Re: OT to the extreme

In article <m2ek4rokbs.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul Foley <see@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:33:15 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article <m2psocnlhp.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Paul Foley <see@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> >> If you "have" to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week to (just) avoid
> >> starving, you claim you're a slave...so what if your employer just
> >> went away (was removed from existence by god for the horrible crime of
> >> employing you, maybe)? Now your situation is exactly the same, except
> >> there's no employer to enslave you -- are you still a slave (for the
> >> short period before you starve)?
>
> > That depends a lot on exactly what you mean for the employer to be
> > "removed from existence." Did the factory get left behind, or did it
> > vanish along with the employer? What was left behind in its place? Is
> > there arable farmland there now?
>
> Well, the (ex) owner is useless, you say, so surely the world should
> revert to the condition it would have been in had he never existed --
> so presumably there's neither factory nor arable farmland, but a
> "wild" forest or something. But if you think it makes a difference,
> let the factory stay (But what factory? If your only choice is really
> between working 14/7 for subsistence wages and death, you must be
> either (a) living in Socialist Paradise, which we'll assume is not the
> case, or (b) one of very, very few people alive (reachable -- i.e.,
> there can't be much trade going on), and/or in a pre-industrial
> society; in either case there won't be any factories, and very little
> arable land)

There are other possibilities, e.g. North Korea, maquiladoras etc.

But it's your scenario. You tell me.

BTW, just because you're a slave doesn't mean that your life is
necessarily worse then what your life would otherwise have been. In
fact, that argument was advanced in support of slavery back when it was
more fashionable. Personally, I don't buy it, but it's not a completely
untenable position. If the choices really are between slavery and death
then it's not at all clear which is the better choice. But those are
rarely the only options unless some humans have made it so.

> >> What if you're shipwrecked on a
> >> deserted island, and have no choice but to work 14 hours a day 7 days
> >> a week to (just) avoid starving -- are you a slave?
>
> > No, you're a castaway. But we're talking about social interactions here
> > so that's a red herring.
>
> > So let's imagine that you're shipwrecked with another person. This
> > other person has a gun. He claims this is his island, and says that if
> > you wish to stay you must pay rent in the amount of enough food to feed
> > him. To produce enough food to pay the rent and feed yourself you have
> > to work 14 by 7. You protest, and the man with the gun points at the
> > reef and says that if you don't like the conditions you are free to
> > leave. Is he right? Are you free?
>
> Wrong question. The right question is "Is he right? Is it his
> island?" The gun is completely irrelevant.

No, I don't think so. Many (perhaps most, but I don't want to argue
about that) people who own land in North America today do so because
that land was taken from the original inhabitants at the point of a gun.

There are modern parallels as well. See e.g.
http://www.cato.org/events/020514pf.html

> Assuming that when you
> say "shipwrecked with another person" you mean that the other person
> is shipwrecked at the same time, then it's clearly not his island (if
> he's already there when you arrive, and it's a /very/ small island, it
> may be that he has a legitimate claim to the whole island...but then
> it's probably not able to support both of you anyway)

In the real-life version of this scenario the man with the gun showed up
after you.

> You may choose to do what he says because he threatens you with his
> gun, but that's an entirely different situation -- no different than
> having a government, in fact!

Why "government" and not "employer"?

> No, you're not free then...but surely
> in your mind the guy with the gun pointed at him is freer and in a
> better position than the guy on his own -- after all, government is
> necessary, and freedom comes from having limitations put on you by
> that government, right?

Please stop resorting to straw men.

rg
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Antigunner dishonesty
    ... You've convinced me of much of what you say about gun laws but I'm still confused about some of the issues. ... Keep in mind, if you can, that no where have you implied that my confusion is your fault. ... do I have a right to say what you can or can not carry on my private property? ... Does an employer not have a right to dictate what I may or may not have on their private property? ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: "Take your guns to work" law is wrong.
    ... employer to impose a gun-free zone. ... for gun rights, but they got it totally wrong. ... because you are not violating anyone else's right. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: "Take your guns to work" law is wrong.
    ... employer to impose a gun-free zone. ... can't carry a gun because I have to park on company property. ... for gun rights, but they got it totally wrong. ... because you are not violating anyone else's right. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: "Take your guns to work" law is wrong.
    ... The employer is protected under Workers Comp laws which enables the employer ... for gun rights, but they got it totally wrong. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Diff b/w factory pattern and strategy pattern
    ... We use the names of patterns to convey a ... Factory allows us to seperate the concerns of creation from use. ... I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. ... programmer helping programmers. ...
    (comp.object)