Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 15:11:00 GMT -5
Where we find contradiction, we must either assume a fault in our understanding or in the matter presented. Paradox is a womb of truth. As a matter of fact, if I define abusive relations as those predicated on the alienability of human rights - a definition under which government, inter alia, is an essentially abusive institution - "free" associations which entail the surrender or abrogation of rights thereby take on an abusive character. Stockholm Syndrome doesn't pardon your kidnapper. As a thought experiment, can you suggest any coherent ground not implying coercion for the willing embrace of slavery by the slave, a priori to the condition of enslavement? It can be trivially stipulated that the slave once immured to his condition can adjust his mental horizons to fit it, but that is clearly a coping mechanism, a response to an abusive situation.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Sept 9, 2013 15:17:45 GMT -5
can you suggest any coherent ground not implying coercion for the willing embrace of slavery by the slave he doesn't know any better? thinks that it's natural?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 15:18:16 GMT -5
Where we find contradiction, we must either assume a fault in our understanding or in the matter presented. Paradox is a womb of truth. As a matter of fact, if I define abusive relations as those predicated on the alienability of human rights - a definition under which government, inter alia, is an essentially abusive institution - "free" associations which entail the surrender or abrogation of rights thereby take on an abusive character. Stockholm Syndrome doesn't pardon your kidnapper. indeed no. out of curiosity- how does this definition of abuse comport with the standard one? if the arrangement is non-coercive, then does it violate an alienable right, other than in the trivial sense? and if a non-coercive arrangement does (ie- abstractly, "human dignity"), is it any better or worse?As a thought experiment, can you suggest any coherent ground not implying coercion for the willing embrace of slavery by the slave, a priori to the condition of enslavement? that is a very very difficult question. i have been pondering it all day, and i can't honestly say i have an answer to it.It can be trivially stipulated that the slave once immured to his condition can adjust his mental horizons to fit it, but that is clearly a coping mechanism, a response to an abusive situation. yes. BEING in the situation brings your real values into focus. this is how the devil's bargain works, right? but again, from where i am sitting, putting those two things up in the window, i am having trouble seeing daylight between them. we not only agree on the general premises here, but we see the same internal problems in the debate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 15:18:58 GMT -5
can you suggest any coherent ground not implying coercion for the willing embrace of slavery by the slave he doesn't know any better? thinks that it's natural? for those that survive the first half of this discussion, this will absolutely be part of the second half.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Sept 9, 2013 15:21:07 GMT -5
cognitive dissonance
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 15:26:40 GMT -5
The standard definition of abuse admits of human rights as a commodity. It suggests that one may purchase some valuable good at the price of some measure of right sacrificed (Franklin, for one, highlighted the dangerous implications of that idea).
Under that definition, abusiveness is simply a measure of the subjective fairness of the price of a man's soul. Yet I think we can all agree the Devil is never fair in such dealings.
That is why I prefer what seems to me a more honest statement: that the hallmark of abusiveness is the accepted alienability of a human right. That leads to consideration of the casuistic desirability of abusiveness in certain contexts, or, from the other side, the characteristic nature of what we might recognize and treat of as a human right (the right to death, for example, has a more persuasive claim to the canon than the right to life); but it circumscribes a slippery slope in political economy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 15:35:00 GMT -5
The standard definition of abuse admits of human rights as a commodity. It suggests that one may purchase some valuable good at the price of some measure of right sacrificed (Franklin, for one, highlighted the dangerous implications of that idea). Under that definition, abusiveness is simply a measure of the subjective fairness of the price of a man's soul. Yet I think we can all agree the Devil is never fair in such dealings. That is why I prefer what seems to me a more honest statement: that the hallmark of abusiveness is the accepted alienability of a human right. That leads to consideration of the casuistic desirability of abusiveness in certain contexts, or, from the other side, the characteristic nature of what we might recognize and treat of as a human right (the right to death, for example, has a more persuasive claim to the canon than the right to life); but it circumscribes a slippery slope in political economy. ok, accepting that by this definition, all master/slave relationships are inherently abusive, are ANY scut worker/patron relationships?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 9, 2013 15:53:36 GMT -5
Wouldn't the term "wage slave" apply to just about every worker? What's the difference between mopping the floors at Denny's for $7.50 an hour vs. doing advanced calculations as an engineer for $90,000 a year? Both are dependent on someone else providing for their livlihood. The only ones who aren't wage slaves would be the owners of the means of production, or investors.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 15:54:52 GMT -5
The only way such a relationship would not be abusive in my lexicon would be if the scut worker actively sought out scut work and consciously eschewed loftier alternatives.
Given the social utility of scut work, it were therefore desirable on utilitarian grounds to encourage exactly the sort of distortions of the mental horizon to which workpublic alludes: a caste system, essentially, although that needn't be so rigid as to prevent mobility between castes for individuals of aptitude.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 9, 2013 15:56:11 GMT -5
Interesting question. One problem inherant to slavery is it limits human potential. in what way does scut work enhance human potential? iow, how is it any different? The work itself doesn't really enhance human potential. But the individual has a greater freedom to advance if they so choose. Brute physical labor hasn't really changed much in the last few thousand years. But the question is one of opportunity, and under which system does one have more of it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 15:56:17 GMT -5
Wouldn't the term "wage slave" apply to just about every worker? What's the difference between mopping the floors at Denny's for $7.50 an hour vs. doing advanced calculations as an engineer for $90,000 a year? Both are dependent on someone else providing for their livlihood. The only ones who aren't wage slaves would be the owners of the means of production, or investors. Phoenix- would you mind saving this for a bit later? your question is absolutely relevant, and i promise it will be addressed. however, i think that the argument is better if it is kept a bit narrower. what i am after for the moment is the intersection (if any) in the Venn Diagram for work and slavery. i think that intersection is a lot easier to see if you narrow the field of work to things that everyone hates to do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 15:58:02 GMT -5
in what way does scut work enhance human potential? iow, how is it any different? The work itself doesn't really enhance human potential. But the individual has a greater freedom to advance if they so choose. i am not sure that, in the practical sense, it works that way, even in the US. i KNOW it doesn't work that way in Jakarta.Brute physical labor hasn't really changed much in the last few thousand years. But the question is one of opportunity, and under which system does one have more of it. what if your wage labor is accompanied by armed guards, locked entryways, and 12' barbed wire fences?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 15:59:35 GMT -5
Wouldn't the term "wage slave" apply to just about every worker? What's the difference between mopping the floors at Denny's for $7.50 an hour vs. doing advanced calculations as an engineer for $90,000 a year? Both are dependent on someone else providing for their livlihood. The only ones who aren't wage slaves would be the owners of the means of production, or investors. Precisely. The Pyrrhic victory of the Seventeenth Amendment served to universalize a more invidious form of slavery; the subsequent embrace of fiat currency makes it the more explicit.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 16:02:55 GMT -5
Yes, and I believe you are party to one. Don't you employ some older gentleman who is rather slow and whatnot, but he really is proud of his work? It works for both of you, and he probably doesn't need the money as much as he needs the dignity? no. he is retired. but YES, i did that at one time. but i paid him $15/hr to do that work, so i am not sure how well i fit into this discussion. there were two halves to the scut worker statement. one was the work itself. the second was the fact that it barely supported you. if the "barely" was left out, that was an omission. edit: this was NOT carried over from the other discussion, so i added it.I may be mistaken there, but there are certtainly scut work jobs that are not bad deals for the people that do them. teenage workers come to mind, as do people with mental and physical limiitations, for whom a low skill job is part of the ticket to partial independance and pride of self. Of course there are a great preponderance of such jobs where the worker would benefit greatly from a better wage, and for whom the job is only a means to become part of the "working poor". While I'm not necessarily ready to accept that their employer is acting out of nefarious and malicious intent, "the market" marginalizes their lives, for sure. well, capital can aggregate at ANY opportunity. i am sure you agree that i could have used my savings to buy my dad's business, or to traffick in stolen weapons. i chose the former, even though the pay was significantly less. i want to sleep at night. likewise, you can buy a burger franchise that pays minimum wage so people can flip it in a hot hole, or you can buy a franchise that pays a living wage. the choice is at the capital forming side. it takes a certain kind of individual to overlook the human element in their financial decisions. but again, this is a digression, and you already answered the original question. stick around for part 2.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 9, 2013 16:05:11 GMT -5
The standard definition of abuse admits of human rights as a commodity. It suggests that one may purchase some valuable good at the price of some measure of right sacrificed (Franklin, for one, highlighted the dangerous implications of that idea). Under that definition, abusiveness is simply a measure of the subjective fairness of the price of a man's soul. Yet I think we can all agree the Devil is never fair in such dealings. That is why I prefer what seems to me a more honest statement: that the hallmark of abusiveness is the accepted alienability of a human right. That leads to consideration of the casuistic desirability of abusiveness in certain contexts, or, from the other side, the characteristic nature of what we might recognize and treat of as a human right (the right to death, for example, has a more persuasive claim to the canon than the right to life); but it circumscribes a slippery slope in political economy. ok, accepting that by this definition, all master/slave relationships are inherently abusive, are ANY scut worker/patron relationships? I don't think Mojo is making a comment on slavery per se. He's laying out a fundamental view on what constitutes abuse: a) a human right, X, exists absolutely in some context, b) some members of society openly deny others the right to X, and c) society as a whole accepts or tolerates this disenfranchisement. Most of this discussion resides in a), but it's important to look at where a) fits into the bigger picture when defining abuse. Personally, I'd use this as a heuristic definition of "systemic abuse" or "institutional abuse". For me, a) and b) are sufficient to posit "abuse" in the most general sense. I don't know if you two are working with a more specific definition by this point in the discussion. Obviously if we can't agree on which human rights "exists absolutely", the rest of the argument won't go far. For example, many libertarian sites refer to American taxpayers as "debt slaves" in light of the hundreds of billions of tax dollars paid yearly into interest charges on government bonds. The owners of these instruments are predominantly banks, corporations, and wealthier private citizens. One could reasonably argue that "slavery" applies to the situation since everyone must pay taxes to enjoy a certain standard of living, and individuals realistically have no influence over the government spending that necessitates new bond issuance. The question of whether "debt slavery" is abusive, however, boils down to whether the right to exist in a tax-free vacuum is a fundamental human right. If so, we find trivially that b) and c) are also true, hence such slavery constitutes abuse. If not, then we must either conclude that debt slavery isn't an abusive form of slavery, or we amend our heuristic for identifying abuse.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 16:09:37 GMT -5
ok, accepting that by this definition, all master/slave relationships are inherently abusive, are ANY scut worker/patron relationships? I don't think Mojo is making a comment on slavery per se. He's laying out a fundamental view on what constitutes abuse: a) a human right, X, exists absolutely in some context, b) some members of society openly deny others the right to X, and c) society as a whole accepts or tolerates this disenfranchisement. and i think Mojo was clear in his first or second post that such relationships CAN exist between a patron and a scut worker. i just was asking him to reiterate, for sake of clarity. Most of this discussion resides in a), but it's important to look at where a) fits into the bigger picture when defining abuse. Personally, I'd use this as a heuristic definition of "systemic abuse" or "institutional abuse". For me, a) and b) are sufficient to posit "abuse" in the most general sense. I don't know if you two are working with a more specific definition by this point in the discussion. Obviously if we can't agree on which human rights "exists absolutely", the rest of the argument won't go far. For example, many libertarian sites refer to American taxpayers as "debt slaves" in light of the hundreds of billions of tax dollars paid yearly into interest charges on government bonds. The owners of these instruments are predominantly banks, corporations, and wealthier private citizens. One could reasonably argue that "slavery" applies to the situation since everyone must pay taxes to enjoy a certain standard of living, and individuals realistically have no influence over the government spending that necessitates new bond issuance. The question of whether "debt slavery" is abusive, however, boils down to whether the right to exist in a tax-free vacuum is a fundamental human right. If so, we find trivially that b) and c) are also true, hence such slavery constitutes abuse. If not, then we must either conclude that debt slavery isn't an abusive form of slavery, or we amend our heuristic for identifying abuse. i was earlier asked about debtors prison, and where this fell on the spectrum, and i put it between what we call slavery and scut work, on the freedom scale. i am not sure that was accurate, in retrospect. after all, if one lived a life of splendor on that unpaid money, that is more of a life than either a slave OR a scut worker. upon reflection, i think the indentured servant is further away from slavery than the scut worker. he made that debt.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 9, 2013 16:28:10 GMT -5
It depends on how strongly we feel the debt was created 'voluntarily', which is a spectrum in and of itself, ranging from "living large, disregarding the repercussions" thru "living large, ignorant of the repercussions" thru "borrowing modestly but unwisely" thru "ya load 16 tons, what'd'ya get?".
And it becomes a thornier issue still when we separate the moral (or ethical, if you prefer) obligation to repay one's debts to the legal obligation to do so. Paul and I debated the morality of bankruptcy a few months ago for this exact reason.
Bringing the issue back to slavery or indentured service, we could explore any number of questions in this vein.
For example, if a man loses a fortune in a grubstake and is legally required to pay off a punishing debt, if a law is then passed six months later declaring all such debts null and void, is the man morally obligated to repay the debt? Which to me is the same as asking: was the original law a fair and moral law?
Or suppose instead that the debtor accumulates the debt over time due to a failed business venture. If the venture had succeeded it would have been wildly profitable, but it did not. Is such a man morally obligated to repay his creditors regardless of the law? Is the morality determined by the law? If society says he's off the hook, is he off the hook? Paul's argument in that case was "absolutely", whereas mine was highly conditional.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 16:48:04 GMT -5
It depends on how strongly we feel the debt was created 'voluntarily', which is a spectrum in and of itself, ranging from "living large, disregarding the repercussions" thru "living large, ignorant of the repercussions" thru "borrowing modestly but unwisely" thru "ya load 16 tons, what'd'ya get?". And it becomes a thornier issue still when we separate the moral (or ethical, if you prefer) obligation to repay one's debts to the legal obligation to do so. Paul and I debated the morality of bankruptcy a few months ago for this exact reason. Bringing the issue back to slavery or indentured service, we could explore any number of questions in this vein. For example, if a man loses a fortune in a grubstake and is legally required to pay off a punishing debt, if a law is then passed six months later declaring all such debts null and void, is the man morally obligated to repay the debt? Which to me is the same as asking: was the original law a fair and moral law? Or suppose instead that the debtor accumulates the debt over time due to a failed business venture. If the venture had succeeded it would have been wildly profitable, but it did not. Is such a man morally obligated to repay his creditors regardless of the law? Is the morality determined by the law? If society says he's off the hook, is he off the hook? Paul's argument in that case was "absolutely", whereas mine was highly conditional. the one example that seems hopelessly unfair to me is the one where a relative dies, and his next of kin has to take on his debt. THAT one seems like the most morally outrageous, and ... oddly ... the most similar to our $16T in (mostly) war spending that got us where we are. it is like borrowing from your grandkids to buy crack.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 9, 2013 16:55:10 GMT -5
It depends on how strongly we feel the debt was created 'voluntarily', which is a spectrum in and of itself, ranging from "living large, disregarding the repercussions" thru "living large, ignorant of the repercussions" thru "borrowing modestly but unwisely" thru "ya load 16 tons, what'd'ya get?". And it becomes a thornier issue still when we separate the moral (or ethical, if you prefer) obligation to repay one's debts to the legal obligation to do so. Paul and I debated the morality of bankruptcy a few months ago for this exact reason. Bringing the issue back to slavery or indentured service, we could explore any number of questions in this vein. For example, if a man loses a fortune in a grubstake and is legally required to pay off a punishing debt, if a law is then passed six months later declaring all such debts null and void, is the man morally obligated to repay the debt? Which to me is the same as asking: was the original law a fair and moral law? Or suppose instead that the debtor accumulates the debt over time due to a failed business venture. If the venture had succeeded it would have been wildly profitable, but it did not. Is such a man morally obligated to repay his creditors regardless of the law? Is the morality determined by the law? If society says he's off the hook, is he off the hook? Paul's argument in that case was "absolutely", whereas mine was highly conditional. the one example that seems hopelessly unfair to me is the one where a relative dies, and his next of kin has to take on his debt. THAT one seems like the most morally outrageous, and ... oddly ... the most similar to our $16T in (mostly) war spending that got us where we are. it is like borrowing from your grandkids to buy crack. I'd feel bad for the grandkids, but I fully expect them to eventually wash their hands of the debt Greece style at the first hint of meaningful austerity. Without Germany, France, and the ECB pumping in cash on a monthly basis to ease the pain, seniors are going to be the first to go under the bus. Whether that's through cuts or inflation or both: doesn't matter. 85-year-old men scrubbing feces off toilets at WalMart for $6.25 an hour are going to become a very common sight indeed, whether or not we feel that's a good thing.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 9, 2013 16:56:02 GMT -5
Wouldn't the term "wage slave" apply to just about every worker? What's the difference between mopping the floors at Denny's for $7.50 an hour vs. doing advanced calculations as an engineer for $90,000 a year? Both are dependent on someone else providing for their livlihood. The only ones who aren't wage slaves would be the owners of the means of production, or investors. Phoenix- would you mind saving this for a bit later? your question is absolutely relevant, and i promise it will be addressed. however, i think that the argument is better if it is kept a bit narrower. what i am after for the moment is the intersection (if any) in the Venn Diagram for work and slavery. i think that intersection is a lot easier to see if you narrow the field of work to things that everyone hates to do. Well, now not everyone might hate such work. I made scut wages mopping floors and cleaning bathrooms in a grocery store as a teenager, but I wouldn't say I hated the work. I also made scut wages cooking pizzas, but I actually enjoyed that work - but since I wanted to make more than scut wages, I moved on I think some of the issue with this discussion is that somehow scut work is seen as demeaning somehow, but I don't see it that way. (I'm not sure "demeaning" is the word I want to use, though, but its the only one that comes to mind) Work is work - some work is worth more to employers than other work, not because its harder physically but because not as many people are able to do it or want to do it. I've been told by people numerous times over the years that they would not want my job (accountant). Partly because of that, my job pays a lot more than others jobs - the other factors being amount of education needed and skillsets required. So these other factors cause a job that others don't want to do to pay higher than the scut jobs people don't want to do. Because if all it takes is other people not wanting to do a job to make it a scut job, then I would be working a scut job! And maybe I am?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 16:58:10 GMT -5
the one example that seems hopelessly unfair to me is the one where a relative dies, and his next of kin has to take on his debt. THAT one seems like the most morally outrageous, and ... oddly ... the most similar to our $16T in (mostly) war spending that got us where we are. it is like borrowing from your grandkids to buy crack. I'd feel bad for the grandkids, but I fully expect them to eventually wash their hands of the debt Greece style at the first hint of meaningful austerity. Without Germany, France, and the ECB pumping in cash on a monthly basis to ease the pain, seniors are going to be the first to go under the bus. Whether that's through cuts or inflation or both: doesn't matter. 85-year-old men scrubbing feces off toilets at WalMart for $6.25 an hour are going to become a very common sight indeed, whether or not we feel that's a good thing. well, if we don't feel that is a good thing, there is absolutely something we can do about it: and that is to reset our priorities. if we stopped gallivanting around the globe like a helicopter parent, we would have plenty of cash to take care of the basic needs of our elderly. but we would have to PRIORITIZE it, if it mattered. or raise taxes. one of the two. do you think the initial discussion has dried up yet, Virgil, or should i leave it for another day before i infuse it with something new?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2013 17:00:31 GMT -5
Phoenix- would you mind saving this for a bit later? your question is absolutely relevant, and i promise it will be addressed. however, i think that the argument is better if it is kept a bit narrower. what i am after for the moment is the intersection (if any) in the Venn Diagram for work and slavery. i think that intersection is a lot easier to see if you narrow the field of work to things that everyone hates to do. Well, now not everyone might hate such work. I made scut wages mopping floors and cleaning bathrooms in a grocery store as a teenager, but I wouldn't say I hated the work. I also made scut wages cooking pizzas, but I actually enjoyed that work - but since I wanted to make more than scut wages, I moved on I think some of the issue with this discussion is that somehow scut work is seen as demeaning somehow, but I don't see it that way. (I'm not sure "demeaning" is the word I want to use, though, but its the only one that comes to mind) Work is work - some work is worth more to employers than other work, not because its harder physically but because not as many people are able to do it or want to do it. really? you don't see work that is something you really want to do, that makes you feel as if you are being creative, growing, and useful (maybe even....gasp....IMPORTANT) as a person is ANY DIFFERENT than work where you are basically cleaning up someone's mess? really? really really?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 17:20:49 GMT -5
dj -
I think you're at some risk of begging an important question about the intrinsic and instrumental value of work to the worker.
At the very least, even homogenizing the workforce into interchangeable units, you're conflating the former and latter categories of value, which smacks of error.
jkapp raises a useful question, I think, in at least opening the door to the possibility that the slave might view his slavery differently in terms of its utility or intrinsic worth than might the drudgery his drudge - and that this subjective appreciation, in defiance of my earlier assertion, constitutes a valid metric for asserting the one enjoys some moral superiority over the other.
I have worked in public policy; I have addressed Ministers of State and drafted guidance documents for a national government agency. I have also mucked out stables with a delightful young woman who was the first brown-eyed natural straw blonde I ever met. Which was more rewarding to me?
The job I do currently is better paid than the one I left to take it; but the job I did before was more enjoyable and less stressful. I felt obliged to leave it and take this because I needed the money, and I needed the money to meet other obligations, not to enhance my own freedom (in theory at least, money is a placeholder for freedom in a capitalist society). The functions of the previous job included some that would meet a lay definition of drudgery, and few that would be consistent with my former life as a mid-ranking civil servant. There are more vectors here than can be captured under a single definition of "scut work," I feel.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 9, 2013 17:21:33 GMT -5
I'd feel bad for the grandkids, but I fully expect them to eventually wash their hands of the debt Greece style at the first hint of meaningful austerity. Without Germany, France, and the ECB pumping in cash on a monthly basis to ease the pain, seniors are going to be the first to go under the bus. Whether that's through cuts or inflation or both: doesn't matter. 85-year-old men scrubbing feces off toilets at WalMart for $6.25 an hour are going to become a very common sight indeed, whether or not we feel that's a good thing. well, if we don't feel that is a good thing, there is absolutely something we can do about it: and that is to reset our priorities. if we stopped gallivanting around the globe like a helicopter parent, we would have plenty of cash to take care of the basic needs of our elderly. but we would have to PRIORITIZE it, if it mattered. or raise taxes. one of the two. I agree to the extent that stopping the endless military action would help immensely. I'd feel bad for the grandkids, but I fully expect them to eventually wash their hands of the debt Greece style at the first hint of meaningful austerity. Without Germany, France, and the ECB pumping in cash on a monthly basis to ease the pain, seniors are going to be the first to go under the bus. Whether that's through cuts or inflation or both: doesn't matter. 85-year-old men scrubbing feces off toilets at WalMart for $6.25 an hour are going to become a very common sight indeed, whether or not we feel that's a good thing. do you think the initial discussion has dried up yet, Virgil, or should i leave it for another day before i infuse it with something new? If you're contemplating bringing religious arguments re slavery into the thread, I can tell you that I have no interest whatsoever in debating that topic. Nor can I see the discussion going anywhere productive. But you might get a bite. If you're thinking about bringing in anything from the many National Socialist philosophers or their proxies, I'd advise against it. Likewise if you decide to take "pro" on "Was slavery necessary for the founding of the United States?" or "Given the present state of many African nations, was the US slave trade a boon to the descendants of these nations?". Simply put, it is impossible to debate these subjects objectively on an open forum. Finally, if you're planning on going Star Trek with "Should artificial or virtual intelligences be granted 'human' rights?", just... don't. Aside from that, knock yourself out.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 9, 2013 17:31:08 GMT -5
I think that depends on the person, the work being done, and the beneficiaries of said work, dj. One can grow as a person by providing for the needs of others and be useful, and even creative, while doing so. To the person(s) for whom you're cleaning up a mess, you're most certainly important. While it might seem like scut work to one, it can be very fulfilling to another.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 9, 2013 17:31:42 GMT -5
... really? you don't see work that is something you really want to do, that makes you feel as if you are being creative, growing, and useful (maybe even....gasp....IMPORTANT) as a person is ANY DIFFERENT than work where you are basically cleaning up someone's mess? really? really really? I certainly see them as different. However, I do see them both as useful and think it is important that people will do both types of jobs well. This summer I walked to a far end of a highway rest stop to thank the person who was taking a break after having cleaned the toilet I just used to thank him for doing the work that he did so I could have a pleasant experience walking into that restroom. I do similar at every opportunity I have.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 9, 2013 17:48:53 GMT -5
I don't think Mojo is making a comment on slavery per se. He's laying out a fundamental view on what constitutes abuse: a) a human right, X, exists absolutely in some context, b) some members of society openly deny others the right to X, and c) society as a whole accepts or tolerates this disenfranchisement. and i think Mojo was clear in his first or second post that such relationships CAN exist between a patron and a scut worker. i just was asking him to reiterate, for sake of clarity. Most of this discussion resides in a), but it's important to look at where a) fits into the bigger picture when defining abuse. Personally, I'd use this as a heuristic definition of "systemic abuse" or "institutional abuse". For me, a) and b) are sufficient to posit "abuse" in the most general sense. I don't know if you two are working with a more specific definition by this point in the discussion. Obviously if we can't agree on which human rights "exists absolutely", the rest of the argument won't go far. For example, many libertarian sites refer to American taxpayers as "debt slaves" in light of the hundreds of billions of tax dollars paid yearly into interest charges on government bonds. The owners of these instruments are predominantly banks, corporations, and wealthier private citizens. One could reasonably argue that "slavery" applies to the situation since everyone must pay taxes to enjoy a certain standard of living, and individuals realistically have no influence over the government spending that necessitates new bond issuance. The question of whether "debt slavery" is abusive, however, boils down to whether the right to exist in a tax-free vacuum is a fundamental human right. If so, we find trivially that b) and c) are also true, hence such slavery constitutes abuse. If not, then we must either conclude that debt slavery isn't an abusive form of slavery, or we amend our heuristic for identifying abuse. i was earlier asked about debtors prison, and where this fell on the spectrum, and i put it between what we call slavery and scut work, on the freedom scale. i am not sure that was accurate, in retrospect. after all, if one lived a life of splendor on that unpaid money, that is more of a life than either a slave OR a scut worker. upon reflection, i think the indentured servant is further away from slavery than the scut worker. he made that debt. If it makes you feel better to think that indentured servants ran up credit card debt buying crab legs and pimped out clothing fine, but realize that is really really far from the thruth for the vast majority. Most were either "sold" by their relative who reaped the benefit if there was one, or just got out of having to take care of them. Or they were round up as criminals and sent to the colonies to be forced labor. In the beginning of the colonies getting someone to work for you was very difficlut. Most people just worked on their own families farm with no time to do paid employment. It was a big problem with what seemed like an easy solution. This is just wiki, cause it was easy to find, but it is historically accurate.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 9, 2013 17:59:29 GMT -5
I have to agree with DJ. Define it like this if you prefer: Get every adult in the US to fill out a survey that gives the descriptions and mean salaries of various occupations and asks respondents to sort them in order of preference as a career. Define any job with mean rank in the lowest quartile as "scut work". Ergo "scut work" is synonymous for "generally unpopular work". Is it possible for somebody to enjoy scut work? Absolutely. More power to anyone who does. We need more such people. But it's fair to say that scut work exists, even if it isn't perfectly correlated with happiness, fulfillment, mobility, influence, etc. Just like if we surveyed people on whether they'd rather be a cockroach or a snow leopard. Obviously "cockroach" would win by a landslide, and it's fair to say that snow leopards are "scut animals", even though an idealist might say that all animals serve some useful function and hence "scut animals" can't exist. As the bile rises in our throats, I think we can all safely say that isn't the case.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 9, 2013 18:34:32 GMT -5
I have to agree with DJ. Define it like this if you prefer: Get every adult in the US to fill out a survey that gives the descriptions and mean salaries of various occupations and asks respondents to sort them in order of preference as a career. Define any job with mean rank in the lowest quartile as "scut work". Ergo "scut work" is synonymous for "generally unpopular work". Is it possible for somebody to enjoy scut work? Absolutely. More power to anyone who does. We need more such people. But it's fair to say that scut work exists, even if it isn't perfectly correlated with happiness, fulfillment, mobility, influence, etc. ... Sort the following gifts in order of preference for receiving: a) $100,000,000 b) $ 25,000,000 c) $ 50,000,000 d) $ 75,000,000
Define the gift with mean rank in the lowest quartile as a "scut gift", Thus proving that "scut gifts" exist and $25,000,000 is such a gift.
If forced to rank order, then 25% of the jobs listed must be in the lowest quartile.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 18:42:41 GMT -5
mmhmm, mmhmm There is also the (to my mind more important) question of the intrinsic and instrumental worth of work to society. Harking back to dj's implicit libertarian argument for a higher rate of pay for menial labor, it should be obvious that society as a whole has greater need of "scut workers" than, say, estate agents or TV repairmen. I hope it is neither redundant nor premature to float this notion: That "scut work" is so essential to the functioning of society that even substantially immoral means to the end of having it performed become, not merely justifiable, but actively desirable.
|
|