Is work tyranny?

Post Reply New Topic

No. If any and all kind of work is tyranny then the tyrant is not a human agent. Some form of work is generally required to exist and there's no way to eliminate this fact completely. It's generally true that technology reduces the amount of physical effort required to exist but it will never completely eliminate the need for work.

It's not work itself that's tyrannical. It's any system with laws that allows a small minority to accrue disproportionate control over limited resources through ownership rights. Capitalism has it's advantages but it needs to be checked in some way by collective action or it will play out like a game of monopoly. If I came to own the entire water supply for a medium sized city and then threatened to cut off the entire city if it's citizens refused to worship me and send me sex slaves I would be classified as a tyrant. In that case I think the city would have the right to seize my "property" from me in the name of the greater good. To not do so would be to submit to tyranny.

Last edited by marshall on 07 Mar 2013, 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

exactly

So, I don't have a job. Mostly because I dislocate bones opening doors, and without my medication I can't stand up without passing out and potentially having a seizure. That's before having any mental or developmental problems.

I have a condition that affects every part of my body. My bones are deformed, my lungs damaged, my nervous system a wreck, my eyes almost legally blind, my skin tears and struggles to heal... just to name a few problems.

I wouldn't be nearly as bad now if I hadn't been worked so hard, needing to accept under the table jobs at below min wage that required manual labour that quickly ravaged my body.

I barely graduated high school because I was not given accommodations. IF I have the privilege of going to college it is extremely likely that I will be in an electric wheelchair by the time I graduate.

So you say people like me should either get a job or rely on family or friends. It's amazing how hard it is to have friends when you're stuck in bed most days. And my family? Please. My mother was a teen when she had me and my father is a drug addict. Neither of them consider me anything but an unfortunate and unwanted burden and have not contacted me since I left a few years ago.

Do I not have any value to society? Does my life not have a value? In a world where you are not given value based on your ability to be profitable, yes I most certainly do.

The way to address the problem of "dirty jobs" is to automate them as much as possible, and give those who do them the money they deserve for doing the job nobody else wanted to. We need to open the produced goods to those who need them. We can provide a healthy living situation for everyone, but not if we hold onto greed. Not if we hold onto a system where half of the worlds food doesn't even make it to human consumption. Link

People are not unemployed due to lack of work, there is work everywhere. Parks to be built, streets to be cleaned, but it isn't PROFITABLE work. We need to abandon our idea that profit is ideal, and instead work toward better living for all. We don't need to live in a world of poverty, pollution, and disease. We choose this because it is profitable. Because rich white people feel the need to keep everything the same. Money should not be power, and those who work the least shouldn't make the most. (Bankers, CEOs, etc) While I don't think that work is tyranny, I think wage labour is exploitation.

We don't have to live in a system of cruelty and greed. So why should we?

An interesting article, which contains some points relevant to the present discussion

http://www.alternet.org/story/154453/wh ... o_collapse

The USA is a nation of hustlers. Get a job that will numb your mind and help to make the rich richer.

its also a nation of habitual liars.

American workers have been poisoned against the trade union movement, effectively disarming them of being able to fight back.

The argument is work is tyranny. I going to restrict work as in how the workplace is set up, how much control they do have in our daily lives, and how much of a monopoly they have.

Tyranny means cruel and oppressive government or rule and it also means cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control:

Before we can establish work as tyranny these are the questions I need to ask.

1. How much control and influence does the mega-corporations have over our government?

2. How much control and influence does the government have over the corporations?

3. Do we truthfully have competition amongst the corporations or do we only have the illusion of competition? If we truthfully have competition why do we have chains like hotel chains owed by one parent corporation? Where is the competition?

4. What exactly are the philosophical and personality differences between the corporations that one may work for?

5. Are fresh ideas that can threaten a corporations status in the market easily squash-able by money and influence? Do corporations influence government to squash alternatives?

6. How much influence does a potential candidate have to his working conditions and his pay when chooses to work for a particular corporation? Is it considered acceptable by society to state one's terms and what the corporation will do for him as well? Is reciprocity given by the corporations to the employees? Does the candidate actually have alternate choices that are positive and moral?

7. How much of the world's resources do these corporations own? Is the amount of resources owned directly proportional to how much influence one has? As a person or a group of people gain more and more influence do they become more powerful politically as well? Do they become part of our government and eventually become our government? Even though our government is officially codified by our constitution and other laws can we have unofficial codification as well? Do the corporations have so much influence over the world that they are becoming our government and may already be our government?

That makes sense.

That's a lot of "ifs" there, Marshall.

What Marshall and I are doing is what is called a what-if analysis. These are the issues that both Marshall and I have with property rights. Your rights end where mine begin which means some rights have to have higher precedence over other rights.

There is an underlying belief by conservatives and strict constitutionalists and that is that our rights are inalienable in the absolute sense. Our rights are inalienable but only to certain extents that they do not violate other rights and conflict with other rights.

We do not have the right to bare arms absolutely. We only have the right to a certain extent. We do not have the right to a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb.

Why do people on the losing side of an argument resort to "What-If Analysis", when there are so many "What-Is Facts" to base their arguments on?

Could it be that their arguments are not supported by the facts?

Is that why they have to make up fantasy situations to "prove" their assertions?

I think I am beginning to understand what is going on here. These are guesses on my part based upon what you state about yourself in previous posts. To answer your questions I will state You and I have two different personality types even though we are both on the spectrum.

http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html

Personality is a lot more complex than this.

You are more of a sensing type of aspie and I am more of an intuitive type of aspie. Therein lies the problem and why we are tripping over each other. I think Marshall is more of the intuitive type as well.

The thing is our personalities developed differently and I believe this is due to our past experiences. You see what is now and you improvise and go by your past experiences. For you common sense and practicality is instinctual to you. You go by facts and past events.

You were homeless for a time and because of this you've had to deal with the realities of your situations. This is how this part of your personality developed. Because you were living on the street for a time and had to deal with horrible situations you've been forced to deal in the practical and the more sensory aspects instead of the more intuitive aspects.


The thing is the way you operate and the way you think is not the way I think and operate. I do not know how to think in your way. For me, facts are not things set in stone like you see them but possible interpretations based upon my own experiences, prejudices and biases. You see facts, I only see possible interpretations of these facts and there could be many different ways to interpret these facts. Therein lies the problem. For me, common sense is not always reliable to me like it is to you.

I look for patterns in a given system and I make connections when I am able to establish patterns. I don't trust my past experience or see facts and absolute and set in stone like you do. My past experiences as I see them have a biased lens attached. My past experiences are based upon my own interpretations which may be faulty. I look at concepts and beliefs and extrapolate the possibilities of where they could be taken to. I ask, if this is so then why can't x be so either? For me, inventing possibilities and doing what if analyses is as natural for me as you being able to create practical solutions and using common sense is natural for you.

Fnord, please keep coming and posting on here. It is wonderful that you do. You bring a more practical approach to things that I have difficulty with because of my own upbringing and my own experiences. One thing I have learned from you is sometimes I have to accept some things as though they're axiomatic.

The thing is though there are times that some things should not be accepted as axiomatic, set in stone and just fact. One has to be able to understand the background and the context the facts were derived in. One has to be able to understand the interpretation of the fact when this fact was conceived.

For example, it is always believed that 1+1=2 in all cases. I can show you where it does not. The assumption that 1+1=2 in all cases is that we're dealing with the base 10 number system. What about the base 2 number system. 1+1=10 in the base 2 number system.

I don't look at the facts only I look at the interpretations behind those facts. Facts are based upon the perception of other facts that a person perceived.

You ask what and how. I ask why. You state x is so. I ask why is x so and if x is so then why isn't y so as well?

It is said that the speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s. Why does the speed of light have this velocity? What are the parameters that make this so? Can one change the parameters in a given space?

It is said that nothing can't go faster than light? Why is that so? What prevents anything from doing that? What are the physics that prevent the light barrier from being crossed?

Why does self-pity exist as an emotion if one is not supposed to feel it or display it? Why is it unacceptable? Why is negativity and negative attitude unacceptable in our society? Why is all misfortune that a person experiences their fault and their responsibility and not society's? Why is it unacceptable to blame a given society or any external entity in which one experiences misfortune?

What is the inherent reasoning for the American standard of internal locus of control that is considered absolute? Why is it fallacious to have any form of external locus of control whatsoever?

What is the inherent reasoning behind the beliefs of self-responsibility, positivity, self-reliance,etc? It is stated that life is unfair? Why is this so and why is it unacceptable to desire fairness? What is life and what is fairness?

Why must one have self-confidence in America? Why is this inherently required? Why is it considered that my belief determines my ability and not the converse? You state my beliefs are wrong and my arguments are wrong? I ask, why are they wrong and why are yours correct? What makes mine wrong and what makes yours correct? Why?

All you do is state that x is y? Why?