Re: POLITICS: Free Trade vs. Slavery (was Having Babies)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 10:09:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> ~~~~> Are you seriously suggesting that volunteer work should be illegal?

> An

> Indian *not willing* to do the job for $0/year but forced to do it anyway,

> is

> a slave. An Indian willing to do the job for $0/year is a volunteer, not a

> slave.

______

~~~~> I should have also added that the typical slave has always received

payment for her or his work, usually in the form of room and board. A slave

could also receive a monetary stipend and still be a slave. What distinguishes

slavery from non-slavery is not the payment or lack thereof, but whether the

person works involuntarily or voluntarily.

Since both workers in 's scenario were voluntarily choosing to work

for the employer, involuntary servitude is not a consistent logical reduction of

his argument.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 1:47:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> I never saw this post, Chris. But regardless, was looking at an

> employer's perspective, not an employee's when he said, " Businesses

> shouldn't be allowed to pay an Indian $15,000 per year to do a job when

> there's a white man who's perfectly willing to do it for $75,000! "

_____

~~~~> He was parodying a regulator's perspective. If an employer wants to

offer an Indian a job, that is a joint arrangement between the American employer

and the Indian employee. If an American employee wants a regulator to

prevent that from happening, then the division of interests is between the

American

employee on the one hand, and the American employer and Indian employee on the

other, not between the American employer and both employees. So there is no

strictly business owner's perspective to take.

I assume you mean that he was taking the business owner's perspective through

his parody of the regulator's perspective, and thus implicit dismissal of it,

in which case he was also taking the Indian employee's perspective.

Although, I assume also that was thinking of it from the perspective

of an economic analyst and advocate of laissez-faire, not from the perspective

of a business owner or employee.

_____

And > from an employer's perspective, minimizing wages is a big part of the

>

> ball game. That's one of the reason sweatshops exist, and why companies

> go abroad to find cheap labor and little environmental regulation, among

> other things.

______

~~~~> But,

1) Minimizing wages is not equal to slavery. That was my point. Slavery is

not the limit example of decreasing wages. All things equal, volunteerism is.

2) I guess can clarify what he meant himself, but there was nothing

in what he wrote that indicated an employer-specific sympathy, or that would

allow his argument to be critiqued based on extrapolations from the supposed

sympathy based on what you think it should be associated with.

______

>

> What goes around comes around. For instance, chemical companies produce

> nasty pesticides for export only. Businesses in South American import

> these toxins and spray them on crops. These crops come back in the US

> every winter so that Americans can have things like tomatoes and

> asparagus and avocados.

____

~~~> Karma?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 11/27/04 10:09:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

>

>> ~~~~> Are you seriously suggesting that volunteer work should be illegal?

>> An

>> Indian *not willing* to do the job for $0/year but forced to do it anyway,

>> is

>> a slave. An Indian willing to do the job for $0/year is a volunteer, not a

>> slave.

> ______

>

> ~~~~> I should have also added that the typical slave has always received

> payment for her or his work, usually in the form of room and board. A slave

> could also receive a monetary stipend and still be a slave. What

> distinguishes

> slavery from non-slavery is not the payment or lack thereof, but whether the

> person works involuntarily or voluntarily.

>

> Since both workers in 's scenario were voluntarily choosing to work

> for the employer, involuntary servitude is not a consistent logical reduction

> of

> his argument.

>

> Chris

>

" consistent logical reduction " ...did you come up with that yourself?

So, working is TOTALLY voluntary? There are no differences in, say, the

freedom involved in working a great job for lots of $, and working a job

where one makes very little money but must feed a family, and one must work

long hours in terrible conditions? You simply don't see that as the work

that is necessary to survive becomes worse and worse as far as conditions

and pay that it becomes closer and closer to slavery, and that final step to

slavery itself really isn't all that great? Nah, I doubt that you see it.

[Guest guest]

I never saw this post, Chris. But regardless, was looking at an

employer's perspective, not an employee's when he said, " Businesses

shouldn't be allowed to pay an Indian $15,000 per year to do a job when

there's a white man who's perfectly willing to do it for $75,000! " And

from an employer's perspective, minimizing wages is a big part of the

ball game. That's one of the reason sweatshops exist, and why companies

go abroad to find cheap labor and little environmental regulation, among

other things.

What goes around comes around. For instance, chemical companies produce

nasty pesticides for export only. Businesses in South American import

these toxins and spray them on crops. These crops come back in the US

every winter so that Americans can have things like tomatoes and

asparagus and avocados.

Deanna

Gene Schwartz wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 11/27/04 10:09:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> > ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> >

> >> ~~~~> Are you seriously suggesting that volunteer work should be

> illegal?

> >> An

> >> Indian *not willing* to do the job for $0/year but forced to do it

> anyway,

> >> is

> >> a slave. An Indian willing to do the job for $0/year is a

> volunteer, not a

> >> slave.

> > ______

> >

> > ~~~~> I should have also added that the typical slave has always

> received

> > payment for her or his work, usually in the form of room and board.

> A slave

> > could also receive a monetary stipend and still be a slave. What

> > distinguishes

> > slavery from non-slavery is not the payment or lack thereof, but

> whether the

> > person works involuntarily or voluntarily.

> >

> > Since both workers in 's scenario were voluntarily choosing

> to work

> > for the employer, involuntary servitude is not a consistent logical

> reduction

> > of

> > his argument.

> >

> > Chris

> >

>

>

> " consistent logical reduction " ...did you come up with that yourself?

>

> So, working is TOTALLY voluntary? There are no differences in, say, the

> freedom involved in working a great job for lots of $, and working a job

> where one makes very little money but must feed a family, and one must

> work

> long hours in terrible conditions? You simply don't see that as the work

> that is necessary to survive becomes worse and worse as far as conditions

> and pay that it becomes closer and closer to slavery, and that final

> step to

> slavery itself really isn't all that great? Nah, I doubt that you see it.

>

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Gene Schwartz [mailto:implode7@...]

>

> So, working is TOTALLY voluntary? There are no differences

> in, say, the

> freedom involved in working a great job for lots of $, and

> working a job

> where one makes very little money but must feed a family, and

> one must work

> long hours in terrible conditions? You simply don't see that

> as the work

> that is necessary to survive becomes worse and worse as far

> as conditions

> and pay that it becomes closer and closer to slavery, and

> that final step to

> slavery itself really isn't all that great? Nah, I doubt that

> you see it.

I have a few questions about your second example:

1. Is the employer responsible for the bad situation of the worker?

2. Does the employer make things worse, or better?

3. If an employer were to make things even better, by paying above market

wages, or by spending more money to improve working conditions, wouldn't

that be charity?

4. Is the employer obligated to give charitable contributions to his

employees? If so, is your obligation any different from his? If so, why?

[Guest guest]

> I have a few questions about your second example:

Quick question for you, : Are you self-employed?

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Lynn Siprelle [mailto:lynn@...]

> > I have a few questions about your second example:

>

> Quick question for you, : Are you self-employed?

Quicker answer: No.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 9:49:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,

teresa.blazey@... writes:

> B.

>

>

wrote:

> > I agree. I get it. I am living it. Work is in no way voluntary, it is

> > mandatory. And the pay stinks!

______

~~~~> For whom? I've gone for periods without working, and know others who

have. I also got my current job under no duress.

If you don't work, it makes it much more difficult to secure housing, food,

and other things we consider valuable or even necessary, but working is

nevertheless a choice by virtue of the fact that you can choose not to do it.

_____

Then replied:

> I think work is voluntary.

> I only do what I want to do.

> Will never just work for the money.

______

~~~> That's a great and noble way to live, but even if you worked only for

the money, it would still be a voluntary action aiming to achieve an end: money.

You could choose to forgo the money by choosing not to work, therefore

choosing to do the work for money is also a free choice.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 10:46:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> enter the real world sometime, eh? Survival in the 21st century

> means work is mandatory. Oh, I have to ask after your great statements

> regarding prolonging freedom and living at home: Do you live at home?

> Does someone else support you? If so, you haven't the experience about

> work from which to speak!

_____

~~~~> That's a pretty weird statement. I work 50 hours a week, doing work I

don't like, exposed to massive amounts of concrete dust filled with

undesirable metals and other junk collected from the insides of smokestacks.

The fact

that I'm splitting the rent with my mother and we're paying half what we

otherwise would because we're renting from my grandparents doesn't mean I don't

work. It means I'm wise for taking advantage of the chance to rapidly pay off

my

credit cards, not to mention help my financially struggling mother, and my

grandparents who would conceivably have to sell the house after a prolonged

period of not collecting any rent.

But all that aside, it doesn't take any " experience " in work to make the

statement I made. I don't like my job, and I don't like breathing in chemicals

and metals and seriously increasing my risk of emphysema because of it, and I

don't like the fact that my hands don't work quite right anymore, and the fact

that some of my fingers jam up when I make a fist. None of that changes the

fact that I am absolutely free to quit whenever I want, and that I freely walked

into the door and asked for the job, and that they freely offered me the job,

which I freely accepted.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

> In a message dated 11/27/04 1:47:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> hl@...

> writes:

> > I never saw this post, Chris. But regardless, was

> looking at

> > an employer's perspective, not an employee's when he said,

> " Businesses

> > shouldn't be allowed to pay an Indian $15,000 per year to do a job

> > when there's a white man who's perfectly willing to do it

> for $75,000! "

>

> Although, I assume also that was thinking of it from

> the perspective of an economic analyst and advocate of

> laissez-faire, not from the perspective of a business owner

> or employee.

If anything, I'd say I was looking at it from the perspective of the poor

Indian whom all the compassionate lefties are trying to keep mired in

poverty in order to protect upper-middle-class white guys like me. I mean,

it's really nice that they want to keep the software industry cartelized so

I can keep pulling down the big bucks, but there's no need to worry about

me. Engineers are among the smartest and most capable people there are, and

we can adapt. If I lose my job, there are dozens of other opportunities open

to me. I can brush up on statistics and become an actuary. I can go to law

school. I can take the CPA exam. I can work on my Japanese a bit and do

technical translations. I can go into finance. Really. I'll be okay.

[Guest guest]

I agree. I get it. I am living it. Work is in no way voluntary, it is

mandatory. And the pay stinks! The quality of housing is scary... both

for safety and health reasons. And it is starting to feel like the

best we can do...full blooded American slaves...jumping at the bosses

whim just to have a roof.

L.

> So, working is TOTALLY voluntary? There are no differences in, say, the

> freedom involved in working a great job for lots of $, and working a job

> where one makes very little money but must feed a family, and one must work

> long hours in terrible conditions? You simply don't see that as the work

> that is necessary to survive becomes worse and worse as far as conditions

> and pay that it becomes closer and closer to slavery, and that final step to

> slavery itself really isn't all that great? Nah, I doubt that you see it.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think work is voluntary.

I only do what I want to do.

Will never just work for the money.

B.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:36:53 -0700, Lillig

<catzandturtles@...> wrote:

>

> I agree. I get it. I am living it. Work is in no way voluntary, it is

> mandatory. And the pay stinks! The quality of housing is scary... both

> for safety and health reasons. And it is starting to feel like the

> best we can do...full blooded American slaves...jumping at the bosses

> whim just to have a roof.

> L.

>

> > So, working is TOTALLY voluntary? There are no differences in, say, the

> > freedom involved in working a great job for lots of $, and working a job

> > where one makes very little money but must feed a family, and one must work

> > long hours in terrible conditions? You simply don't see that as the work

> > that is necessary to survive becomes worse and worse as far as conditions

> > and pay that it becomes closer and closer to slavery, and that final step to

> > slavery itself really isn't all that great? Nah, I doubt that you see it.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

but the children need boots and winter jackets. it snowed today... and

the sandals just won't cut it anymore...I think the windbreaker over

the t-shirt might be okay, as long as they run around, and don't stay

out to long. somebody want to send me three pairs of boots and jackets

(preferably natural fibers so nobody breaks out in rashes), oh and a

set for me so I can go out and keep an eye on them.

Sorry... poor may be a state of mind, but poverty is quite real.

Slowly working and praying... and doing what we can.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:48:43 -0800, Blazey

<teresa.blazey@...> wrote:

> I think work is voluntary.

> I only do what I want to do.

> Will never just work for the money.

> B.

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:33:07 EST, chrismasterjohn@...

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 11/27/04 9:49:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> teresa.blazey@... writes:

>

>

> > B.

> >

> >

> wrote:

>

> > > I agree. I get it. I am living it. Work is in no way voluntary, it is

> > > mandatory. And the pay stinks!

> ______

>

> ~~~~> For whom? I've gone for periods without working, and know others who

> have. I also got my current job under no duress.

>

> If you don't work, it makes it much more difficult to secure housing, food,

> and other things we consider valuable or even necessary, but working is

> nevertheless a choice by virtue of the fact that you can choose not to do

> it.

And if I choose not to, I guess that I would also be choosing to have

the state pull my children out of my arms by force. I guess I'll stay

in slavery, because my children are more important than my need to be

free.

L.- who actually does live in poverty by choice... my choice is

to homeschool and raise my children as the Bible says.

[Guest guest]

>

> You could choose to forgo the money by choosing not to work, therefore

> choosing to do the work for money is also a free choice.

>

> Chris

>

enter the real world sometime, eh? Survival in the 21st century

means work is mandatory. Oh, I have to ask after your great statements

regarding prolonging freedom and living at home: Do you live at home?

Does someone else support you? If so, you haven't the experience about

work from which to speak!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

I have to ask... could you support 5 people on $10,000 a year?

Catz

[Guest guest]

Okay, sympathy and blessings to you and yours!

Deanna

> I work 50 hours a week, doing work I

> don't like, exposed to massive amounts of concrete dust filled with

> undesirable metals and other junk collected from the insides of

> smokestacks. The fact

> that I'm splitting the rent with my mother and we're paying half what we

> otherwise would because we're renting from my grandparents doesn't

> mean I don't

> work. It means I'm wise for taking advantage of the chance to

> rapidly pay off my

> credit cards, not to mention help my financially struggling mother,

> and my

> grandparents who would conceivably have to sell the house after a

> prolonged

> period of not collecting any rent.

>

> But all that aside, it doesn't take any " experience " in work to make the

> statement I made. I don't like my job, and I don't like breathing in

> chemicals

> and metals and seriously increasing my risk of emphysema because of

> it, and I

> don't like the fact that my hands don't work quite right anymore, and

> the fact

> that some of my fingers jam up when I make a fist. None of that

> changes the

> fact that I am absolutely free to quit whenever I want, and that I

> freely walked

> into the door and asked for the job, and that they freely offered me

> the job,

> which I freely accepted.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Lillig [mailto:catzandturtles@...]

>

> And if I choose not to, I guess that I would also be choosing

> to have the state pull my children out of my arms by force. I

> guess I'll stay in slavery, because my children are more

> important than my need to be free.

> L.- who actually does live in poverty by choice... my

> choice is to homeschool and raise my children as the Bible says.

You don't know what slavery is. Your life is what it is because of the

choices you've made. Slaves don't have choices to make. You choose to

sacrifice income to stay home and take care of your children. Slaves can't

choose what to do with their time or how to raise their children. You once

chose to live in Idaho, and now you choose to leave. Slaves can't make those

choices. You can sit at home and send e-mail to the world whining about how

horrible it is to be a slave. Real slaves have been killed for less.

For virtually all of human history, life has been a constant struggle to

survive. For hundreds of thousands of years the human population was a

constant ten million. That's how hard it was to survive. Now, as then, he

who would eat must work. That's not slavery. That's the reality of human

existence. Never has it been easier to earn a living, easier to avoid dying,

than it is today. That your three children still live is a testament to

that. For you to claim that your and your husband's failure *by choice* to

earn a better living amounts to slavery is an affront not only to the memory

of those who actually were slaves, but also to every man, woman, and child

who struggled against all hope to live one day longer in a world infinitely

harsher and less forgiving than the one you have the immeasurable good

fortune to have inherited.

[Guest guest]

just showing how close a leap it was to true slavery...

end of discussion.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:41:24 -0800, Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Lillig [mailto:catzandturtles@...]

> >

> > And if I choose not to, I guess that I would also be choosing

> > to have the state pull my children out of my arms by force. I

> > guess I'll stay in slavery, because my children are more

> > important than my need to be free.

> > L.- who actually does live in poverty by choice... my

> > choice is to homeschool and raise my children as the Bible says.

>

> You don't know what slavery is. Your life is what it is because of the

> choices you've made. Slaves don't have choices to make. You choose to

> sacrifice income to stay home and take care of your children. Slaves can't

> choose what to do with their time or how to raise their children. You once

> chose to live in Idaho, and now you choose to leave. Slaves can't make those

> choices. You can sit at home and send e-mail to the world whining about how

> horrible it is to be a slave. Real slaves have been killed for less.

>

> For virtually all of human history, life has been a constant struggle to

> survive. For hundreds of thousands of years the human population was a

> constant ten million. That's how hard it was to survive. Now, as then, he

> who would eat must work. That's not slavery. That's the reality of human

> existence. Never has it been easier to earn a living, easier to avoid dying,

> than it is today. That your three children still live is a testament to

> that. For you to claim that your and your husband's failure *by choice* to

> earn a better living amounts to slavery is an affront not only to the memory

> of those who actually were slaves, but also to every man, woman, and child

> who struggled against all hope to live one day longer in a world infinitely

> harsher and less forgiving than the one you have the immeasurable good

> fortune to have inherited.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

So, because it is voluntary for you, it is voluntary for all people?

Curious.

>

> I think work is voluntary.

> I only do what I want to do.

> Will never just work for the money.

> B.

>

>

> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:36:53 -0700, Lillig

> <catzandturtles@...> wrote:

>>

>> I agree. I get it. I am living it. Work is in no way voluntary, it is

>> mandatory. And the pay stinks! The quality of housing is scary... both

>> for safety and health reasons. And it is starting to feel like the

>> best we can do...full blooded American slaves...jumping at the bosses

>> whim just to have a roof.

>> L.

>>

>>> So, working is TOTALLY voluntary? There are no differences in, say, the

>>> freedom involved in working a great job for lots of $, and working a job

>>> where one makes very little money but must feed a family, and one must work

>>> long hours in terrible conditions? You simply don't see that as the work

>>> that is necessary to survive becomes worse and worse as far as conditions

>>> and pay that it becomes closer and closer to slavery, and that final step to

>>> slavery itself really isn't all that great? Nah, I doubt that you see it.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 11/27/04 9:49:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> teresa.blazey@... writes:

>

>

>> B.

>>

>>

> wrote:

>

>>> I agree. I get it. I am living it. Work is in no way voluntary, it is

>>> mandatory. And the pay stinks!

> ______

>

> ~~~~> For whom? I've gone for periods without working, and know others who

> have. I also got my current job under no duress.

>

> If you don't work, it makes it much more difficult to secure housing, food,

> and other things we consider valuable or even necessary, but working is

> nevertheless a choice by virtue of the fact that you can choose not to do it.

> _____

>

> Then replied:

>

>> I think work is voluntary.

>> I only do what I want to do.

>> Will never just work for the money.

> ______

>

> ~~~> That's a great and noble way to live, but even if you worked only for

> the money, it would still be a voluntary action aiming to achieve an end:

> money.

> You could choose to forgo the money by choosing not to work, therefore

> choosing to do the work for money is also a free choice.

>

> Chris

>

Oh, yeah, sure. Pretty much everything is voluntary by that standard. As

was slavery. You could just refuse to work and choose to get beaten or

killed. So, working for the master was voluntary.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 11:41:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

catzandturtles@... writes:

> I have to ask... could you support 5 people on $10,000 a year?

>

___

~~~> With the resources the average person has, I couldn't imagine it. I

could probably do some farming on the large amount of land my aunt and uncle

bought up here years ago when it was cheap, and manage it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene,

I mean that it is important IMO to do work that one finds meaningful.

Certainly being paid for one's services is only fair and right, but to

do work, under duress, that is meaningless and just for the money

it pays will sicken the body and soul over time as effectively as a

Standard American Diet.

Not only do I think it important that all people do work they find

meaningful, I also think it's

possible to find such work and be paid for it.

B.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:57:21 -0800, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> So, because it is voluntary for you, it is voluntary for all people?

> Curious.

>

> >

> > I think work is voluntary.

> > I only do what I want to do.

> > Will never just work for the money.

> > B.

> >

> >

> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:36:53 -0700, Lillig

> > <catzandturtles@...> wrote:

> >>

> >> I agree. I get it. I am living it. Work is in no way voluntary, it is

> >> mandatory. And the pay stinks! The quality of housing is scary... both

> >> for safety and health reasons. And it is starting to feel like the

> >> best we can do...full blooded American slaves...jumping at the bosses

> >> whim just to have a roof.

> >> L.

> >>

> >>> So, working is TOTALLY voluntary? There are no differences in, say, the

> >>> freedom involved in working a great job for lots of $, and working a job

> >>> where one makes very little money but must feed a family, and one must

work

> >>> long hours in terrible conditions? You simply don't see that as the work

> >>> that is necessary to survive becomes worse and worse as far as conditions

> >>> and pay that it becomes closer and closer to slavery, and that final step

to

> >>> slavery itself really isn't all that great? Nah, I doubt that you see it.

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/28/04 1:40:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Since no one has claimed that so-called 'voluntary' employment is literally

> slavery, I'm not sure what point you're making. I think that the strongest

> connection that has been made between slavery and paid labor is that when

> the choices are severely constrained, the work is arduous, and the person

> must work long hours in unhealthy and/or dangerous conditions, that there is

> really not that much difference functionally between this and slavery. Of

> course, there were brutal slave owners and there were 'kinder and gentler'

> slave owners.

_____

~~~~> I agree that there are similarities between working for an employer and

slavery. Most notably that one must be obedient to the boss/employer. The m

ost obvious difference is that the voluntary worker has the choice to quit,

seek and different master, or employ herself, whereas a slave has none of these

choices.

That some work is awful (I don't know near the worst of it, but my conditions

aren't that great, health and comfort wise, and 10 years ago at my plant they

weren't very safe either) is also a similarity, but it is to some degree

coincidental. Awful work is not part of the definition of slavery, though many

or

perhaps most slaves may have worked under awful conditions.

I think we're all losing track of the original point, which was that,

according to Deanna, someone who supports outsourcing work to someone who will

work

for 1/5 the salary must logically support legalizing slavery so that someone

can work for 0/5 the salary, or $0/year. If we want to treat this discussion

within the context within which it originated, the questions we are dealing with

are:

1) whether $0/year salary is equivalent to slavery

2) whether legalizing slavery is part of a logical progression following

outsourcing to cheaper labor

Aven's point-- that the condition of slavery is unrelated to the magnitude of

payment for work-- was right to the point, because it addressed point 1)

above.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene,

I don't pretend to know what it might be like to live under those

sorts of dire and miserable conditions, such as slavery or other

compulsory work camps but I have made considerable effort to

understand the purpose, if any, of suffering in our lives and this

book was as near an answer I ever found:

" Everything can be taken from a man but ...the last of the human

freedoms - to choose

one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way. "

" There is also purpose in life which is almost barren of both creation

and enjoyment and which admits of but one possibility of high moral

behavior: namely, in man's attitude to his existence, an existence

restricted by external forces. "

Viktor l, _Man's Search for Meaning_

http://www.geocities.com/~webwinds/frankl/quotes.htm

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 01:00:33 -0800, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > In a message dated 11/27/04 9:49:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> > teresa.blazey@... writes:

> >

> >

> >> B.

> >>

> >>

> > wrote:

> >

> >>> I agree. I get it. I am living it. Work is in no way voluntary, it is

> >>> mandatory. And the pay stinks!

> > ______

> >

> > ~~~~> For whom? I've gone for periods without working, and know others who

> > have. I also got my current job under no duress.

> >

> > If you don't work, it makes it much more difficult to secure housing, food,

> > and other things we consider valuable or even necessary, but working is

> > nevertheless a choice by virtue of the fact that you can choose not to do

it.

> > _____

> >

> > Then replied:

> >

> >> I think work is voluntary.

> >> I only do what I want to do.

> >> Will never just work for the money.

> > ______

> >

> > ~~~> That's a great and noble way to live, but even if you worked only for

> > the money, it would still be a voluntary action aiming to achieve an end:

> > money.

> > You could choose to forgo the money by choosing not to work, therefore

> > choosing to do the work for money is also a free choice.

> >

> > Chris

> >

>

> Oh, yeah, sure. Pretty much everything is voluntary by that standard. As

> was slavery. You could just refuse to work and choose to get beaten or

> killed. So, working for the master was voluntary.

>

>

>