Is work tyranny?

Page 7 of 9 [ 139 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,960

03 Mar 2013, 10:20 am

RushKing wrote:

cubedemon6073 wrote:

RushKing wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Fewer choices does not equate to no choices at all, unless you have only one choice to make.

Never claimed

Quote:

My point is that as long as you have choices, you are free, and that this is sufficient reason to choose the most advantageous option.

Your point is that as long as even one choice is denied, you are a slave, and that this is sufficient reason for not choosing any option at all.

Is a prisoner free because he has the choice to make an escape attempt? Is he free because he has the choice to twiddle his thumb left or right? I think its silly to say someone is free because they have choices, and especially if many of them aren't practical. Slaves and prisoners have multiple choices. I believe freedom should determined by how many practical choices you have, rather than the presence of multiple choices. You are arguing for less choice.

Rushking and Thomas both of you arguing against the wrong thing. Rueven and Fnord are technically correct. We always do have choices. It is a tautology. With free will comes the fine print. All of our outcomes to our choices may be negative. I believe this is called a catch-22.

Though some choices have more probability of churning out negative outcomes than others. You didn't disprove my argument.

Actually, I'm on your side. It is set up in such a way in which one can only choose A,B,C, and D. If this is what you're saying then I agree and this means we're saying it in two different ways.

Rueven still hasn't answered my question about employers being cookie cutter with similar underlying beliefs, philosophies and underlying assuptions. If it is a cookie cutter set up then we have different bosses same as the other bosses.

We have an argument to make against how things are. If we are going to make an argument it has to be based upon sound reasoning.

When one says one always has a choice technically they're correct it is actual choices one has that becomes the issue.

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,960

03 Mar 2013, 10:27 am

thomas81 wrote:

cubedemon6073 wrote:

Whether you are a freeman or slave, we always have choices, that I was never disputing. The point is that some choices are more empowering than others and the range of choices you have depend who you are. Choices alone do not necessarilly equate to 'freedom'. It is not the number of choices you have that matters, but the bargaining power behind each individual choice you have.

There was a stage before the American union that slaves in the CSA were living better than some of their 'free' brothers and sisters in the north because they were guaranteed a roof and 3 squares whereas the 'liberated' were at the mercy of the market.

I think the problem here is that not only is the concept of 'freedom' a weasel term, there are different types of freedom. You will often hear reactionaries crow about 'freedom of choice' but seldom will you hear them laud freedom against poverty, homelessness or exploitation. Choice is a poor benchmark for freedom. Having few or no choices is not necessarilly the worst of all scenarios (for example homeless people comitting crime just to get to prison for shelter) while it is possible to have an array of choices and be bitterly unhappy. Unless you are a member of the economic elite, the current arrangement seeks to curtail both your choice and happiness.

Okay, we're in full agreement together. I was trying to convey something similar. Free will and choices can be set up and manipulated to where you only have a certain range of choices of e:{A:B,C,D}. It is manipulated to where one can't go outside of subset e. Sorry, I should've been more clear.

Let's say I program a random number generator. Within its given program it can only choose the range of values you set it up to choose. For instance, one can set it up to only output even numbers between 1-50.

It seems like the three of us are in agreement then. Even though the three of us are aspies it is interesting that we think of it in different terms. I think of it more in mathematical and formal logical terms.

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

03 Mar 2013, 10:49 am

My last job they worked me into the ground.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Mar 2013, 11:06 am

androbot2084 wrote:

My last job they worked me into the ground.

Then change jobs.

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

03 Mar 2013, 11:22 am

Why is it always the worker that has to change?

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

03 Mar 2013, 7:29 pm

androbot2084 wrote:

Why is it always the worker that has to change?

i'd pay no heed to ruveyn, it's clear he is a cantankerous old bugger who lives in feather bedded world where changing ones job is as difficult as changing ones socks.

It would be interesting to see the reaction he would get, if he went to a former mining community in Yorkshire, armed with his current attitude. They would tear him a new one.

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Mar 2013, 8:57 pm

androbot2084 wrote:

Why is it always the worker that has to change?

Because the world does not owe you, me or the worker a damned thing.

You choose to work for someone who will employ you and a business will hire from among those who are willing to work for that firm.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:

03 Mar 2013, 9:07 pm

androbot2084 wrote:

Why is it always the worker that has to change?

To keep your job, that's why.

Now, your choices are: (1) quit your whining and get back to work; (2) keep whining and lose your job; or (3) find another job.

In any case, there are over 200 people waiting to be hired, and if you're not here, then one of them can take your place.

Maybe they will appreciate just having a job.

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

03 Mar 2013, 9:14 pm

debating with fnord and ruveyn is like trying to debate with someone that has their fingers stuck in their ears and is yelling "la la la!" repeatedly.

Don't think they've bothered reading the last page of exchanges.

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

03 Mar 2013, 9:17 pm

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Why is it always the worker that has to change?

Because the world does not owe you, me or the worker a damned thing.

what does the world owe the employer?

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:

03 Mar 2013, 9:33 pm

thomas81 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Why is it always the worker that has to change?

Because the world does not owe you, me or the worker a damned thing.

what does the world owe the employer?

1. A workforce that shows up on time, does what they're told, and doesn't whine or make unreasonable demands.

2. A fair price for his goods and services.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Mar 2013, 9:35 pm

thomas81 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Why is it always the worker that has to change?

Because the world does not owe you, me or the worker a damned thing.

what does the world owe the employer?

not a damned thing. If you don't want to work for him, then don't. If you don't want to buy from him then don't. If you don't want to sell to him then don't.

And if your government taxes unarmed citizens to bail out a business that is failing then it is a corrupt government.

ruveyn

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,960

03 Mar 2013, 9:38 pm

thomas81 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Why is it always the worker that has to change?

Because the world does not owe you, me or the worker a damned thing.

what does the world owe the employer?

lol you beat me to punch.

The argument could be made that they did earn what they have now. This is if the employer did it while being moral, legal and ethical.

This begs the question though. Should one employer or a small group of employers be allowed to buy up the world's resources and have control this way. I don't think John Locke, the father of capitalism, would like this or approve of it. I believe he did talk about this somewhere. I know I don't like it myself.

Thomas, even if we are right on this I will have to be honest. Those who own the gold make all of the rules. I believe the problem is not a question of who owes who but the amount of space that is possible to be owed.

Humanity needs more real estate and more markets. I think occupy wall street and other groups like them needs to switch tactics. I think OWS needs to take their funds and invest in technologies that can be used for space travel and sustainability on different planets.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:

03 Mar 2013, 9:42 pm

ruveyn wrote:

thomas81 wrote:

what does the world owe the employer?

not a damned thing. If you don't want to work for him, then don't. If you don't want to buy from him then don't. If you don't want to sell to him then don't.

But, then there would eventually be no employers at all, and nobody would have a job! Then those of us who were once proud of the fact that we could hold down a job and be paid well for doing so would be in the same straights as those lazy, good-for-nothing slackers that always complained about having to work for their wages.

ruveyn wrote:

And if your government taxes unarmed citizens to bail out a business that is failing then it is a corrupt government.

"Corrupt Government" is an oxymoron, my friend.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Mar 2013, 9:43 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:

Humanity needs more real estate and more markets. I think occupy wall street and other groups like them needs to switch tactics. I think OWS needs to take their funds and invest in technologies that can be used for space travel and sustainability on different planets.

The number of human beings that can be placed on other planets in our solar system and in orbital habitats is a minute microscopic portion of the human race. For the human race as a whole there are only one planet for us, the one we are on.

And forget about going to the stars. Even if we multiplied the speed of our vessels by 100 it would still takes us over a thousand years to go to the nearest star, which is about 4 light years from us.

ruveyn

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

03 Mar 2013, 9:45 pm

Fnord wrote:

"Corrupt Government" is an oxymoron, my friend.

Did you mean to say a redundancy?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Page 7 of 9 [ 139 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Is work tyranny? Post Reply New Topic

Is work tyranny?