Freedom FROM wage slavery: positive and/or negative liberty?

[CytherLynx]

conflating freedom with equality.

plus you look especially freaky, and the patronising tone of voice only makes it worse.

[dubified89]

What BP was probably thinking is that while your example might be true that it's right to coerce one person to hit the button, a system based around that unrealistic example will result in more tyranny than one that abides strictly by negative rights. That the need to coerce people in order to save others will organically subside. Not sure that I agree but I think that's the gist of it

[jebustheone]

Clearly "freedom from wage slavery" is a positive liberty. If someone takes away my negative right to work for who I want and for the amount that we mutually agree through contracts, they are taking away my negative liberty to allow me to be 'free' from wage slavery.

Lets not forget, wage slavery is mostly a myth. If you don't produce wealth, you are a freeloader/parasite. Earn your keep.

[mr1001nights]

@jebustheone

When you undermine my ability to pursue self-management, you violate my freedom.

Private ownership of property not intended for active personal use creates exploitation and prevents workers' self-management.

[jonnniefivemiles]

You are debasing the word freedom.

[MarxBakuninMe]

Personally, I think that the distinction between "negative" and "positive" freedom is bullshit.

[SUpersaiyajinjerkbag]

@MarxBakuninMe

xplain iw ould like yo hear your thought on makin distinction between positive and negative freedom

[lnd3005]

Given unlimited resources, a man's wealth is limited only by his capacity to create it, yes? If he is intelligent enough, strong enough, and/or innovative enough, he can produce wealth to no end. Indeed a "finite earth" would impose some absolute limit on a man's total wealth, even had he a great ability to produce. But the sky is not the limit, guy, and I certainly don't think either of us is in a position to say the universe is finite.

[lnd3005]

Why say "wage slavery, when you mean to say freedom from work? You're correct though; it is a negative liberty. Everyone has it; it's a natural right. Everyone has the right to refuse to work, and then starve to death, naturally.

Let's talk about the guy who doesn't want to press the button to save the people. If he cannot be convinced, then he is probably a crazy person. Yet forcing his hand would still be wrong. The reason you don't accept this is simple. You're morally degenerate.

[kaufmann789]

This is very good. I like it second the most next to "Hierarchy, root of most evil."

[graaaaaagh]

I would have rated this 1 star, but since you mentioned me at 3:50 I gave it 2 stars.

[kaufmann789]

I have to admit, that I didn´t watch you newest videos but just some from you. However I thougth you and Mr1001Nights are proposing the same thing. Where is the diffrence?

[graaaaaagh]

The difference is, I don't misrepresent the arguments of those who disagree with me.

[Sepero1]

You have to have rights before any liberty can be established. Without rights, there is no liberty.

[Sepero1]

I think there is a bit of confusion on this video, because it mixes the ideas or liberty and rights. But liberty and rights are not the same thing.

Rights either exist or they don't exist. If they exist for one, they exist for all.

So the question is, "Do you have a right to not be a wage slave?".

On the other hand, Liberty is simply the expression of your rights. It is the ability to claim your rights.

When the two terms are used interchangeably, it only serves to confuse the topic at hand.

[AnarchyIsForMe]

Oh I can't wait til we can make a union-state that can time travel and make sure in advance how much everything we do affects each other, then they can be real nice and arrange it for us. It will be fine because it will be a democracy, so I don't have to worry about the fact that no matter how I vote someone is still arbitrarily deciding how I "the degree my decisions effect people".

[thorsmitersaw]

lol @ time travel

[AndyMH182]

blah blah blah

[MarxBakuninMe]

Freedom from wage slavery gives you the freedom to have an active say in how you do your job. So yeah, it's a negative freedom.

[thorsmitersaw]

Would you go to Brad Spanglers blog, search for "wage slavery", and read his analysis? I would be interested to see what you think. I hold to Spanglers carrying of the idea

[MarxBakuninMe]

I can't seem to access it. I keep getting redirected.

[ArchonAlarion]

not for the guy who put his time and effort into creating the business, going about asking for people to work for him and then getting shafted by his employees who aggreed voluntarily to work at his business.

Or how about the family who just built a house, and now its getting disassembled because of a majority vote.

Sounds like negative freedom to me!!!

[MarxBakuninMe]

Yes, and think of the poor politician who will have to lose his job when the state is abolished. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Any wealth that he makes from his business comes directly from the labour of his workers. A person volunteers to work - yes. But when in employment you must take orders, and this is so blatantly authoritarian that I can't see how any real "anarchist" could not have a problem with it.

And a house is personal property, and so it is irrelevant to discussions on wage labour.

[ArchonAlarion]

People volunteer to obey the orders and in exchange they get money or whatever.

Thats exactly like being allowed into someone's house and when they tell you to take your shoes off, you take a shit on their couch for being "authoritarian."

Get off the LTV because it is so painfully and obviously false that it makes you look silly.

[MarxBakuninMe]

"People volunteer to obey the orders" - doublespeak much?

[ArchonAlarion]

No not at all.

They volunteer to cooperate. Part of that agreement might include using the tools owned by one person to produce things by another. The second person will get something in exchange usually monetary.

and yes whilst being on the property, using the property, and being in a contract with another person you will probably be asked to obey orders from them in exchange for them paying you, which seems pretty reasonable.

[ArchonAlarion]

and then that employee can use the money acquired by his voluntary cooperation with others to create his own business, workers collective, commune, whatever, etc.

Private property or or the "Exclusionary division of property" is the fairest way to allocate resources in an imperfect world.

hmmmm, supplying peoples' demands in exchange for for something. Hmmm sounds like a corrupt and oppressive system to me.

[MarxBakuninMe]

Just like an ancap to obfuscate the merket with capitalism.  Typical, just typical.

[UcanbeGOD]

I see what you mean about wage slavery, I work for shit pay and could not start a business if I wanted so I am stuck. My boss just bought everyone embroidered coats ($80! a piece) and the same day told us to start paying more for our Health coverage! My boss is an idiot and I fear working under him because of the frequency of such stupid decisions. But what would be the alternative?

[MarxBakuninMe]

Workers' control and self-management. Join the IWW and fight for it.

Oh, and there is a mutualist (i.e. socialist) market in Italy that's been a great success; standards of living are some 50% higher than the national average (if I remember rightly).

[ArchonAlarion]

If the conditions under worker's collectives are so much better and productive then why are you arguing with me? People will realize that that's the better way to do things and they will do it. Coercion isn't necessary at all.

I have never said that people should not try this only that I think the labor theory of value is silly and that I prefer another non-coercive organizational model.

[ArchonAlarion]

You are right to some degree. In a voluntarist society I think the amount of "hierarchy" that we see in contemporary business will shrink to maybe the original entrepenuer who leads a business venture, some close associates, and a few employees. As machines are increasingly employed for unskilled jobs, factories with masses of low level employees will become obsolete.

[DANxCHORIN]

The best way to form workers' collectives is to collectivize existing workplaces, as was done in Catalonia in 1936. No-one said anything about 'coercion', we are talking about the working class eventually taking what is rightfully theirs: the means of production and the products of their labour. Coercion doesn't have to be involved, but self-defense against the coercion of the State (the tool of capitalists) does.

[ArchonAlarion]

The problem is that me and you disagree about what constitutes ownership.

Id say ceizure of a business owner's property by his employees is theft.

so until we can reconcile how someone "owns" something we are at odds.

[DANxCHORIN]

So if workers spend hours actually PRODUCING things with real value, while the employer simply 'oversees' them and takes the products and profit of their labour without actually doing any valuable work, you think it should be the employer that owns the workplace? I would call that 'organized crime'.

[ArchonAlarion]

yeah the employees agree to make shit and in exchange they get money. So wth are you talking about?

The employer makes valuable decisions about prices, business strategies, and carries the risk of a failed business. The employer is the one who risked losing a substantial amount of his own money by starting a new business. He is the one providing jobs to others so they can help him produce goods and services.

[DANxCHORIN]

Well it isn't an entirely voluntary agreement; you have to work somewhere. And don't suggest self-employment; it's impossible for an industrial society to solely function on self-employed individuals.

And why have a single employer making the valuable decisions, why not have valuable decisions done democratically? I presume, as you call yourself an Anarchist, that you support democracy? Why not extend democracy to the workplace?

[DANxCHORIN]

It's as if you're legitimizing the pimp-prostitute relationship. The prostitute does all the actual labour, while the pimp makes 'important decisions' on behalf of themselves and the prostitute to do with prices, business strategies, and carries the risk of a 'failed business', as well as 'risking losing a substantial amount of their own money by starting a new business'.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't constitute fairness to me.

[ArchonAlarion]

1. Self employment is increasingly a viable option as traditional business structures are no longer viable in a global largely digitally based economy. Self-employment is absolutely an option (oh and can't people be business owners too?)

2. No anarchist supports rulers. majority rule is entirely a coercive relationship. HOWEVER, people are perfectly free to try out whatever organizational model they wish! If it sucks it sucks but you're still free to try!

[ArchonAlarion]

3. Prostitution is often underground and shady. It is an example of a voluntary exchange, but its sad and often demeaning. Similary "incest-porn", drug dealing, and abortions. It may not be preferable to you if these things happen but you are dominating the freedom of others if you force them to stop.

Listen, YOU ARE FREE TO ORGANIZE A WORKERS COLLECTIVE OR SELF-SUFFICIENT COMMUNE! NO FREE MARKET ANARCHIST WILL TELL YOU DIFFERENTLY!

[ArchonAlarion]

I dont think they will be very sustainable, but who knows? Maybe they can work, idk. If they meet demands better, better working conditions, more efficient than great!

I just prefer a different business model.

[ArchonAlarion]

watch?v=Fjd6tDXpCtI&feature=ch­annel_page

[DANxCHORIN]

It's not enough just to 'organize a workers collective'. The workers of the world need to organize themselves to take over their own workplaces, so that they can take back their own lives from the shackles of wage slavery and capitalism.

[DANxCHORIN]

By attempting to justify wage slavery you are basically claiming the legitimacy of the pimp-prostitute relationship, claiming its 'fairness' etc. If you claim to value individual liberty, you must acknowledge the need for these oppressive and dominative structures to be done away with. Individual liberty does not include the liberty to oppress others.

[DANxCHORIN]

I would say working for a boss is sad and often demeaning, almost in the same way prostitution is sad and demeaning. I'm not suggesting 'forcing prostitutes to stop', I would suggest they take control of their own lives. Watch this video from the movie Libertarias, its the second scene that starts at about 1:20.

/watch?v=iuKVS3TRM6A&feature=r­elated

[DANxCHORIN]

And why do all anarcho-capitalists like power-metal?

[DANxCHORIN]

Self-employment is an extremely restricted option, and most people don't even have the money to start up a 'small business'. And even then, large industries cannot function on 'traditional business structures'. So it's not really possible for most people.

I'm not saying I support 'majority rule'; factory decisions can be made entirely by consensus. And even if I did support 'majority rule', it's better than the 'minority rule' of capitalism.

[ArchonAlarion]

You are pointing to the society we have now and blaming its failures on the the free market. You are essentially straw-manning me, by saying "We have a free-market, society sucks, therefore free markets suck."

This is just ridiculous.

Also you are saying that for people to be free you have to make decisions for them via a global syndicate. "Freedom is slavery" much?

Working for someone out of your own volition is not demeaning.

Also powermetal is awesome.

[DANxCHORIN]

I'm not necessarily blaming the failures of society on the voluntary exchange of goods, I am blaming a large number of failures on the economic system of capitalism. I'm sure a society with a Mutualist-style 'free market' would look much better. But being a communist, I would much rather just have common property, voluntarily distributed by federations etc.

And you are also suggesting 'you have to make decisions for people via a global syndicate', just an undemocratic syndicate, or a 'boss'.

[briano8713]

@DANxCHORIN

Many would say that "mutualist free market" IS a free market, IS laissez-faire, contrary to the BS state-capitalists happen to be pushing. The social aspect of mutualism is an (educated) prediction.

Powermetal sucks btw. =D

[seigneurvoland666]

ya ya ya, i can relate to what you said. POwer metal sucks though, for the most part

[Sepero1]

Oh, and sorry- I don't mean to be dodgy about the video title question :o)

To answer the title question: positive rights.

I am assuming "wage slavery" = "working to survive". (basically what every animal on earth has to do) If I am wrong, please let me know how.

[mr1001nights]

Read the article in the link I posted. Wage slavery does not refer to the unavoidable subjection of man to nature (having to work to gain one's sustenance), but to the avoidable subjection of man to man (having to work for a boss)

[Sepero1]

My apologies. My answer is still positive rights.

I keep forgetting that you believe that hierarchy is evil.

I don't view hierarchy as evil. I believe it can be necessary and beneficial to both parties.

[ChurchofMe88]

yes yes subordination was seen as necessary and mutually beneficial when justifying the plight of blacks and women in this country

[Sepero1]

ChurchofMe88-

*sniff* Ahh, I smell arrogance in the air.

I feel sorry for you, because I don't think you truly know where rights philosophically come from. If you do not know where your rights come from, how can you know that you have any rights at all?

[yeahwotevaman]

No, 'wage slavery' in the context mr1001nights uses it means the situation whereby an individual has no realistic choice but to sell their labour power to an employer (after which they have little or no control whatsoever over how their labour power is employed) or else face starvation.

[Sepero1]

The Philosophy of Liberty (short vid)

youtube. com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

[Sepero1]

I think you're actually giving the other side some serious thought, mr1001nights, and I've gotta give you two thumbs up for that. Even if you still disagree, you deserve real respect for your efforts.

Though, I still want to see you do a video on self-ownership and the philosophy of liberty! kk ;o)

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

I reject positive liberty as a moral theory, maybe not in individual actions. As a moral theory, it cannot exist consistently.

[mr1001nights]

1-Why do you dodge the question that I ask in the title of this video?

2-What about the negative freedom violated by capitalists i.e. what about freedom FROM wage slavery ?

3-Can someone who doesn't seek the minimization of hierarchy as his core goal still call himself an anarchist?

4-Can an ideology that condemns 1 million people to torture and death to spare someone from being coerced into pressing a button be considered to be morally superior to Nazism?

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

1. I don't know what wage slavery is.

2. Example?

3. Depends on what you mean by hierarchy.

4. Like I said in the EXACT COMMENT THAT YOU REPLIED TO, I reject positive liberty as a moral theory, not in certain individual actions.

[mr1001nights]

1. Follow the link in the box. It's an important thing you should know about and oppose if you are concerned with oppression and suffering, or if you want to learn about anarchism

2. Follow the aforementioned link and take a walk around your city

3. A form of organization in which people or groups are ranked one above another according to status or authority

4-Can someone who doesn't seek the minimization of hierarchy as his core goal claim to embrace morality or call himself an anarchist?

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

1. I've read your article over and over; I still don't know what it entails. Maybe I'm stupid, maybe it's not clear.

2. You'll have to be more specific.

3. Well if people agree to the authority, it's not unjust.

4. I seek the minimization of unjust hierarchy. I think that's enough.

[yeahwotevaman]

"the minimization of hierarchy as his core goal"

Utilitarianism, given any realistic practical application does not minimise hierachy. It demands that there be some sort of arbitary force above the level of the ordinary individual to decide upon and enforce the 'greater good'. I don't see any other way of applying utilitarian ethics.

[mr1001nights]

You'll have to show where I have favored "arbitrary force". The point of striving toward people having a say over decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected is that it will allocate authority, as much as possible, to the areas and situations necessary to prevent illegitimate hierarchy. It seems that those rejecting the minimization of hierarchy at the altar of some highly ideological notion of "negative liberty" are the ones being arbitrary. Hence my unanswered wage slavery question

[yeahwotevaman]

I don't see how the right not to be a waged employee works out as an ethical principal in itself. It is highly desirable that exploitative labour is done away with, but that depends upon what sort of property rights people are prepared to recognise and defend sans a state. If the state didn't coerce me into doing so, I would not freely contribute to the defense of the property of those I see as exploiters, and I doubt many other ordinary working people would either.

[mr1001nights]

I agree that the role and extent of private property should be determined by free communities. If the state was done away with tomorrow morning, do you not think that many corporations and other businesses (and the economy as a whole) could maintain a roughly similar ownership structure with private defense organizations? Because that would entail a continuation of wage slavery; perhaps a worse kind.

[yeahwotevaman]

I don't see such a thing realistically happening, no. For a start state power will never dinimish so long as it's ideological roots are still there n the popular consciousness, so long as people beleive the emporer has his cloths on. Direct action and such diminishes the state's legitimacy and reformist agendas re-enforce it. That is the fundamental question I think we should ask; not what is the utilitarian short term gain, but what radically undermines the ideological foundation of the state.

[yeahwotevaman]

Have you seen 'A Brief History of Archy' by Pyrrho314?:

watch?v=UDLxlaGEftU

He makes a great point about the origins of the state. The use of state violence is kind of like money in a fractional reserve banking system. The state cannot violently coerce everywhere all of the time, so it's main power is ideological, through confidence.

[brainpolice2]

For an in depth analysis on this, I would suggest the 16th century "Discourse On Voluntary Servitude" by Ettiene La Boetie.

[joesub007]

The disappearance of the state is way too idealistic. If an opening for cheating/lying/stealing is presented then are people in their entirety be able to be "good" and refrain from taking advantage of that opening? People will always have their selfish individualistic side and you can't rid of that nor would you really want to unless you turn everybody into "perfect" robots. The police will always be needed to support the health and safety inspectors if they are to be taken seriously.

[brainpolice2]

What Mr.1001nights is doing is legitimizing coercion through utilitarianism, I.E. he's reducing this to a cost-benefit analysis as to justify the use of coercion to avert what he percieves to be a greater loss.

[mr1001nights]

oh, I see, letting 1 million be tortured and murdered instead of coercing 1 guy into pressing a button is simply "what I perceive to be a greater loss"

[AestheticizeAnalog]

The ethical implication of your statement is that if two people each need a kidney, they can cut a person with two functioning kidneys open and take them. This would lead to greater aggregate utility, but it shows no respect for certain facts about individuals.

[mr1001nights]

Actually, it doesn't. And if you want to learn about the unconscious, inaccessible mechanisms with which we make such decisions (even prior to generating emotions) I suggest you read Marc Hauser's Moral Minds. Those "certain facts" you mention are simply inaccessible to your conscious mind.

[yeahwotevaman]

Yeah, BP! You hypothetical Pol Pot.

sorry, jk!

[yeahwotevaman]

The point of 'negative liberty' is the basic ethical groundwork for the rights of the individual, the axiom of which being the principal of self-ownership. In theory somebody's negative liberty can only be infinged as far as that individual infinges on the negative liberty of others. How this fits into exploitative wage labour is not clear.

[mr1001nights]

If I am what I own, then what am I if I lose what I "own" (e.g. the good looks or sharp mind that allow me to sell my labor for high wages). That fear of loss may create anxiety, and authoritarian tendencies because your sense of identity is threatened. But it's different when my sense of self is based on what I am (feelings, love, sadness, taste, sight etc) without regard for what I once had & lost,. Obviously all of us r somewhere in between&should strive to "be" rather than to "own" ourselves

[yeahwotevaman]

By 'own' I think of control. As an individual you have a sphere of control with your physical body at the centre and both the tangible and less tangible elements of your being extending out from that, which would include your creativity, ideas, etc. I agree that an individual is fundamentally compromised to some degree when these fundamental parts of their being are 'sold out' or passed into the exclusive control of another. In wage labour we are like prostitutes in that sense.

[yeahwotevaman]

...which is why almost anyone would ideally be self-employed than have to answer to a boss. I agree that it is undesirable to have such a system whereby people as a rule have to pimp themselves out in such a way.

The point of negative liberty though is to ensure that people cannot be forced into supporting something they otherwise would not. You could argue that you should not have to support cops with your tax dollars who are going to protect the 'rights' of unethical businesses.

[Staubdumm]

Even though it's obvious: The essence of thought experiments is to set a frame towards a situation, which tends to be unrealistic by taking away certain options. But this way, you can isolate some principles, put them into an antagony and evaluate them. They are useful.

Although I'vent read their remarks, it is legal to critisize them, since the generator of thought-experiments can exclude options which would lead to a different evaluation of the whole situation in "factor-fruitful" reality ;)

[mr1001nights]

well, the problem is that their criticism was an attempt to evade a common theme in our discussions; namely, is coercion legitimate when used to avert much greater coercion? Their evasion had to do with the fact that they sensed the weakness of their attachment to their notion of "negative liberty" when the only rational and humane course was to coerce one person into pressing the button to save a million people.

[yeahwotevaman]

As a thought experiment it is fairly useless unless it has at least some relevence to the real world. We can't objectively measure the quantity of oppression any given course of action may have. State socialists for instance believe that a certain type of elite rule is justified if it supposedly averts the oppression caused by the kind of elite rule they oppose, but outside of the state socilist ideology it is hard to discern which kind of elite rule is worse.

[yeahwotevaman]

The 'decisions made by those most affected' is a good principal, but opens up many practical problems. What about those usually deemed less capable of making decisions than the average mentally stable adult human (such as children and no-human animals)? No pig or chicken would choose to be slaughtered if they could voice such an opinion, would they?

[brainpolice2]

You're simply incorrect. We refuse to accept your implied utilitarianism - I.E. that you reduce liberty to a cost-benefit analysis in which coercion is selectively used. We're against coercion period, we're not going to make utilitarian accessements to justify some degree of coercion. Futhermore, the button scenario is an extreme lifeboat scenario that lacks realism. The weakness in your positive rights is that it totally violates equality of negative rights.

[mr1001nights]

1-Why do you dodge the question that I ask in the title of this video?

2-What about the negative freedom violated by capitalists i.e. what about freedom FROM wage slavery ?

3-Can someone who doesn't seek the minimization of hierarchy as his core goal still call himself an anarchist?

4-Can an ideology that condemns 1 million people to torture and death to spare someone from being coerced into pressing a button be considered to be morally superior to Nazism?

[brainpolice2]

1. It's negative rights.

2. I've repeatedly made it clear that I support the freedom from wage slavery. I also support freedom from your organizational models.

3. I do seek minimization of heirarchy, but non-coercion is more core. You lapse into coercivism in the name of anti-heirarchy.

4. Claiming that I'm condemning 1 million people to torture and death is a strawman, it does not follow from my philosophy.

[mr1001nights]

1.OK

2. What about the notion that in a finite earth, ur preferred proliferation of private ownership of the means of production will make freedom from wage slavery harder to pursue?

3. Your choices are far more coercive. You said it was preferable to let the 1 million be tortured and die than to coerce one guy into pressing the button to save them.

4. Is it? you are letting the 1 million die, effectively condemning them to death.

[brainpolice2]

1. Wage slavery only exists to the extent that the alternates to it are coercively/legally prohibited or disincentivized.

2. You keep approaching me as if I'm proposing exclusive or individual forms of property as a unifying system, when I'm not. It's only one option.

3. I reject your scenario as an unlikely lifeboat scenario and you are using it as a straw man. You're giving ME a false set of choices here, a false dichotomy.

4. Again, it's an emotional appeal based on a hypothetical.