unfair is determined by the conduct of the parties to a deal, and the terms of that deal. If the conduct conforms with the terms agreed, then we in a free society should tolerate it, rather than punishing the company for it.
- sophacles 4y agoI guess that might be true if you define "free society" as "a society which maximizes the allowed types of financial transaction". In that case, I'm sure you'd agree that a truly free society is one in which people are born as slaves because their ancestors sold the labor of their descendants in perpetuity.
- ETH_start 4y agoAn agreement has to be genuinely and fully consensual for it to be consistent with the principles of a free society. So selling your children into slavery, or even a distant future self, would obviously not be allowed.