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

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/28/04 4:02:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >~~~> 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.

_____

~~~~> There is a similar problem with the way you seem to be defining it, for

which external circumstances that represent compelling factors that influence

a decision invalidate the voluntariness of that decision. With my

definition, it seems about anything is voluntary. With yours, it seems about

nothing is

voluntary.

The definition I'm using considers any action that could have been replaced

with a different action or inaction by choice, to be voluntary. The external

circumstances that act as inputs to consider when making such choices about

action are not voluntary. There is no action that can take place outside of

such

circumstances, therefore such circumstances cannot invalidate an action's

status as voluntary without rendering the word " voluntary " an empty word that

describes what does not exist.

It's true that the choice of a slave to work or not work and get beaten is

indeed voluntary. What is not voluntary, that separates slavery from voluntary

work, is that the voluntary worker chooses her employer, while the slave does

not.

In other words, it is the choice to be in the specific circumstance, or to

not be, of employment to a specific employer, that differentiates it from

slavery, not the choice about work itself.

I am not under the illusion that everyone who makes a voluntary choice is

happy and joyful about it. I choose to do a lot of things that I don't want to

do (like work at my job) because the alternative available to me at the moment

is worse. But I can quit my job, and a slave cannot. I can choose a

different job, and a slave cannot. I can save money in the hopes of employing

myself,

and a slave cannot.

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.

:

that's a wonderful tjought....one which very few will participate.

man's nature's basically animal excepting that to some extent we choose

what drives us. what we don't commonly face is that we're oft driven by fear

& consequently

driven to both control & be controled... ( & that most commonly by

distraction or some other

illusion such as living where we aren't).

all that to say; pain is a part of life, self service is 1st served &

reality is the predator/prey model applies.

corporations for instance exist obliged to provide a best return to their

stakeholders (lest they die),

while this need not necessarily exclude good will toward employees,

neighbors & consumers, what's real ?

same for gov, criminals, ect. go ahead pull a nader or say something like

" they wouldn't sell it if was

bad for you " , but what's common ? again, reality is the predator/prey model

applies.

perhaps best we can do, is each work out what's right & serve others

accordingly.

that includes (most importantly) being a model for others...

do what's right...maybe it'll catch on. different century, SS. nothing new

here.

my OT .02

: 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.

: > >

: > >

[Guest guest]

I think that if you believe that, for many, many poor or struggling people,

that finding meaningful work that will pay the bills is possible to find,

you are naïve. Are these people just lazy?

>

> 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]

Just tell us the sizes you need - the natural fiber

part might be a little harder - but I'm sure with

everyone on this list, we could come up with the

necessary items.

Aven

> > I think work is voluntary.

> > I only do what I want to do.

> > Will never just work for the money.

> > B.

[Guest guest]

>>I think that if you believe that, for many, many poor or struggling people,

that finding meaningful work that will pay the bills is possible to find,

you are naïve. Are these people just lazy?<<

~~~IMO, the term 'meaningful work' shows how jaded we have become as Americans.

It used to be that any work that put food on the table was meaningful, because

it meant you stayed alive. You were bartering with your labor to get goods.

Once you get that attitude, which is the natural attitude, you don't think about

things like 'meaningful work', and you don't consider work that sustains life as

slavery.

Carol

[Guest guest]

Obviously, work isn't voluntary because nature demands

that we work for our food. Food, shelter, and clothing all

require work. In our civilized world, it can be hard to see

the connection, but it has to be there.

This is entirely different from " slavery, " which is being owned

by another person or group of people. The amount of money

you work for, and the other difficulties in your life, have no

bearing on whether or not you're a slave.

Aven

> >>

> >> 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 that if you believe that, for many, many poor or struggling people,

> that finding meaningful work that will pay the bills is possible to find,

> you are naïve. Are these people just lazy?<<

>

> ~~~IMO, the term 'meaningful work' shows how jaded we have become as

> Americans. It used to be that any work that put food on the table was

> meaningful, because it meant you stayed alive. You were bartering with your

> labor to get goods. Once you get that attitude, which is the natural

> attitude, you don't think about things like 'meaningful work', and you don't

> consider work that sustains life as slavery.

> Carol

>

Wow. I sure hope that you don't employ people. It's attitudes like yours

that made the fight for labor rights necessary.

[Guest guest]

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.

>

>

> Obviously, work isn't voluntary because nature demands

> that we work for our food. Food, shelter, and clothing all

> require work. In our civilized world, it can be hard to see

> the connection, but it has to be there.

>

> This is entirely different from " slavery, " which is being owned

> by another person or group of people. The amount of money

> you work for, and the other difficulties in your life, have no

> bearing on whether or not you're a slave.

>

> Aven

>

>

>

>>>>

>>>> 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]

>This is entirely different from " slavery, " which is being owned

>by another person or group of people. The amount of money

>you work for, and the other difficulties in your life, have no

>bearing on whether or not you're a slave.

>

>Aven

Actually in studies, the amount of " meaning " a person finds

in life is directly correlated with how much *choice* a person

has on a day to day basis. They have found that, say, inmates

in mental institutions are far happier when they can choose

from a menu what food to eat for lunch, or what activities

to participate in. Places like Boeing find they can keep workers

happy by letting them choose which shift to work.

My Grandad worked in slave-like conditions, because he had

to, but much of the time, he said, the work conditions weren't

as bad as a modern factory. With a mess of servants running

a castle, there was I guess a fair degree of autonomy, though

it would depend on the castle. My guess is that during the long

history of slavery, some slaves were perfectly happy, because

they had good owners and a lot of autonomy. A lot of wives

were kept in slavelike conditions too, but were quite happy

and still are, in the Middle East, if they have a good husband

and they can run the house in his absence, and are convinced

that the way they are living is in fact the best " natural order " .

No one has true autonomy in life ... the owners of the castles

led a rather restricted life also, ruled by social custom and

expectations and arranged marriages. But if you can have " enough "

autonomy over your own life, you can be happy.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>>Wow. I sure hope that you don't employ people. It's attitudes like yours

that made the fight for labor rights necessary.<<

~~~Before too many more thoughtless, 'knee-jerk' reactions occur, (which are

another problem with human kind, both ancient and modern, myself included), let

me expound a little about my prvious statement. The " Wow " about it is that you

can't see what I'm saying, in a philosophical vein because, it's very true.

Think of people who get the chance to go from third world countries to a place

where they can actually work and receive wages for their labor. (Or even the

immigrants to this country from Europe in our early American times.) They

are/were thrilled with the chance to work for money or goods, no matter what the

job. Opportunity is what was important to them.

I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who can no longer go out to work,

because of my disability, (MS, or whatever this horrendous disease is), and am

presently stuck living on a very low income. In this situation, (and at my more

advanced age - will be 60 on Christmas Day), I have the 'luxury' of time on my

hands, and a little more wisdom than those whose time is filled with 'getting

ahead'. I have this time with which to look at the world in totally different

and more logical terms. I'm also not mired in the arguments about labor laws,

so I don't even think in those terms.

While I'm not speaking as someone who owns a company and employs people at this

time, or who has money 'to burn', I did work for 35 years, and I have been a

boss of a couple dozen people, and I have owned a very small business of three

people too, in my past. But, if you knew anything about me, you'd know that,

when it came to someone having to work a holiday, it was me who did it, while

the employees went home to be with their families with full pay. I didn't do

that, because of any labor laws, I did it because it felt like the right thing

to do.

I never think in terms of " labor rights " , and I never have. I think in terms of

what's right and wrong. If everyone had my attitude, there would be no need for

" labor rights " .

Carol

[Guest guest]

>>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.<<

~~~If the 'duress' you're talking about is just the fact that one needs to work

to live, then whether or not it sickens the body is dependant upon ones

attitude. A person who is grateful for the opportunity to have a job and the

physical ability to do that job, has a cheerful attitude, and it will cause the

body no harm. We can face many difficult things in life with a good attitude.

Carol

[Guest guest]

I think that if you believe that, for many, many poor or struggling people,

> that finding meaningful work that will pay the bills is possible to find,

> you are naïve. Are these people just lazy?

Gene,

Whoever " these people " are you refer to, I don't think in such

judgemental terms re: their motives.

My stance is this:

Meaningful work is a factor in one's long-term health and happiness as

important as eating wholesome food.

Implied is the possibility that people may find meaning and

satisfaction in " unpaid " work and use an otherwise unsavory " paid "

position to finance their true vocation, thus imbuing the " paid "

position with meaning--the same way people may cheerfully perform

various daily drudgeries and chores when they know there is a greater

purpose to it (such as soaking grains, making bone broths and taking

the effort to procure high-quality food [i realize there are far more

unpleasant chores but I saw an analogy.])

Dr. Cowan phrases it much more eloquantly in his book:

" There is no greater joy in life than to have purpose, to know what

your life means. Some find this meaning through their families and

other relationships. Others meet their destiny through their work or

through activities like music and sports. Those who have discovered

the purpose of their lives...can expect to achieve vibrant health and

longevity... "

I will go further to quote Joe 's advice to " follow your

bliss. " He said if you do, paths and doors will open to you along the

way. I have personally experienced this and believe it applies to

everyone, as he intended, including " these people " referenced above.

While I am extremely flattered that I was able to provoke your

response, my observations of your postings in the past lead me to

believe that I haven't the stamina to maintain my stand with you, and

I worry that I won't feel satisfied with my attempts at compassionate

communication. I request that you realize I am very nervous over this

exchange.

B.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:32:08 -0800, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> I think that if you believe that, for many, many poor or struggling people,

> that finding meaningful work that will pay the bills is possible to find,

> you are naïve. Are these people just lazy?

>

>

>

>

> >

> > 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 4:39:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> And, of course, the point is that that decision isn't quite as obvious a

> distinction the worse the job is, and the worse the person's circumstances

> are. A slave could choose to quit, and suffer the consequences also. One

> speaks of a person as 'not having a choice' meaning that the consequences of

> the action make all choices unpleasant.

____

~~~~> The difference between a slave and a free man is one of legal status,

not pleasantness, ease, or unease of life. A slave cannot legally choose to

quit his job.

Functionally, the fact that employers must compete for workers because

workers can go to different employers, and masters need not compete for slaves,

because they have relatively effective and legal means of forcing them to stay

on

their property, means that voluntary workers have much better lives than

slaves, in general.

But that isn't what differentiates the two. What differentiates them is the

free man's legal right to work for whomever he pleases or for himself or for

no one at all, and the slave's lack of that right.

The fact that some workers have worse lives than some slaves, and some have

similarly arduous and unpleasant lives, is a departure from the initial point

of debate. Deanna facetiously suggested that we legalize slavery to allow

businesses to save money on wage payments. The fact that she conceived of this

as, implicitly, absurd, shows that, in the context in which she mentioned it,

she conceives of slavery as fundamentally different than ordinary employment.

No similarities between the pleasantness or unpleasantness of a life of a slave

and a life of a worker support her position that slavery is positioned on a

continuous spectrum of monetary salaries.

Chris

[Guest guest]

The term " meaningful work " is sort of misleading in itself.

A job has no meaning except what the person who does

it brings to it. One person might see his whole life as

drudgery, and another see his as highly meaningful,

doing the same work.

Aven

> > >>>>

> > >>>> 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 4:46:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

catzandturtles@... writes:

> We take meals

> to families when mom is sick, we talk walks and collect rocks to take

> home. We chase butterflies, and watch birds, and follow insects. It is

> a good life overall. It just would be nicer to have a broader range of

> choices.

> ______

~~~~> I'll take your word for it that you've investigated your choices

thoroughly, although it's relatively easy in my area to find a job making

$20K/yr or

more entry level, if one is willing to work overtime.

In any case, I'm glad you've managed to make a good life for yourself and

your family with your limited resources. Nature offers a lot.

Chris

[Guest guest]

You've got it! That was what my displaying my disfortune with the

group was trying to show. I don't actually think we are slaves! But

the less money that you have, the less choices that you have, and then

you take the ardous, unhealthy/unsafe job in order to make money to

provide the housing, clothing, food, etc.

My dear husband works for a farmer (and this one is really nice and

generous), who expects him to be there 15 - 18 hours a day, 7 days a

week. No overtime, no benefits, no sick days, no paid holidays. And he

does what he has to in order to provide a roof, clothing, food,

etc.... by his choice. He could take a different job, he has had lots

of offers, but they also offered less money per hour, less hours, and

no paid holidays. We don't use benefits, because we don't see doctors

except in extreme situations. And he doesn't take sick days, because

he never gets sick enough to need them. So by taking a more

" civilized " job, we would have even less money. So, it is a

choice...but a severely constrained chioce.

It is a lot like voting for politicians... vote for the least evil!

LOL It is a choice, but not one I would want to make if I had a

different one to choose!

Catz

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.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>>> Wow. I sure hope that you don't employ people. It's attitudes like yours

> that made the fight for labor rights necessary.<<

>

> ~~~Before too many more thoughtless, 'knee-jerk' reactions occur, (which are

> another problem with human kind, both ancient and modern, myself included),

> let me expound a little about my prvious statement. The " Wow " about it is

> that you can't see what I'm saying, in a philosophical vein because, it's very

> true.

That must be it.

> Think of people who get the chance to go from third world countries to

> a place where they can actually work and receive wages for their labor. (Or

> even the immigrants to this country from Europe in our early American times.)

> They are/were thrilled with the chance to work for money or goods, no matter

> what the job. Opportunity is what was important to them.

>

Generally, if one's burden is lessened, one is momentarily relieved. That

really doesn't make the argument that one should be happy to have any work,

no matter how degrading. Sure, that's all in the head, but I think it's

unfair, unrealistic, and inhumane to expect people to have such enormous

capabilities of resilience that we can expect them to thrive in horrible

circumstances. That it is theoretically possible is irrelevant. To use the

fact that anyone who had or might have had it worse should be grateful is

really a pretty disgusting attitude, I think.

> I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who can no longer go out to work,

> because of my disability, (MS, or whatever this horrendous disease is), and am

> presently stuck living on a very low income. In this situation, (and at my

> more advanced age - will be 60 on Christmas Day), I have the 'luxury' of time

> on my hands, and a little more wisdom than those whose time is filled with

> 'getting ahead'. I have this time with which to look at the world in totally

> different and more logical terms. I'm also not mired in the arguments about

> labor laws, so I don't even think in those terms.

>

Well, I'm glad that you can view the world so 'positively' with your

disability. My mother had MS, and was quite miserable. That she might have

viewed things differently isn't really the point. The fact that you have

overcome your disability to form an elitist attitude towards those who can't

thrive under their disabilities is unfortunate.

> While I'm not speaking as someone who owns a company and employs people at

> this time, or who has money 'to burn', I did work for 35 years, and I have

> been a boss of a couple dozen people, and I have owned a very small business

> of three people too, in my past. But, if you knew anything about me, you'd

> know that, when it came to someone having to work a holiday, it was me who did

> it, while the employees went home to be with their families with full pay. I

> didn't do that, because of any labor laws, I did it because it felt like the

> right thing to do.

>

> I never think in terms of " labor rights " , and I never have. I think in terms

> of what's right and wrong. If everyone had my attitude, there would be no

> need for " labor rights " .

> Carol

But, of course, LOGICALLY, any realistic assessment of the world must

recognize that there is a need for labor rights, because so many who do

employ other people do not have your attitude, whatever it really is.

[Guest guest]

>

> I think that if you believe that, for many, many poor or struggling people,

>> that finding meaningful work that will pay the bills is possible to find,

>> you are naïve. Are these people just lazy?

>

>

> Gene,

> Whoever " these people " are you refer to, I don't think in such

> judgemental terms re: their motives.

> My stance is this:

> Meaningful work is a factor in one's long-term health and happiness as

> important as eating wholesome food.

>

But you claim that everyone can find meaningful work, regardless of their

circumstances. So, I wonder how you regard those who do not seem to be able

to do so, and regard themselves as unable to do so. Are they lazy? Can they

just wake up some morning and find Jesus? Why do so many people suffer under

this malady that you seem to think can be so easily cured?

> Implied is the possibility that people may find meaning and

> satisfaction in " unpaid " work and use an otherwise unsavory " paid "

> position to finance their true vocation, thus imbuing the " paid "

> position with meaning--the same way people may cheerfully perform

> various daily drudgeries and chores when they know there is a greater

> purpose to it (such as soaking grains, making bone broths and taking

> the effort to procure high-quality food [i realize there are far more

> unpleasant chores but I saw an analogy.])

>

> Dr. Cowan phrases it much more eloquantly in his book:

> " There is no greater joy in life than to have purpose, to know what

> your life means. Some find this meaning through their families and

> other relationships. Others meet their destiny through their work or

> through activities like music and sports. Those who have discovered

> the purpose of their lives...can expect to achieve vibrant health and

> longevity... "

>

> I will go further to quote Joe 's advice to " follow your

> bliss. " He said if you do, paths and doors will open to you along the

> way. I have personally experienced this and believe it applies to

> everyone, as he intended, including " these people " referenced above.

>

> While I am extremely flattered that I was able to provoke your

> response, my observations of your postings in the past lead me to

> believe that I haven't the stamina to maintain my stand with you, and

> I worry that I won't feel satisfied with my attempts at compassionate

> communication. I request that you realize I am very nervous over this

> exchange.

> B.

Our point of disagreement is not whether it is possible for a person to

attain enlightenment, a narrow definition of which might be to find " their

bliss " in the most horrible of circumstances. I think that you trivilialize

the difficulty involved in reaching that point in life, and that many are so

involved in the intricacies of their lives and/or lack the knowledge about

how to do so, that the attitude is quite elitist and unforgiving of those in

dire circumstances who are not quite so glib about finding their bliss.

[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.

>

And, of course, the point is that that decision isn't quite as obvious a

distinction the worse the job is, and the worse the person's circumstances

are. A slave could choose to quit, and suffer the consequences also. One

speaks of a person as 'not having a choice' meaning that the consequences of

the action make all choices unpleasant.

[Guest guest]

Aven,

The phrase I originally used was " work that one finds meaningful "

and then shortened to " meaningful work "

And yes, it is a highly subjective experience, which you defined

better than me.

Thank you.

B.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:29:48 -0000, Aven <twyllightmoon@...> wrote:

>

>

> The term " meaningful work " is sort of misleading in itself.

> A job has no meaning except what the person who does

> it brings to it. One person might see his whole life as

> drudgery, and another see his as highly meaningful,

> doing the same work.

> Aven

>

>

> > > >>>>

> > > >>>> 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]

True - but I think that most people would agree that it is easier to find

one's work meaningful if one is, say, doing something that one enjoys,

working for a good cause, making good $, or one of a number of factors that

are meaningful to people.

>

>

> The term " meaningful work " is sort of misleading in itself.

> A job has no meaning except what the person who does

> it brings to it. One person might see his whole life as

> drudgery, and another see his as highly meaningful,

> doing the same work.

> Aven

>

>

>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 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]

that is just over what our 1040A says we made in 2003. And yes,

there were other resources. There were clothes closets (that ran out

of clothes), there were food pantries that didn't have enough food for

the whole line of people. There was a hotel that was replacing all

there matresses, and we were lucky enough to be in the right place at

the right time, and got 2 for the 2 older children. There were other

low income families that were done with baby items and passed them

along. There were garbage dumpsters that people threw a perfectly good

jogging stroller into (all it had was flat tres). There was furniture

put out at the curb for whoever needed it to take. There is WIC for

breastfeeding mothers (babies under 12 mos), and children under 5 yrs.

old to be able to purchase conventional eggs, pasteurized milk,

partially hydrogenated peanut butter, pasteurized cheese, pasteurized

juice, and cereal (but we can't eat grains). There were food stamps

for 3 months (we chose not to give into their policies, and so no

longer qualified). There were wonderful people that gave to the police

donation at Christmas time, that suprised us by dropping off a car

trunk full of Christams gifts for the children .(Can you imagine?! It

was the most I have seen under our tree ever! Boy, did the kids have

fun opening all of that!) And there was the wonderful owners of the

farmer's market that always let each of our children pick a treat out

(an apple, pear, etc.) when we shopped there.

But we don't know anyone with land, we were not allowed to have a

garden on the property we rented (heck, we weren't allowed to water

the lawn!) We didn't have anyone we could stay with, or share expenses

with. We did discuss it with another family of 5, but the housing

people would not allow all of us into even their biggest house.

But we survivied, we are still here (well different location, but

alive), I take the kids a couple blocks away to laugh and play in the

grass at a church lot. We get together and share everything we have

with families even less fortunate than us. we prepare dinners for our

friends in the NT style to introduce them to good food. We take meals

to families when mom is sick, we talk walks and collect rocks to take

home. We chase butterflies, and watch birds, and follow insects. It is

a good life overall. It just would be nicer to have a broader range of

choices.

Catz

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:01:09 EST, chrismasterjohn@...

<chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> 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]

>

> In a message dated 11/28/04 4:02:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>>> ~~~> 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.

>

> _____

>

> ~~~~> There is a similar problem with the way you seem to be defining it, for

> which external circumstances that represent compelling factors that influence

> a decision invalidate the voluntariness of that decision. With my

> definition, it seems about anything is voluntary. With yours, it seems about

> nothing is

> voluntary.

>

I'd say it's that 'voluntary' and 'involuntary' are really judgements that

we make about decisions, not some 'thing' that infuses the action. Unless

believes that by definition all of one's actions are determined, or by

definition that they are all free, we form judgements about the freedom of

our actions based on a number of variables. I may be free to make a decision

between working for the slave owner and being whipped given one way of

looking at things, and not free under another. I was making the point that

for a person whose only realistic choices are to work for low pay, for many

hours, under degrading conditions, or quit, that decision is constrained

with the same degree of difficulty that a slave's decision about whether to

continue to obey, though obviously the consequences are different.'

But quite obviously, there are some decisions that one would view as being

freely made.

> The definition I'm using considers any action that could have been replaced

> with a different action or inaction by choice, to be voluntary.

So, then, by your definition, the slave's decision to work was voluntary.

> The external

> circumstances that act as inputs to consider when making such choices about

> action are not voluntary. There is no action that can take place outside of

> such

> circumstances, therefore such circumstances cannot invalidate an action's

> status as voluntary without rendering the word " voluntary " an empty word that

> describes what does not exist.

>

> It's true that the choice of a slave to work or not work and get beaten is

> indeed voluntary. What is not voluntary, that separates slavery from

> voluntary

> work, is that the voluntary worker chooses her employer, while the slave does

> not.

>

So, then, you would consider a system of slavery which differed from the one

in the U.S. In one way - the slave could choose his/her own owner - would

therefore should not be considered slavery? And suppose then today, in some

area of the world, there was only one employer, whose working conditions

were deplorable, but did pay a minimum wage. This would be slavery according

to you?

> In other words, it is the choice to be in the specific circumstance, or to

> not be, of employment to a specific employer, that differentiates it from

> slavery, not the choice about work itself.

>

> I am not under the illusion that everyone who makes a voluntary choice is

> happy and joyful about it. I choose to do a lot of things that I don't want

> to

> do (like work at my job) because the alternative available to me at the moment

> is worse. But I can quit my job, and a slave cannot. I can choose a

> different job, and a slave cannot. I can save money in the hopes of employing

> myself,

> and a slave cannot.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think that I have to second you on that. I am very nervous on

this exchange, and have gotten over being offended (pride is not a

virtue). None the less, I enjoy the repertoire, and love a good

debate... it gets the blood really flowing!

I also thought I would take your statement as the opportunity to say

that I know what my life means, and I know what my purpose is. My

purpose is to teach. ...to teach my children, and all the people I

come into contact with. And it doesn't pay. And it still makes me

happy. And my dear husband chooses to do what he does in order to give

me this choice.

And that is why I am on this list... to have support, encouragement,

learn different things,...and to teach. As I share my knowledge of

baby care, my knowledge of chemicals, my knowledge of nutrition, my

knowledge of recipes... I teach.

catz

> Dr. Cowan phrases it much more eloquantly in his book:

> " There is no greater joy in life than to have purpose, to know what

> your life means. Some find this meaning through their families and

> other relationships. Others meet their destiny through their work or

> through activities like music and sports. Those who have discovered

> the purpose of their lives...can expect to achieve vibrant health and

> longevity... "

>

> While I am extremely flattered that I was able to provoke your

> response, my observations of your postings in the past lead me to

> believe that I haven't the stamina to maintain my stand with you, and

> I worry that I won't feel satisfied with my attempts at compassionate

> communication. I request that you realize I am very nervous over this

> exchange.

>

>

> B.

[Guest guest]

>>The fact that you have

overcome your disability to form an elitist attitude towards those who can't

thrive under their disabilities is unfortunate.<<

~~~What?! I never said anything about anyone else's disabilities. I was

talking about attitude about work, not disability. (If you knew me at all,

you'd see where it is a ridiculous assessment to say I have an elitest attitude.

I live a very simple life and philosophy and spirituality are much more

important to me than anything that has any elite connotation.) Where did I even

mention anyone else's disabilities? I was talking about work ethics, not

disabilities. I can only guess that you are responding out of your own

defensiveness about things that have nothing to do with this thread. You don't

seem to be able to address what has been said. I am quite miserable with MS

too, but that has nothing to do with my outlook on life in general. I see

nothing to be ashamed of in my optimistic attitude!

You are verging on flaming, and you have been from your very first remark to my

statements. You've put me in the position of having to defend myself against

you for statements I never made, and I don't continue to do that. Please don't

put words into my mouth.

Carol