"You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize."
I also wish they'd get their economics straight. Exploitation is not "capitalist". Exploitation tends to occur even more in non-capitalist economies. In fact, exploitation of others is directly contrary to Smithian capitalism and free markets, which depend on purely voluntary exchanges. Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options(see modern human trafficking for details), or when you're compelling them in ways that don't happen to be illegal. The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism. I don't disagree with your implied premise that other systems such as fuedalism, Stalinism, or slavery exploited people in far worse ways, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a path where free-market capitalism is the ideal.
"You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options"
Nonsense. That isn't "consent". There's nothing "voluntary" about that at all. Coerced behavior is not "voluntary", in any sense of the term. They are mutually exclusive.
"The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism"
Smith described the provably best economic system the world has ever seen, which led to a smaller percentage of people starving than ever in history. Can you somehow show that is not true? I doubt it, since it is a fact.
Even China has fewer starving people now that it has adopted more elements of Capitalism.
You're reaching. It comes off as "Consent is defined the exactly the set of things I need it to be for my world-view to be ideal, rather than the conventional definition"
Nonsense. Those people are forced into suboptimal actions by others taking actions which limit their choices, for their own benefit. It's exploitation, there is no consent in that situation on any side.
"Voluntary" means something you VOLUNTEER to do. If you are forced or coerced into it, that isn't volunteering so it isn't voluntary. It's that simple.
Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion, and the libertarian crowd would be all for it.
"Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion"
As long as there are people constraining you to those choices, yes it does. In fact what you describe is very close to the definition of coercion.
"and the libertarian crowd would be all for it."
Nonsense. That is exactly the kind of situation that Libertarians are vehemently against. Again you demonstrate that you don't know the slightest thing about what you're talking about. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Libertarian party website and read about their actual position on force and coercion.
Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. Postmodern liberalism is much closer to the philosophy you're ascribing there.
"Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. "
Then you haven't been listening to "real" Libertarians. By that I mean people who are members of the actual party, or who are familiar with and subscribe to its actual principles.
Of course, it also depends on whether you are speaking of "libertarian" (a general attitude) or "Libartarian" (an actual philosophy and political party). It is unclear which because you have spelled it both ways.
Many people call themselves Libertarians who aren't. Just as many people who call themselves Republicans are really
"Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsmen put sugar on their oatmeal. I know."
Except it's not a "true Scotsman" argument. Because I'm not just defining "Libertarian" off-the-cuff, as would be required for a True Scotsman argument. The Libertarian party has a very definite, written, official platform and it is there on their website for anybody to read. So there is no ambiguity about what a "true" Libertarian is. It is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. Therefore it's not a "true Scotsman" situation at all.
Seriously, man. Take a class on debate. Learn how to tell the REAL
Except during that time, the majority of the world embraced the opposite side from that, where the state owned everything, and 'planned' the economy. All it did was result in shortages, starvation, and misery.
"You see that gold mine over there? Imma exploit the shit outta that bitch, and getting your panties in a twist over nomenclature ain't gonna stop me!"
"Nomenclature" aside, exploiting a piece of ground is different from exploiting people. Some people might use them together but they are not the same things.
"What utter nonsense. Many people are exploited in their jobs. Yet they could give up the job."
Exploit n. To take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends
If you don't leave, then you are consenting. Freely given consent implies voluntary. There is no contradiction there. However: if the consent is not freely given, then it may not be voluntary.
Just so we don't get caught up in a scuffle over terminology: when I wrote "exploit" I meant it in the sense of "to coerce".
A coerced agreement may be consent but it is not FREELY GIVEN consent. That is
But if you do leave, then you may wind up homeless, which is essentially a crime in the USA. And it's non-trivial to leave the country — just try, say, walking across Mexico. Or even driving across it, without some prior planning, not to mention funding.
So you're saying that having a job, which enables you to have a home and food is being exploited.
You have it all wrong. Being subjected to artificial scarcity is being exploited; in turn, it requires you to have a job. This is separate from having to work.
Not surprised to see a coward fail to understand the difference. Run along in fear now, child.
No coward. He never said all jobs are being exploited. There are lots of fair employers. There are also lots of unfair employers (not necessarily in the same areas, nor employing the same kinds of workers), and they are indeed exploiting their workers.
Example: American cable TV and internet companies. In most parts of the U.S., their use can be said to be coerced because there are few if any other choices.
Right, and the same thing applies to work for many people. The are exploited, the could resign, as it's not slavery. Yet they don't have any other choice of work, at least none that isn't equally exploitative. And without work, they and their families starve.
Now I'm glad that you don't consider that these people are doing those jobs voluntarily, but most right wingers and libertarians would say they do.
As I said, a better antonym for exploited is fairness (or to be treated fairly).
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.
Congratulations. (Score:5, Funny)
You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize.
Re:Congratulations. (Score:2)
"You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize."
I also wish they'd get their economics straight. Exploitation is not "capitalist". Exploitation tends to occur even more in non-capitalist economies. In fact, exploitation of others is directly contrary to Smithian capitalism and free markets, which depend on purely voluntary exchanges. Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
Re:Congratulations. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options(see modern human trafficking for details), or when you're compelling them in ways that don't happen to be illegal. The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism. I don't disagree with your implied premise that other systems such as fuedalism, Stalinism, or slavery exploited people in far worse ways, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a path where free-market capitalism is the ideal.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe exploitation isn't a strictly either-or concept.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options"
Nonsense. That isn't "consent". There's nothing "voluntary" about that at all. Coerced behavior is not "voluntary", in any sense of the term. They are mutually exclusive.
"The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism"
Smith described the provably best economic system the world has ever seen, which led to a smaller percentage of people starving than ever in history. Can you somehow show that is not true? I doubt it, since it is a fact.
Even China has fewer starving people now that it has adopted more elements of Capitalism.
History doesn't lie: no eco
Re: (Score:2)
You're reaching.
It comes off as "Consent is defined the exactly the set of things I need it to be for my world-view to be ideal, rather than the conventional definition"
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Those people are forced into suboptimal actions by others taking actions which limit their choices, for their own benefit. It's exploitation, there is no consent in that situation on any side.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion, and the libertarian crowd would be all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion"
As long as there are people constraining you to those choices, yes it does. In fact what you describe is very close to the definition of coercion.
"and the libertarian crowd would be all for it."
Nonsense. That is exactly the kind of situation that Libertarians are vehemently against. Again you demonstrate that you don't know the slightest thing about what you're talking about. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Libertarian party website and read about their actual position on force and coercion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. Postmodern liberalism is much closer to the philosophy you're ascribing there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. "
Then you haven't been listening to "real" Libertarians. By that I mean people who are members of the actual party, or who are familiar with and subscribe to its actual principles.
Of course, it also depends on whether you are speaking of "libertarian" (a general attitude) or "Libartarian" (an actual philosophy and political party). It is unclear which because you have spelled it both ways.
Many people call themselves Libertarians who aren't. Just as many people who call themselves Republicans are really
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsmen put sugar on their oatmeal. I know.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsmen put sugar on their oatmeal. I know."
Except it's not a "true Scotsman" argument. Because I'm not just defining "Libertarian" off-the-cuff, as would be required for a True Scotsman argument. The Libertarian party has a very definite, written, official platform and it is there on their website for anybody to read. So there is no ambiguity about what a "true" Libertarian is. It is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. Therefore it's not a "true Scotsman" situation at all.
Seriously, man. Take a class on debate. Learn how to tell the REAL
Re: (Score:3)
Except during that time, the majority of the world embraced the opposite side from that, where the state owned everything, and 'planned' the economy. All it did was result in shortages, starvation, and misery.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"You see that gold mine over there? Imma exploit the shit outta that bitch, and getting your panties in a twist over nomenclature ain't gonna stop me!"
"Nomenclature" aside, exploiting a piece of ground is different from exploiting people. Some people might use them together but they are not the same things.
Re: (Score:3)
Aww, it's like capitalism for toddlers!
Re: (Score:2)
Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
What utter nonsense. Many people are exploited in their jobs. Yet they could give up the job.
The antonym of exploitation is fairness.
Re: (Score:2)
"What utter nonsense. Many people are exploited in their jobs. Yet they could give up the job."
Exploit n. To take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends
If you don't leave, then you are consenting. Freely given consent implies voluntary. There is no contradiction there. However: if the consent is not freely given, then it may not be voluntary.
Just so we don't get caught up in a scuffle over terminology: when I wrote "exploit" I meant it in the sense of "to coerce".
A coerced agreement may be consent but it is not FREELY GIVEN consent. That is
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't leave, then you are consenting.
But if you do leave, then you may wind up homeless, which is essentially a crime in the USA. And it's non-trivial to leave the country — just try, say, walking across Mexico. Or even driving across it, without some prior planning, not to mention funding.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that having a job, which enables you to have a home and food is being exploited.
You have it all wrong. Being subjected to artificial scarcity is being exploited; in turn, it requires you to have a job. This is separate from having to work.
Not surprised to see a coward fail to understand the difference. Run along in fear now, child.
Re: (Score:2)
No coward. He never said all jobs are being exploited. There are lots of fair employers. There are also lots of unfair employers (not necessarily in the same areas, nor employing the same kinds of workers), and they are indeed exploiting their workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Example: American cable TV and internet companies. In most parts of the U.S., their use can be said to be coerced because there are few if any other choices.
Right, and the same thing applies to work for many people. The are exploited, the could resign, as it's not slavery. Yet they don't have any other choice of work, at least none that isn't equally exploitative. And without work, they and their families starve.
Now I'm glad that you don't consider that these people are doing those jobs voluntarily, but most right wingers and libertarians would say they do.
As I said, a better antonym for exploited is fairness (or to be treated fairly).