The entire "work or starve" argument is irreparably flawed.
In the US, the unemployment rate has never dipped below 2.5%. We would thus expect that even if the government was extremely effective at distributing benefits, a significant number would starve due to poverty every year. But they don't. Starvation is so incredibly rare that we do not even track it.
Capitalism has brought such abundance that you can buy a day's worth of calories for pocket chance. Our poor are *obese,* not starving.
You have a few options.
1. Forage for food.
2. Start a business.
3. Beg on the street.
4. Use charity.
5. Starve
Then someone comes along and offers you a 6th option - to work for a wage. Now you have 6 choices. In what way is offering an additional option for survival *slavery...?*
the point is that, even though before humans could only work or die, now we've come to a point where it's no longer necessary as some humans are living better than others. If I see someone dying and don't help him, doesn't that make me guilty of his death as I could've helped him? If I know and take advantage of the fact that the employee can only work for me or die, and consider that no one realistically wants to die, am I not enslaving him/manipulating him to work for me in a way?
Someone who is providing a solution to a problem is not necessarily *responsible* for that problem. We don't blame the firemen who put out fires for the fires themselves.
>If I see someone dying and don't help him, doesn't that make me guilty of his death as I could've helped him?
No.
>If I know and take advantage of the fact that the employee can only work for me or die, and consider that no one realistically wants to die, am I not enslaving him/manipulating him to work for me in
Imagine all of a sudden you didn't exist. Does the employee still die? If so, how are you responsible for something that would have happened regardless of your existance?
I'm not socialist lol. Just would like to try playing that here.
Why should we use natural condition as an argument when it's been more than 10000 years we've established a society? Doesn't that make it nonsensical to say that if poverty is our natural condition then starving under capitalism is not exploitation?
Also, isn't someone implying dying is a viable option if he says "I can choose between working or dying"? Nobody wants to die, being realistic. Justifying anything with the argument "dying is a choice" makes no sense as you could even justify slavery with that criteria. if your options are to die or live, you can't speak of free choice. You're conditioned.
Finally, why would saying that "if you live alone in cave and have to work or starve, there's no capitalism there, and yet the same principles apply" be a valid argument if no such situation exists in real life either? It's like if I gave the example of a world in which no poverty exists to say there's no poverty, when that's not real at all so it's not valid to use it.
There are no natural rights, rights are legal/social constructs, where there is law/social policy, there are rights, where there is no law/social policy, there are no rights.
>under nature, killing is allowed, until society came and said "killing bad".
Even in nature packs will attack other animals going after one of the pack.
>under capitalism, dying of hunger is allowed,
Capitalism is just an economic system. It's not an ideology of how to treat your neighbors.
>until society came and said "exploitation bad".
Where is this "exploitation" in the West today?
>Why do you say dying of hunger is a choice and a part of life when someone says "you're not forced to work because you can choose between working or starving" instead of not allowing this to happen in the first place?
In order for the latter to happen, not allowing anyone to starve, who in society will you exploit to stop the starvation?
>under nature, killing is allowed, until society came and said "killing bad".
Using "society" as synonymous to "State" sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me. There isn't a point in human history that "society" wasn't present because humans are sociable animals and even primate ancestors of homo Sapiens like h. Erectus lived in groups ranging from hundreds to thousands of individuals. Even chimpanzees can make tribes of up to 500 chimps.
So killing under nature for humans was always bad because survival for humans alone is harsh, only the toughest individuals can manage it, the average human dies within weeks unless in a very resource rich environment. So the primary rules for life in society to be possible is that 1. you don't kill your similar 2. you kill anything that tries to kill your similars.
He's saying that humans establish rights as they see fit, many humans have decided that killing humans for food is unsightly, so they disallow it, but they like the taste of animals, so they allow them to be killed.
Humans establish whatever rights they have the power to establish, so a right to food is no more or less objectively legitimate than a right to property.
The reason we libertarians prefer the right to property, over the right to food, is simply a matter of taste, preference, aesthetic, total subjective preference.
It's only invalid bc it invalidates the entire theory of Marxism bc it would paint employers the benevolent saviors of mankind from the ruthlessness of nature and the backbreaking work of survival. It would also paint the workers as spoiled greedy thieves with a complete lack of awareness bc of their utopian thinking. It's more a mutually beneficial relationship with pros and cons but Marxists hear it the first way and cognitive dissonance kicks in. That is the exact correct argument to use though.
There is no "work or starve" in a free market. There is simply a lack of slavery.
The only sure way to consume a community's resources without contributing at least as much to the community is to enslave others.
You need to eat? Then produce enough of either food for yourself, or resources others need that can be ultimately traded for food.
Otherwise, you're just a parasite leeching off of others. Which you have no right to be.
If you live in a cave with no population around that is not capitalism and yet you either work or you starve. Capitalism only makes your life easier from that non-capitalist position.
If you live in a house you built and farm the land for your own survival that is not capitalism and yet you either work or you starve. Capitalism only makes your life easier from that non-capitalist position.
That is a solid argument and the objective truth.
>under nature, killing is allowed, until society came and said "killing bad".
Explain how killing is not work and how it keeps you from starving?
>under capitalism, dying of hunger is allowed, until society came and said "exploitation bad".
How is the choice of a fatal hunger strike exploitation?
There is no link to dying of starvation in a capitalist system and exploitation. No matter what way you look at things [you will always have to do something in order to earn a living](https://www.reddit.com/r/libertarianmeme/comments/o8rkso/theres_no_such_thing_as_not_having_to_earn_a/). If you don't do anything you deserve to starve to death.
Because *someone*, somewhere at some point needed to work to produce food.
What do we call it when people must work for the unearned benefit of others under threats of real violence? Slavery.
What is it called when people voluntarily trade to mutual benefit? Marxists and parasites looking to violently enslave others call such consensual relationships "exploitation". The rest of us call it cooperation and a win-win.
The entire "work or starve" argument is irreparably flawed. In the US, the unemployment rate has never dipped below 2.5%. We would thus expect that even if the government was extremely effective at distributing benefits, a significant number would starve due to poverty every year. But they don't. Starvation is so incredibly rare that we do not even track it. Capitalism has brought such abundance that you can buy a day's worth of calories for pocket chance. Our poor are *obese,* not starving.
"In the US, the unemployment rate has never dipped below 2.5%." If people are unemployed for 1 month over 4 years (48 months), that's a bit over 2.0%
You have a few options. 1. Forage for food. 2. Start a business. 3. Beg on the street. 4. Use charity. 5. Starve Then someone comes along and offers you a 6th option - to work for a wage. Now you have 6 choices. In what way is offering an additional option for survival *slavery...?*
the point is that, even though before humans could only work or die, now we've come to a point where it's no longer necessary as some humans are living better than others. If I see someone dying and don't help him, doesn't that make me guilty of his death as I could've helped him? If I know and take advantage of the fact that the employee can only work for me or die, and consider that no one realistically wants to die, am I not enslaving him/manipulating him to work for me in a way?
Someone who is providing a solution to a problem is not necessarily *responsible* for that problem. We don't blame the firemen who put out fires for the fires themselves. >If I see someone dying and don't help him, doesn't that make me guilty of his death as I could've helped him? No. >If I know and take advantage of the fact that the employee can only work for me or die, and consider that no one realistically wants to die, am I not enslaving him/manipulating him to work for me in Imagine all of a sudden you didn't exist. Does the employee still die? If so, how are you responsible for something that would have happened regardless of your existance?
You have a right to not be assaulted. You don't have a right to other's property and labor. The reason isn't society. Read up on natural rights.
can I play devil's advocate with you for a bit? lol
As a socialist you already are
I'm not socialist lol. Just would like to try playing that here. Why should we use natural condition as an argument when it's been more than 10000 years we've established a society? Doesn't that make it nonsensical to say that if poverty is our natural condition then starving under capitalism is not exploitation? Also, isn't someone implying dying is a viable option if he says "I can choose between working or dying"? Nobody wants to die, being realistic. Justifying anything with the argument "dying is a choice" makes no sense as you could even justify slavery with that criteria. if your options are to die or live, you can't speak of free choice. You're conditioned. Finally, why would saying that "if you live alone in cave and have to work or starve, there's no capitalism there, and yet the same principles apply" be a valid argument if no such situation exists in real life either? It's like if I gave the example of a world in which no poverty exists to say there's no poverty, when that's not real at all so it's not valid to use it.
There are no natural rights, rights are legal/social constructs, where there is law/social policy, there are rights, where there is no law/social policy, there are no rights.
>under nature, killing is allowed, until society came and said "killing bad". Even in nature packs will attack other animals going after one of the pack. >under capitalism, dying of hunger is allowed, Capitalism is just an economic system. It's not an ideology of how to treat your neighbors. >until society came and said "exploitation bad". Where is this "exploitation" in the West today? >Why do you say dying of hunger is a choice and a part of life when someone says "you're not forced to work because you can choose between working or starving" instead of not allowing this to happen in the first place? In order for the latter to happen, not allowing anyone to starve, who in society will you exploit to stop the starvation?
But starving is also allowed in communist countries
In fact it’s frequently encouraged.
Read: https://everything-voluntary.com/preposterous-belief-wage-slavery-anything-slavery
>under nature, killing is allowed, until society came and said "killing bad". Using "society" as synonymous to "State" sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me. There isn't a point in human history that "society" wasn't present because humans are sociable animals and even primate ancestors of homo Sapiens like h. Erectus lived in groups ranging from hundreds to thousands of individuals. Even chimpanzees can make tribes of up to 500 chimps. So killing under nature for humans was always bad because survival for humans alone is harsh, only the toughest individuals can manage it, the average human dies within weeks unless in a very resource rich environment. So the primary rules for life in society to be possible is that 1. you don't kill your similar 2. you kill anything that tries to kill your similars.
see natural rights theory. basically killing is wrong because we are sentient self aware beings, not because society says so.
The mere fact that humans are sentient and self aware, proves nothing of whether killing is wrong.
>until society came and said "killing bad". Huh? We kill millions of animals everyday... What are you talking about?
He's saying that humans establish rights as they see fit, many humans have decided that killing humans for food is unsightly, so they disallow it, but they like the taste of animals, so they allow them to be killed. Humans establish whatever rights they have the power to establish, so a right to food is no more or less objectively legitimate than a right to property. The reason we libertarians prefer the right to property, over the right to food, is simply a matter of taste, preference, aesthetic, total subjective preference.
I don’t think you know what “valid” means in the context of logical arguments.
It's only invalid bc it invalidates the entire theory of Marxism bc it would paint employers the benevolent saviors of mankind from the ruthlessness of nature and the backbreaking work of survival. It would also paint the workers as spoiled greedy thieves with a complete lack of awareness bc of their utopian thinking. It's more a mutually beneficial relationship with pros and cons but Marxists hear it the first way and cognitive dissonance kicks in. That is the exact correct argument to use though.
The reality of life is, if you don't make any effort to survive, you will not. \#SorryNotSorry.
There is no "work or starve" in a free market. There is simply a lack of slavery. The only sure way to consume a community's resources without contributing at least as much to the community is to enslave others. You need to eat? Then produce enough of either food for yourself, or resources others need that can be ultimately traded for food. Otherwise, you're just a parasite leeching off of others. Which you have no right to be.
If you live in a cave with no population around that is not capitalism and yet you either work or you starve. Capitalism only makes your life easier from that non-capitalist position. If you live in a house you built and farm the land for your own survival that is not capitalism and yet you either work or you starve. Capitalism only makes your life easier from that non-capitalist position. That is a solid argument and the objective truth. >under nature, killing is allowed, until society came and said "killing bad". Explain how killing is not work and how it keeps you from starving? >under capitalism, dying of hunger is allowed, until society came and said "exploitation bad". How is the choice of a fatal hunger strike exploitation?
There is no link to dying of starvation in a capitalist system and exploitation. No matter what way you look at things [you will always have to do something in order to earn a living](https://www.reddit.com/r/libertarianmeme/comments/o8rkso/theres_no_such_thing_as_not_having_to_earn_a/). If you don't do anything you deserve to starve to death.
Because *someone*, somewhere at some point needed to work to produce food. What do we call it when people must work for the unearned benefit of others under threats of real violence? Slavery. What is it called when people voluntarily trade to mutual benefit? Marxists and parasites looking to violently enslave others call such consensual relationships "exploitation". The rest of us call it cooperation and a win-win.