4 ms·

1. That isn't true of what happened in Spain, which is what the article is about. 2. There is no inconsistency. This is like asking the question should I have

1. That isn't true of what happened in Spain, which is what the article is about. 2. There is no inconsistency. This is like asking the question should I have the freedom to be a slave. 3. The people who run the factories should make decisions about them. If an individual chooses to not make decisions within that, there's nothing wrong with that. Most of your argument is the same for slavery, and that freedom is the ability to decide to be a slave if you wish.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
2. If you define renting yourself to an employer as being slavery, then yes, it's like that. If you don't define it that way, then it's not like that at all. So far, you have defined it that way, but given no reason why I should. For that matter, in your first post, you said, "workers should be in control of them [companies]", with no justification for that "should", either. And the same with your reply, the parent to this comment. You give nothing but a "should" with no justification in 3, either. You gave a very concise statement, with not a lot of argument. I get that; I even value it. But when you want to convert the not-yet-believers, you need to do better than a bunch of dogmatic "shoulds" and "that's like slavery".
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  I have no interest in converting anyone. I am answering questions as accurately as I can, as I always do. I don't quite follow your disagreement, but I appreciate the way you talk. I don't mean I disagree with you, I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I said that this > It's inconsistently in favor of freedom. "Renting yourself to a dictatorship is not freedom"? What if I want to? Should I not have the freedom to do so? Works as well for Slavery. And it does. What if someone wants to be a slave? Should they not have the freedom to do so? I feel like that's a reasonable argument, and don't see any reason to adjust it.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I see. With that understanding, yes, the form of the statement is the same. The difference, to me, is that I can see how renting myself to a corporation (yes, it's a dictatorship) can result in more net freedom for me on the axes I care more about, but I cannot imagine the same being true of slavery. So, yes, the form of the statement can be the same, but the underlying reality seems to me to be quite different. (People by the millions voluntarily left the family farm to go work for a corporation, but at least in modern times, nobody voluntarily enters slavery.) So, yes, "complete freedom means that I should be free to do X" may be logically true for all values of X (or at least those that don't impinge on someone else's freedom). But as a practical argument rather than a purely logical one, people only care about acting in ways that they view as increasing their well-being. Some actually view working for a corporation as doing so; nobody views slavery that way. So some of us care about the freedom to work for a corporation. Saying that we should not have the freedom to do so feels restrictive in a way that is different from saying the same about slavery.
    - AndyNemmity 2y ago
      That's a fair argument that is well reasoned. Where I disagree is the idea that working for a Boss is as fulfilling as you indicate. It may very well be true for you, but for the rest of the population, we'd prefer not to have one. We'd prefer not to have 1 human being able to make any decision they want, while making more than all of us combined.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        I never said working for a boss was fulfilling. I said that working for a boss may be, for example, more financially secure than working for a coop or employee-owned business or starting my own business. I may value that financial security more than I value the fulfillment of not being under a boss. Not having a boss is good. But there's more than one thing that's good, and I may value other ones more highly.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

2. If you define renting yourself to an employer as being slavery, then yes, it's like that. If you don't define it that way, then it's not like that at all. So far, you have defined it that way, but given no reason why I should. For that matter, in your first post, you said, "workers should be in control of them [companies]", with no justification for that "should", either. And the same with your reply, the parent to this comment. You give nothing but a "should" with no justification in 3, either. You gave a very concise statement, with not a lot of argument. I get that; I even value it. But when you want to convert the not-yet-believers, you need to do better than a bunch of dogmatic "shoulds" and "that's like slavery".

AndyNemmity 2y ago
I have no interest in converting anyone. I am answering questions as accurately as I can, as I always do. I don't quite follow your disagreement, but I appreciate the way you talk. I don't mean I disagree with you, I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I said that this > It's inconsistently in favor of freedom. "Renting yourself to a dictatorship is not freedom"? What if I want to? Should I not have the freedom to do so? Works as well for Slavery. And it does. What if someone wants to be a slave? Should they not have the freedom to do so? I feel like that's a reasonable argument, and don't see any reason to adjust it.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I see. With that understanding, yes, the form of the statement is the same. The difference, to me, is that I can see how renting myself to a corporation (yes, it's a dictatorship) can result in more net freedom for me on the axes I care more about, but I cannot imagine the same being true of slavery. So, yes, the form of the statement can be the same, but the underlying reality seems to me to be quite different. (People by the millions voluntarily left the family farm to go work for a corporation, but at least in modern times, nobody voluntarily enters slavery.) So, yes, "complete freedom means that I should be free to do X" may be logically true for all values of X (or at least those that don't impinge on someone else's freedom). But as a practical argument rather than a purely logical one, people only care about acting in ways that they view as increasing their well-being. Some actually view working for a corporation as doing so; nobody views slavery that way. So some of us care about the freedom to work for a corporation. Saying that we should not have the freedom to do so feels restrictive in a way that is different from saying the same about slavery.
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    That's a fair argument that is well reasoned. Where I disagree is the idea that working for a Boss is as fulfilling as you indicate. It may very well be true for you, but for the rest of the population, we'd prefer not to have one. We'd prefer not to have 1 human being able to make any decision they want, while making more than all of us combined.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I never said working for a boss was fulfilling. I said that working for a boss may be, for example, more financially secure than working for a coop or employee-owned business or starting my own business. I may value that financial security more than I value the fulfillment of not being under a boss. Not having a boss is good. But there's more than one thing that's good, and I may value other ones more highly.