4 ms·

> People won't work if they are not able to sustain themselves (calorically) on the pay. A better alternative is simply to require companies to pay a living wa

> People won't work if they are not able to sustain themselves (calorically) on the pay. A better alternative is simply to require companies to pay a living wage. The outcome is better, because you don’t lose the safety net for those who still need it.

thegrimmest 2y ago
[flagged]
- doctor_eval 2y ago
  You say that like it’s a bad thing. Ultra-capitalism is no better than ultra-communism. They are both systems designed to reduce democracy and to funnel all the money into the hands of a small number of elites. I prefer to live in a society where people can feed themselves, or get sick, or lose their jobs, without losing their house or going bankrupt - regardless of the ideology de jure.
- doctor_eval 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - thegrimmest 2y ago
    > most of modern Europe This is relatively recent, and has proven itself quite fragile. Democracies elect dictators. Dictators of powerful governments commit atrocities. There is no "don't elect dictators" solution. The only solution is to disempower the government. Also European nations are relatively small and relatively culturally homogenous. There is no functioning liberal democracy of a large multicultural state. > All societies impose involuntary obligations There is a vast difference between outlawing violent behaviour and mandating cooperation. The latter is indistinguishable from slavery. Free societies don't compel the cooperation of their citizens beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself. Even being conscripted into the army, which is slavery, can be justified if it is to defend against a foe who would destroy liberal society. It is however categorically not justified to mandate contribution to various insurance schemes and welfare programs. There is no picking and choosing here. I want my interactions with the state to maximize for consent[1]. I want the ability to out out. I am not owed medical treatment if I'm sick. I would like the ability to choose whether to incur an obligation or not. > freedom to do whatever the hell you want Yes! > no obligation to the liberty of others No. My rights to wave my fists around end where your nose begins. > freedom from hunger, freedom from fear, freedom from homelessness, freedom from pain These aren't freedoms, they're obligations. Obligations on others to provide you with food and housing and emotional support (freedom from fear? really?). Obligation is exactly the thing that free people aim to be free of. Being free isn't the same thing as being taken care of. It's about being able to do whatever the hell you want, and interact with others on a consensual basis. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
    - doctor_eval 2y ago
      You can’t have it both ways. This: > freedom to do whatever the hell you want > Yes! Cannot be followed by this: > My rights to wave my fists around end where your nose begins. because the latter can only be prevented through either obligation or force. > There is no functioning liberal democracy of a large multicultural state. I won’t bother trying to argue against this, because it’s so vague that you will just change the definitions as we go along. But there are at least two very large countries that most widely-read people would consider to meet your definition. > There is a vast difference between outlawing violent behaviour and mandating cooperation. This is utter nonsense. Outlawing violent behaviour obviously requires cooperation, without which violence cannot be prevented. But of course, once again, you’re cherry-picking your obligations; the entire premise of your argument is flawed because your arguments are entirely subjective and internally inconsistent. > The latter is indistinguishable from slavery. You keep muttering this laughable nonsense as if it’s some kind of enlightenment, but all it does is trivialise slavery, and underscores how ridiculous your black-and-white views really are. > 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 I see your YouTube cartoon about consent and tea and raise you Knowledge Fight: https://knowledgefight.com/ https://knowledgefight.com/ Neither are relevant to the conversation, I just really like Knowledge Fight. > freedom from fear? really? You say it like it’s a bad thing.
      - thegrimmest 2y ago
        Seizing 100% of a person's economic output is slavery right? The rest is just a matter of degree. > beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself You missed this part. Yes you can mandate cooperation (read: enslave) to protect fundamental liberty (police, courts, military, rights of way, etc). You can even literally enslave people by drafting them into the army if your liberal nation is under attack. What you you can't do in a free society is enslave people to pay for healthcare, education, social security, or anything else unrelated to protecting fundamental liberty from a direct threat. The mandate of the federal government was thus limited until US v. Butler (1936). There are no contradictions here, this is literally how it used to work. This is what liberty used to mean. Being free to do anything that directly injures no one else. > You say it like it’s a bad thing. Fear is just as inevitable a part of life as joy. It's not escapable. Pretending you have a right not to feel it is absurd.
- noelwelsh 2y ago
  > "Ultra-capitalism" is just the state of nature without the violence. It's really not. That's the line pushed by Enlightenment thinkers (e.g. Rousseau, Hume) who didn't actually know what they're talking about. A few centuries of anthropology later and we know that a lot of other societies are characterized by mutual aid. One randomly chosen example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2801707 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2801707

thegrimmest 2y ago

[flagged]

doctor_eval 2y ago
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Ultra-capitalism is no better than ultra-communism. They are both systems designed to reduce democracy and to funnel all the money into the hands of a small number of elites. I prefer to live in a society where people can feed themselves, or get sick, or lose their jobs, without losing their house or going bankrupt - regardless of the ideology de jure.
doctor_eval 2y ago
[flagged]
- thegrimmest 2y ago
  > most of modern Europe This is relatively recent, and has proven itself quite fragile. Democracies elect dictators. Dictators of powerful governments commit atrocities. There is no "don't elect dictators" solution. The only solution is to disempower the government. Also European nations are relatively small and relatively culturally homogenous. There is no functioning liberal democracy of a large multicultural state. > All societies impose involuntary obligations There is a vast difference between outlawing violent behaviour and mandating cooperation. The latter is indistinguishable from slavery. Free societies don't compel the cooperation of their citizens beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself. Even being conscripted into the army, which is slavery, can be justified if it is to defend against a foe who would destroy liberal society. It is however categorically not justified to mandate contribution to various insurance schemes and welfare programs. There is no picking and choosing here. I want my interactions with the state to maximize for consent[1]. I want the ability to out out. I am not owed medical treatment if I'm sick. I would like the ability to choose whether to incur an obligation or not. > freedom to do whatever the hell you want Yes! > no obligation to the liberty of others No. My rights to wave my fists around end where your nose begins. > freedom from hunger, freedom from fear, freedom from homelessness, freedom from pain These aren't freedoms, they're obligations. Obligations on others to provide you with food and housing and emotional support (freedom from fear? really?). Obligation is exactly the thing that free people aim to be free of. Being free isn't the same thing as being taken care of. It's about being able to do whatever the hell you want, and interact with others on a consensual basis. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
  - doctor_eval 2y ago
    You can’t have it both ways. This: > freedom to do whatever the hell you want > Yes! Cannot be followed by this: > My rights to wave my fists around end where your nose begins. because the latter can only be prevented through either obligation or force. > There is no functioning liberal democracy of a large multicultural state. I won’t bother trying to argue against this, because it’s so vague that you will just change the definitions as we go along. But there are at least two very large countries that most widely-read people would consider to meet your definition. > There is a vast difference between outlawing violent behaviour and mandating cooperation. This is utter nonsense. Outlawing violent behaviour obviously requires cooperation, without which violence cannot be prevented. But of course, once again, you’re cherry-picking your obligations; the entire premise of your argument is flawed because your arguments are entirely subjective and internally inconsistent. > The latter is indistinguishable from slavery. You keep muttering this laughable nonsense as if it’s some kind of enlightenment, but all it does is trivialise slavery, and underscores how ridiculous your black-and-white views really are. > 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 I see your YouTube cartoon about consent and tea and raise you Knowledge Fight: https://knowledgefight.com/ https://knowledgefight.com/ Neither are relevant to the conversation, I just really like Knowledge Fight. > freedom from fear? really? You say it like it’s a bad thing.
    - thegrimmest 2y ago
      Seizing 100% of a person's economic output is slavery right? The rest is just a matter of degree. > beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself You missed this part. Yes you can mandate cooperation (read: enslave) to protect fundamental liberty (police, courts, military, rights of way, etc). You can even literally enslave people by drafting them into the army if your liberal nation is under attack. What you you can't do in a free society is enslave people to pay for healthcare, education, social security, or anything else unrelated to protecting fundamental liberty from a direct threat. The mandate of the federal government was thus limited until US v. Butler (1936). There are no contradictions here, this is literally how it used to work. This is what liberty used to mean. Being free to do anything that directly injures no one else. > You say it like it’s a bad thing. Fear is just as inevitable a part of life as joy. It's not escapable. Pretending you have a right not to feel it is absurd.
noelwelsh 2y ago
> "Ultra-capitalism" is just the state of nature without the violence. It's really not. That's the line pushed by Enlightenment thinkers (e.g. Rousseau, Hume) who didn't actually know what they're talking about. A few centuries of anthropology later and we know that a lot of other societies are characterized by mutual aid. One randomly chosen example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2801707 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2801707