3 ms·

Uhh, those are antithetical to individual freedom. If I want to work for less than the minimum salary, I can't. If I want to work at a company and not join a

by sib 3y ago

Uhh, those are antithetical to individual freedom. If I want to work for less than the minimum salary, I can't. If I want to work at a company and not join a union, I can't. As someone once said, "the true minimum wage is zero."

madsbuch 3y ago
In Denmark we have no mandated minimum salary and no mandated unions. You are free to work for 1cent an hour, if you want. However, we do have the structures to balance power asymmetries. Most people are a part of a union and we do have a de-facto minimum salary (at around 20 USD). Would that be freedom enough for you?
- sib 3y ago
  Sounds great. I've been to Denmark a number of times. Nice place :) As long as there's no requirement to join a union it's cool if they exist.
smoldesu 3y ago
It is possible to be free in a society that restricts some personal freedoms. The libertarian extremist model that you're suggesting doesn't resemble a society at all, and it's mostly a testament to why we can't provide total personal or market freedom. Without being able to disincentivize bad behavior, everyone will race to the bottom regardless of altruistic intent.
- brigandish 3y ago
  > The libertarian extremist model that you're suggesting doesn't resemble a society at all Prior to Woodrow Wilson, and more explicitly prior to Franklin Roosevelt's four freedoms[1] (specifically, the 3rd and 4th), most (legal) liberty was of that kind. Whether that's better or worse is arguable, obviously, but it certainly counts as society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Spivak 3y ago
You're describing freedom as in anarchy, the parent is describing freedom as in liberty. I am more free and able to use the software I want when the government forces Apple to unlock their devices even though it makes Apple less free. I am more free to travel when everyone follows the rules of the road even though I give up some autonomy to do so. I am more free to use wireless networks because everyone has to stick to their assigned bands even though I give up my ability to use other bands to do so. I am more free to live and sleep because of noise ordinances even though it means I can't play loud music late at night either. For people who value liberty, freedom means the ability to do the things you actually want to do. Social norms get enforced everywhere, even in the state of nature.
- sib 3y ago
  Anarchy would be without laws. I am describing liberty. There are people whose work is worth less than $20 / hour. If there is a minimum wage, those people are not able to work. So they don't have the freedom to work if they want to. You are free to buy a phone from someone else if you don't like Apple's terms. Everyone at Apple is not forced to do labor to provide you something that they don't want to provide. We have what are called "right-to-work" states which means that people in those states are not forced to join unions in those states. In other states, if there is a union at a particular workplace, employees are forced to join it, even if they do not want to.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    > Anarchy would be without laws. And you don't see laws as antithetical to individual freedom? Anyone bound by a law by definition is less free. Paying someone less than what is required for them to live in the area they work reduces my individual freedom because I end up forced to pay the cost of your laborer through social welfare programs. When you buy anything including labor you pay for its cost not its value to you. Is requiring food be safe to eat forcing someone to do labor they don't want to provide? If you don't like that a workplace has a union you're free work somewhere else. Unionized workplaces aren't forced to provide you the benefits of collective bargaining without joining. Liberty is way more complicated than you're making it and isn't fewer restrictions on individuals --> more feee.

by sib 3y ago

madsbuch 3y ago

In Denmark we have no mandated minimum salary and no mandated unions. You are free to work for 1cent an hour, if you want. However, we do have the structures to balance power asymmetries. Most people are a part of a union and we do have a de-facto minimum salary (at around 20 USD). Would that be freedom enough for you?

sib 3y ago
Sounds great. I've been to Denmark a number of times. Nice place :) As long as there's no requirement to join a union it's cool if they exist.

smoldesu 3y ago

It is possible to be free in a society that restricts some personal freedoms. The libertarian extremist model that you're suggesting doesn't resemble a society at all, and it's mostly a testament to why we can't provide total personal or market freedom. Without being able to disincentivize bad behavior, everyone will race to the bottom regardless of altruistic intent.

brigandish 3y ago
> The libertarian extremist model that you're suggesting doesn't resemble a society at all Prior to Woodrow Wilson, and more explicitly prior to Franklin Roosevelt's four freedoms[1] (specifically, the 3rd and 4th), most (legal) liberty was of that kind. Whether that's better or worse is arguable, obviously, but it certainly counts as society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Spivak 3y ago

You're describing freedom as in anarchy, the parent is describing freedom as in liberty. I am more free and able to use the software I want when the government forces Apple to unlock their devices even though it makes Apple less free. I am more free to travel when everyone follows the rules of the road even though I give up some autonomy to do so. I am more free to use wireless networks because everyone has to stick to their assigned bands even though I give up my ability to use other bands to do so. I am more free to live and sleep because of noise ordinances even though it means I can't play loud music late at night either. For people who value liberty, freedom means the ability to do the things you actually want to do. Social norms get enforced everywhere, even in the state of nature.

sib 3y ago
Anarchy would be without laws. I am describing liberty. There are people whose work is worth less than $20 / hour. If there is a minimum wage, those people are not able to work. So they don't have the freedom to work if they want to. You are free to buy a phone from someone else if you don't like Apple's terms. Everyone at Apple is not forced to do labor to provide you something that they don't want to provide. We have what are called "right-to-work" states which means that people in those states are not forced to join unions in those states. In other states, if there is a union at a particular workplace, employees are forced to join it, even if they do not want to.
- Spivak 3y ago
  > Anarchy would be without laws. And you don't see laws as antithetical to individual freedom? Anyone bound by a law by definition is less free. Paying someone less than what is required for them to live in the area they work reduces my individual freedom because I end up forced to pay the cost of your laborer through social welfare programs. When you buy anything including labor you pay for its cost not its value to you. Is requiring food be safe to eat forcing someone to do labor they don't want to provide? If you don't like that a workplace has a union you're free work somewhere else. Unionized workplaces aren't forced to provide you the benefits of collective bargaining without joining. Liberty is way more complicated than you're making it and isn't fewer restrictions on individuals --> more feee.