3 ms·

> Explain to me how that's not just a more complex form of slavery? What? This is a non sequitur. Please explain the connection to slavery (as defined as a per

by xpe 4y ago

> Explain to me how that's not just a more complex form of slavery? What? This is a non sequitur. Please explain the connection to slavery (as defined as a person is owned by another and has no or few rights).

horsawlarway 4y ago
Because slavery is complicated, and historically comes in a huge variety of forms, often with completely different social expectations and rights, but a general theme: The theme is that your labor, and the value it produces, is not captured by you. You work, but do not capture the benefits of that work in meaningful and significant ways. This is directly related to "you do not own - you rent". Because that (quite literal) rent seeking behavior is leaching additional capital from you. If you prefer, or if "slavery" is a term you feel loaded, you can substitute "serfdom" instead. It's also not quite apt - since it implies a tie to a specific geographic location, but it's close. Alternatively, you might consider this very similar to a person in a "company town" - they work all day at the company, only to be forced to buy literally every item from the only store in town - the company's store. Which, conveniently for the company, charges them roughly their month's wage for housing/food/clothing. They are working and gaining nothing. --- So in this case, what happens when every item you need (not want) to participate in society is costing you a monthly subscription cost equivalent to your monthly wages? What happens when internet, car, home, phone (and the apps on that phone) are all rented items, that capture literally all of your wages? I'd actually say that for many lower class folks in the US right now this is already the case - they work 80 hours a week at two full time jobs, and literally all of it simply gets them to tomorrow. Nothing can be saved, there is no chance to "own" any of it. They certainly make plenty of value - it's just captured by someone else. It's not going to stop there, though - it's going to keep eating through the ranks of our society. You will be free! (please note that your freedom is the choice to rent an Apple or a Google phone). You have choices! (please note that your choices are limited to renting a car from BMW/Ford/Tesla/etc). You will make decisions! (please note that your decisions are limited to selecting whether to rent content from Hulu or Netflix). You can vote for any one you want! (please note that they must be either Democrat or Republican).
- xpe 4y ago
  Thanks for the explanation. I see a connection, but it seems a few steps removed conceptually and many steps removed causally. Anyhow, I don't want to argue which concepts are more closely connected. Brains work differently (*), and I'm glad you readily see this connection even if I don't. Please allow me to offer these questions, since they better represent where my brain is at the moment... What does it mean if a person cannot buy and outright own the tools needed for their work? Is this necessarily bad? Does it tend to be bad? Does it depend on other things? Your thoughts? (Can you slow down a little? It seems like you jumped to dystopian scenarios quite quickly.) --- * Sorry, it is a vague statement, something that seems to be taken for granted. But this makes me wonder if neuroscientists have made efforts to compare how different brains do conceptual reasoning. Can concepts be visualized in an fMRI? How? Are they represented in ways that have commonalities across people? Cultures?
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    I guess the question would be "who is capturing the value" of the rental. In some interesting ways - socialism is fairly close to the idea of "a person who cannot buy and outright own the tools needed for their work". Except the moral justification for that system is that the "owner" who is capturing the value is "all of us". Communism is also there, but it's a little more honest that the "state" (in whatever form it might take) is the owner capturing value - and you just hope that the state is doing good things for you, and will take care of you. In practice though, I think our society is regressing to similar outcomes that were experienced in communist/socialist countries (not good), but the owner capturing value happens to be a corporate entity. Which is functionally not all that different from "the state", it's just even more honest that it has no real obligation to society at large. They carry obligations to their employees and shareholders, but not much else. In theory - they also have obligations to the government, but that requires that the government be functional and powerful enough to enforce that obligation. I think we're seeing that control slip (and not for the first time - robber barons was the term we coined last time it happened). --- But to your point - it's not required to be a negative (in theory - socialism is great), I just have yet to see any case where it doesn't immediately devolve into abuse (see pretty much every communist country in history). It can still work out great for individuals if they happen to be on the right end of the deal, but it rarely works out for society at large. I'd guess how much it bothers you is probably strongly dependent on how much you value individualism.

by xpe 4y ago

horsawlarway 4y ago

Because slavery is complicated, and historically comes in a huge variety of forms, often with completely different social expectations and rights, but a general theme: The theme is that your labor, and the value it produces, is not captured by you. You work, but do not capture the benefits of that work in meaningful and significant ways. This is directly related to "you do not own - you rent". Because that (quite literal) rent seeking behavior is leaching additional capital from you. If you prefer, or if "slavery" is a term you feel loaded, you can substitute "serfdom" instead. It's also not quite apt - since it implies a tie to a specific geographic location, but it's close. Alternatively, you might consider this very similar to a person in a "company town" - they work all day at the company, only to be forced to buy literally every item from the only store in town - the company's store. Which, conveniently for the company, charges them roughly their month's wage for housing/food/clothing. They are working and gaining nothing. --- So in this case, what happens when every item you need (not want) to participate in society is costing you a monthly subscription cost equivalent to your monthly wages? What happens when internet, car, home, phone (and the apps on that phone) are all rented items, that capture literally all of your wages? I'd actually say that for many lower class folks in the US right now this is already the case - they work 80 hours a week at two full time jobs, and literally all of it simply gets them to tomorrow. Nothing can be saved, there is no chance to "own" any of it. They certainly make plenty of value - it's just captured by someone else. It's not going to stop there, though - it's going to keep eating through the ranks of our society. You will be free! (please note that your freedom is the choice to rent an Apple or a Google phone). You have choices! (please note that your choices are limited to renting a car from BMW/Ford/Tesla/etc). You will make decisions! (please note that your decisions are limited to selecting whether to rent content from Hulu or Netflix). You can vote for any one you want! (please note that they must be either Democrat or Republican).

xpe 4y ago
Thanks for the explanation. I see a connection, but it seems a few steps removed conceptually and many steps removed causally. Anyhow, I don't want to argue which concepts are more closely connected. Brains work differently (*), and I'm glad you readily see this connection even if I don't. Please allow me to offer these questions, since they better represent where my brain is at the moment... What does it mean if a person cannot buy and outright own the tools needed for their work? Is this necessarily bad? Does it tend to be bad? Does it depend on other things? Your thoughts? (Can you slow down a little? It seems like you jumped to dystopian scenarios quite quickly.) --- * Sorry, it is a vague statement, something that seems to be taken for granted. But this makes me wonder if neuroscientists have made efforts to compare how different brains do conceptual reasoning. Can concepts be visualized in an fMRI? How? Are they represented in ways that have commonalities across people? Cultures?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  I guess the question would be "who is capturing the value" of the rental. In some interesting ways - socialism is fairly close to the idea of "a person who cannot buy and outright own the tools needed for their work". Except the moral justification for that system is that the "owner" who is capturing the value is "all of us". Communism is also there, but it's a little more honest that the "state" (in whatever form it might take) is the owner capturing value - and you just hope that the state is doing good things for you, and will take care of you. In practice though, I think our society is regressing to similar outcomes that were experienced in communist/socialist countries (not good), but the owner capturing value happens to be a corporate entity. Which is functionally not all that different from "the state", it's just even more honest that it has no real obligation to society at large. They carry obligations to their employees and shareholders, but not much else. In theory - they also have obligations to the government, but that requires that the government be functional and powerful enough to enforce that obligation. I think we're seeing that control slip (and not for the first time - robber barons was the term we coined last time it happened). --- But to your point - it's not required to be a negative (in theory - socialism is great), I just have yet to see any case where it doesn't immediately devolve into abuse (see pretty much every communist country in history). It can still work out great for individuals if they happen to be on the right end of the deal, but it rarely works out for society at large. I'd guess how much it bothers you is probably strongly dependent on how much you value individualism.