• J Lou
    link
    fedilink
    -1
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This is falling for the capitalist consent vs. coercion framing. Capitalism doesn’t have to be coercive to be wrong. Even some perfectly voluntary capitalism with a UBI would still be wrong because capitalism inherently violates workers’ inalienable rights to workplace democracy and to get the fruits of their labor (surplus). The much stronger framing is alienable vs. inalienable rights. An inalienable right is one that the holder can’t give up even with consent.

    • @UnderpantsWeevil
      link
      English
      74 months ago

      Capitalism doesn’t have to be coercive to be wrong.

      Capitalism is, necessarily, coercive. You can find other things wrong with it, but this is an inherent characteristic of reserving ownership to a “landed” class.

      Even some perfectly voluntary capitalism with a UBI would still be wrong because capitalism inherently violates workers’ inalienable rights to workplace democracy

      But it achieves that end through the process of “Capital Strikes” (ie, lockouts, hiring freezes, speculative hording, etc). And capital strikes are only possible via coercive force (ie, putting a guy with a gun in an industrial site who shoots any worker that tries to enter and engage in production).

      The much stronger framing is alienable vs. inalienable rights.

      Rights are legal fictions. There is no such thing as an inalienable right in a material sense. You show me a right, I’ll show you a guy with a gun who can alienate it.

      • AutistoMephisto
        link
        English
        24 months ago

        Here’s the thing: as long as poverty exists, poverty exists as a threat to get people to do things without their full consent. In some cases, like in the case of sex work, that can be actual sex, in which case, it cannot be faithfully said that all sex is fully consensual as long as it’s agreed to out of survival fears. In other cases, like for example minimum wage labor, people are accepting minimum wages out of fear of having nothing, and so they accept anything. This complete lack of bargaining power is behind low wages, dangerous conditions, terrible hours, poor treatment, etc.

      • J Lou
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Alienated ≠ violated
        An inalienable right isn’t one that should not be alienated, but rather can’t be alienated. For labor’s rights, responsibility can’t be alienated at a material level. Consent isn’t sufficient to transfer responsibility to another. For example, a contract to transfer responsibility for a crime is invalid regardless of consent.

        Legal rights can be fictions but also can be based on ethics.

        Workers consent to employment unlike kings. Inalienability shows it’s invalid

        • @UnderpantsWeevil
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          Consent isn’t sufficient to transfer responsibility to another.

          These are legalistic concepts, not materialistic concepts.

          For example, a contract to transfer responsibility for a crime is invalid regardless of consent.

          A contract is valid when it is enforced. And any cartel boss will tell you how “illegal” contracts are regularly enforced between criminal organizations.

          Past that, the very subject of crime and enforcement is subjective, as illustrated by the various states of the drug trade, human trafficking, and stolen property. More than one pawn shop has subsisted primarily on fenced goods. The legality of their stock does not appear to inhibit the success of their business.

          Legal rights can be fictions but also can be based on ethics.

          Ethics has no material basis.

          Workers consent to employment unlike kings.

          This doesn’t mean anything.

          • J Lou
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Consent and responsibility are descriptive not legal concepts there.

            Opposing coercion is an ethic. Certain material facts logically imply ethics. A brain has finitely many states it can be in. The whole state space is finitely representable. Minds can be mathematically modeled completely in principle. The concept of strong attractors and flows in the space of all possible minds is thus coherent. The transcendent truth about ethics is unknowable, but that doesn’t allow denial of moral realism.

              • J Lou
                link
                fedilink
                14 months ago

                Sure, consent and responsibility can be legal concepts. De facto responsibility, which is the “who did the deed” sense of responsibility, is what can’t be transferred even with consent. Responsibility in this sense is descriptive. Property and contract play no role in determining who is de facto responsible for an action

                The moral claim is that the de facto responsibility should match legal responsibility. This is why contract to transfer legal responsibility is invalid @microblogmemes

                • @UnderpantsWeevil
                  link
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  De facto responsibility, which is the “who did the deed” sense of responsibility, is what can’t be transferred even with consent.

                  The process by which de facto responsibility is established is a legal process. The adjudication of blame is a legal decision. Case in point, the current dust up over abortion rights involves states assigning culpability for homicide of a fetus to anyone aiding a pregnant woman in pursuing an abortion.

                  Everything about this is a legal issue:

                  • The legality of the original act

                  • The culpability of individual participants

                  • The definition surrounding the concept of “aid”

                  • The definition surrounding the concept of “pregnant”

                  • The definition surrounding the concept of “abortion”

                  Property and contract play no role in determining who is de facto responsible for an action

                  Property and contract play a role in determining whether an action is socially permissible.

                  The moral claim is that the de facto responsibility should match legal responsibility.

                  Morals aren’t objective and the idea of “responsibility” is relative. Parents are considered responsible for the acts of a child, but the legal definition of “parent” and “child” vary by legal jurisdiction. The core concept of “responsibility” is therefore rooted in the legal framework that assigns culpability.

                  • J Lou
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    “Responsibility” has different senses. One must be clear which sense is being discussed. Who is legally culpable for an action is what I am talking about with “legal responsibility.” De facto responsibility is a descriptive concept independent of whether there even is a legal system to impute legal responsibility. Property and contract determine the legal consequence of being held culpable. De facto responsibility is about purposeful results of deliberate actions. Morals have an objective part