Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Datardaci OP wrote

or we will starve you.

No, the "bourgeoisie" won't "starve you", If you don't work with them, in fact they probably won't even touch you and have never seen you...

−3

Majrelende wrote

You must be so out of touch with society.

I am not saying they are actively snatching food from the hands of workers— unless they work on a farm, but that is irrelevant— by “owning” the land, they are depriving others of it, therefore intentionally or unintentionally depriving others of food if they cannot pay.

3

Datardaci OP wrote (edited )

My point still holds true, wage labour is voluntary.

Let's say that some guy, threatened me and said that I had to pay extortion fee/ransom money. I sell something (my computer/land...etc) to give the money to the thugs. I voluntarily sold my stuff, I decided to do it, I decided to react to the threat this way.

The thugs threatening me is the problem (and that's what isn't voluntary)

So, your problem now is the ethics of land ownership?

−2

Majrelende wrote

My problem with ownership of the means of production is that it is what creates wage labour.

Now, imagine you are a slave. You are told you can work anywhere you want as long as your masters want it, you do so for 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, and you never attempt escape, or you will be beaten. Is the work still slave labour if you agree to it in order to avoid being beaten?

4

Datardaci OP wrote

Yes, BUT

The "masters" are only in the wrong If they are complicit/know what's going on.

The ones threatening to beat you are clearly in the wrong -> They are initiating violence.

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

2

Datardaci OP wrote

I mean, let's say that someone threaten Person A to do sexual acts with her wife. If the wife isn't aware how can she be at fault? Tbh, even If she is aware of it, she still isn't at fault for not denying it, because she is afraid that person A may die.

−2

[deleted] wrote

4

Datardaci OP wrote (edited )

The vilain Javier threatens Albert to do something for Lisa. Lisa isn't in the wrong, because she wasn't aware and even If she was aware but chose to not deny Albert to perform X action, doesn't mean that she is the evil one (she can be scared that Albert will be killed for instance etc.)

The vilain Javier is at fault, because he is the one threatening

−3

[deleted] wrote

3

Airci wrote

Lisa has choices : saying "no" to Albert and If Albert want to force her to accept it, she can self defend

2

Datardaci OP wrote

No, because Lisa can deny it and prevent Albert from doing it/defend herself.

Albert can refuse to do it, If he thinks that he can defend himself against Javier

0

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Datardaci OP wrote (edited )

Let's say that a fuckin terrorist asshole is mass shooting people.

It is not a crime to not shoot him, even If you had a gun.

Many obvious reasons why (you may be scared...etc)

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Datardaci OP wrote

You're the one who love mental gymnastics <3 .

But my point still holds true :) working for someone is not slavery

−2

[deleted] wrote

0

Datardaci OP wrote

No, I was saying that not putting food on your mouth is not threatening/initiating violence against you

1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Datardaci OP wrote

The one who is in the wrong is the person threatening not the wife.

−1

mofongo wrote

Everything is ok as long as no physical harm is done.

What a nice moral code.

2

Radarci wrote

As long as you don't initiate violence/threaten someone, yes.

Secondly -> It's not a moral code, I just wanted to know If you like the initiation of force :)

There is no objective moral "truth" .

0

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

Radarci wrote

No, but I thought that It was common sense, that you like to live, that you don't want to be murdered out of the blue or that you don't like when people are treating you like slaves?

−1

Majrelende wrote (edited )

I know that they are not intentionally starving people, but it would seem to me as if this has no bearing on whether it is slavery or not.

1