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

[Guest guest]

I was arguing against an attitude, expressed

somewhat explicitly, that these people were " whining " , and that they

shouldn't

complain because they had it better than others in even worse situations.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gene,

I've never yet used the words " whining " or " lazy " in any of my posts

although you've asked me twice if I thought people were lazy.

You said you may be getting confused about to whom you're responding

and my request is that you keep it straight--at least in my case.

What you say above seems to be accusing me--for a third time--of this

attitude you hate.

As for the rest, I'm satisfied with what you've shared.

Over and out,

B.

[Guest guest]

>> Since the word " circumstances " keeps coming up and seems to be a point

>> of conflict, I am trying to understand as clearly as possible where do

>> you think a set of circumstances comes from. I think you're saying

>> that " they just are " and I don't disagree, much less deny that

>> circumstances play a role. What I'm asking you is this: how does one

>> rise above a set of undesirable circumstances? How would you counsel

>> someone? That is the part I'm not hearing.

>> B.

,

All the circumstances that have we have encountered can best be summed up as

unapplied justice. Without going into detail we've had multiple losses both

financial and physical because of someone or some entity's error,

misrepresentation to us or rights that supercede ours yet require us to live

our life differently because of them. Because of who or what they are and

the quality of law they can buy they either totally get away with it or get

away with it for pennies on the dollar.

Most circumstances are the direct result of the undesirable consequence for

an action of another. Find it easier to live with myself looking in the

mirror of circumstance than a mirror with consequence. What anyone rises

with inside has always been my question.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

>

>

> I was arguing against an attitude, expressed

> somewhat explicitly, that these people were " whining " , and that they

> shouldn't

> complain because they had it better than others in even worse situations.

> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>

> Gene,

>

> I've never yet used the words " whining " or " lazy " in any of my posts

> although you've asked me twice if I thought people were lazy.

> You said you may be getting confused about to whom you're responding

> and my request is that you keep it straight--at least in my case.

> What you say above seems to be accusing me--for a third time--of this

> attitude you hate.

>

No - I have not. You asked me to explain why I was saying what I was saying, and

commented that there was a theme running through my emails. I did not believe

that you were referring only to my replies to you. What is true that there were

some emails that prompted me to focus on certain things. Believe me, if I had

wanted to say " you said " , I would have.

> As for the rest, I'm satisfied with what you've shared.

> Over and out,

> B.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Stopped reading.

> In a message dated 11/28/04 10:04:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> One can choose to violate the law. You originally categorized the

>> difference

>> between the slave and the 'free' worker as one of choice. But now you are

>> shifting the ground. In our discussion as to whether one can speak of a

>> continuous gradation of choice between the two, it is obviously recognized

>> that the slave, in choosing to disobey, is violating the law.

>

> _____

>

> ~~~~> I believe the choice I was referring to was the choice of employment

> status. I have a legal, contractual arrangement with my employer that

> stipulates that either of us can terminate the arrangement at any time, and I

> also

> signed on to the arrangement out of free choice. The slave is legally bound

> to

> work for her or his master, did not choose to enter such an agreement, and is

> not allowed to terminate it.

>

> The fact that the slave can choose whether or not to obey the law is indeed

> an example of voluntary, free choice. What is not voluntary for the slave is

> her or his legal status, and the practical implications of this circumstance,

> such as the high liklihood of physical punishment for disobedience, since the

> slave has no legal recourse against it, or the high liklihood of capture if

> the

> slave escapes, due to the legal status of the slave and the resultant

> concerted effort of law enforcement and vigilantes and the resultant lack of

> legal

> recourse against what would ordinarily be considered kidnapping for a free

> person.

> _______

>

>>

>>> 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.

>>>

>>

>> The fact that workers, 'in general' have better lives than slaves, isn't the

>> point in examing the continuity between jobs and lives on the desperate end

>> of the spectrum and slavery.

>

> ______

>

> ~~~~> I understand that and agree. I was simply making an additional note,

> and probably should have avoided doing so in order to simplify the debate.

> You

> have also noted similarities between the arduousness and unpleasantness of

> work/life between those with constricted choices and slaves, even though this

> as

> well has nothing to do with the supposed continuity or lack thereof between

> the jobs and lives of those in desparate circumstances and slavery, because

> slavery is not defined by unpleasantness or arduousness of work. It is

> defined

> by the absence of a slave's legal right to terminate her or his employment to

> her or his master.

>

> Chris

>

\

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/29/04 11:23:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> ~~~~> 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. - Chris

>

> A person held in servitude by another may or may not be held as such

> legally. It may be illegal, yet a reality all the same.

_____

~~~~> Agreed. If it is legal, it is easier to enforce, but any kind of

compulsion is compulsion. This is a point of semantics, but the circumstance of

compulsion is involuntary and the choice of compliance is voluntary. Obviously

the fact that it is a voluntary choice does not equate it with something one

would do because one desired to do it.

I guess a way to include illegal slavery in a definition of slavery per se

would be to say that the circumstance that compels the slave to work is provided

by an individual using force or the threat thereof, whereas the circumstance

that compels a free man to work is provided by the natural condition of

scarcity.

Everyone, free or slave, is bound by the laws of nature that compel us to

work, so in a way you could say we are slaves to nature. But since we are all

slaves to nature, using the terms slavery in that sense would be infinitely

broad and therefore useless, since any word fails to mean anything if it cannot

discriminate.

_____

Are you

> equating slavery with employment in your second sentence? Usually we

> speak in terms of freeing slaves, not slaves choosing to quit jobs.

____

~~~~> No, I was differentiating slavery and employment.

____

> Thus, force may be the overriding consideration, not legality.

_____

~~~~> Right.

Chris