3 ms·
You skipped the rather pertinent bit where these restrictions apply only to people who chose of their own volition to take them on. You are, of course, free to
by Karunamon 3y ago
You skipped the rather pertinent bit where these restrictions apply only to people who chose of their own volition to take them on.
You are, of course, free to not take on the burden of employment from a particular organization if you find their demands on your conduct while they are compensating you for your time to be unacceptable.
This relationship is purely transactional. And, sorry, the idea that this is actually a bona fide problem is facile.
- iscream26 3y agoThat line of reasoning would make sense if the have-nots in a liberal society didn't need to work just to survive. But that is not the case, is it? Liberal society loves to characterise itself as a rigid, well-structured system in which individuals choose to make idealised rational decisions to work towards their own interests. As opposed to emotional reasoning, which is conveniently implied to be the diametrical opposite of rational thought. And I call it "convenient" because as a result can easily paint protests and strikes, as "irrational" and "despicable" actions perpetrated by "unreasonable" individuals. However, as soon as one considers the fact that the disparity of power between people with private property and people without makes it so that the people without private property cannot afford to make decisions on a "rational vacuum". We quickly find ourselves reverting back to "what are you going to do about it? You don't work, you don't eat."
- tekknik 3y agoSo because some people can’t afford property we should control speech?