• Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Morality doesn’t enter into it. If you want something that somebody else puts effort into producing, they need to be compensated for their effort, materials, etc. etc.

    I guess you could phrase that as a moral demand. You don’t have free access to the results of someone elses effort.

    You want to eat without paying someone? Grow your own food. Nothing stopping you. Oh, but you’ll have to pay for the land, seed, water, fertilizer, animals. Learn how to slaughter and butcher on your own because you can’t pay someone else to teach you those skills. You could learn to hunt, but then you’d have to make your own weapons because even re-loading supplies cost money.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait, what?! Morality doesn’t play into it?! Well, then why do people need to be compensated? You can just stab them after they make the thing you want.

      I’m almost afraid to tell you that bullets are cheaper than most things you can get by shooting people who carry said things.

      Also, “grow your own food”. Sure, on what land? Is no one going to stop me from uprooting crops on land owned by others so I can grow my own? What tools will I use? Do I make my own from sticks and rocks, or do I take the tools owned by others?

      What your proposing is insane. I think you need to touch some grass.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        People need to be compensated otherwise they will stop producing.

        Let’s say you own a bakery and you make really good donuts. Maybe the best donuts in town. Every day you get up at 5 AM to make a fresh batch and put them out for sale.

        And every day, every single one of them gets stolen.

        How long before you just stop making donuts?

        https://youtu.be/petqFm94osQ

        • m532@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most people don’t own a bakery.

          “Let’s say you are a king isn’t feudalism awesome?”

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Let’s say you have bills to pay and some idiot on the internet thinks money is imaginary.

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, I deleted my comment because I realized that I misread the post I was replying to.

          To respond to this post, yes, that is problematic if you care about the workability of the system, but if you have morals, then weather or not the system works is moot.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            And, again, morals don’t enter into it. People deserve to be paid for the work that they do, and it doesn’t matter what that work is.

            Isn’t that what the whole “anti-work” is about? Paying people what they deserve to be paid, right? Why do you think people involved in food production or distribution deserve any less? They work as hard, or harder, than you or I do. Nobody should expect them to work for free “because food should be a right, man!”

            • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Ok, but why do people deserve to get paid for their work? That seems like a moralist statement. Is there deeper rational supporting that statement, or is that a moral imperative for you?

              Edit: to be clear I’m not disagreeing with the premise, I just want your reasoning for arriving at it.

              • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Super simple. My time is valuable to me, if you ask me to contribute my time for something that benefits you, I need to be compensated for my time.

                I can choose to donate my time, but doing so comes at a cost to me and if I contribute too much of my time, then I can’t pay bills, my electricity gets turned off, I get evicted, and so on.

                Do you value yourself so little that you work for free? If so, I’ve got some housework you can do!

            • Metallibus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People deserve to be paid for the work that they do, and it doesn’t matter what that work is.

              Yeah, this. This right here. This is exactly why your argument falls apart.

              We have people in the US who have jobs, but can’t afford to keep a roof over their head and to feed themselves. The argument people are making is that they deserve food, and not to fucking starve to death. You’re arguing that they need to give someone money so they don’t starve.

              People are arguing what work they do shouldn’t matter, and you’re agreeing. But because of the western views on capitalism and western views on social programs, you’re claiming that the food producers won’t get money and therefore are essentially saying these people should starve.

              These people tend to work jobs that the upper class doesn’t want to do. But for some reason, you’re arguing they also don’t deserve appropriate pay or the right to a safe life.

    • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, one has to pay for the means of production including the land, which is just sitting there and required nobody to go to any effort?

      You see the problem there?

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, because if you don’t own the land, you have no right to trespass on it to work that land.

        Now, here’s the correct way to do it:

        1. Buy the land and do what you want with it.

        2. Contact the owner of the land and work out an agreement. Maybe they’ll let you use it for free, maybe they’ll take a cut of whatever you produce there, whatever is mutually agreeable.

        You don’t have the right to just do whatever you want, and, further, once you put the effort in to do something with that land, nobody can just take it from you because they feel your work has no value.

        For example…

        I have a fence that faces a busy road. It’s on my property and just sits there, it provides privacy for my home.

        Someone asked if it was OK to hang carpets on my fence and try to sell them.

        I told them “Sure, kick me 5% of the sales and you can do what you want.”

        Never heard from them again. If they hadn’t asked me, I’d have trespassed them. If they wanted to negotiate, I’d have been open to that too.

        • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Interesting that you say people should grow their own food yet want to prevent them from having the means to readily do so like this. It’s sad really and kinda evil.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nothing prevents them from having the means to grow their own food. The trick is being able to do it sustainably for a long period of time.

            My house sits on 0.16 acres, 6,970sqft. I could turn that land over to growing food. But the problem is, growing food is a full time job and if I spend all my time growing food for my wife and myself, I’m not making money to pay the mortgage, and soon I have nothing.

            I could pay someone else to grow my food, they aren’t going to do it for free, but if I’m going to do that, I may as well keep my property as it is (not much you can grow on 0.16 acres) and just buy my food at a store.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok, so it sounds like in your case, the market is morality, if I am understanding you. So you would be cool with buying and selling slaves and paying hit men to kill people? All that would be good because everyone was paid?

      Have you though about this stuff seriously?

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re making a disingenous slippery slope argument. The law isn’t about morality either, it’s about what is and is not legal.

        Slavery isn’t illegal because it’s immoral, it’s illegal because one person doesn’t have the right to take away another persons self determination. You can choose to hire them, and they can choose to work for you, but you can’t force them to do anything.

        By the same reason, you don’t have the right to take another persons food without paying them for it. That’s theft.

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I am not making a slippery slope argument. I am just trying to understand your moral framework, or see if you have any.

          Yes, lets talk about laws, maybe that will help. Ok, laws are not just some magic thing that happens, they are developed by society, right? In fact you can argue that laws are related to morality. In a truly democratic society laws would derivative of morality, right?

          Humans develop constructs like laws and capitatim to help us do things. So it is important for us to not derive our morality from existing structures, because if we did, we could never evolve them in a way to help us do more/better things. I know this is kind of abstract and I am sorry about that.

          So you are using existing laws and economic systems to argue for the correctness of the current laws and economic systems. Using this approach I could argue that that Feudalism is pretty awesome because it is way better than the stone age, etc…

          This is why I am wondering if you have given any thought to your moral frame work, or if you have just accepted the status quo and are trying to justify it because you don’t have a framework.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, laws have absolutely jack all to do with morality, and when they do (prohibition for example) they inevitably fail.

            Laws exist to define which rights supercede other rights.

            So, for example, in my state there are three cases where I can use lethal force:

            1. If someone is or is about to commit a violent felony on me.
            2. If someone is breaking into my house.
            3. If someone is or is about to commit a violent felony on someone else.

            So, I see a dude walking down the street swinging a machete (I live in Portland, it’s not as crazy as you’d think.)

            I don’t have the right to just plug the guy. That would be illegal. He has the right to be in public, swinging around a machete.

            Now, if he’s swinging it AT ME or someone else, or chasing them or threatening them, then it’s a different deal and my right to be safe in a public space supercedes his right to wave his arms in the air like he just don’t care.

            Again, laws are not present to pick moral winners and losers.

            • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I completely disagree. Why are there laws to prevent people from killing each other? Why would we as a society bother to make that a thing? It’s morality. It’s the basis of everything.

              If the most common moral framework didn’t hold that human life is valuable. Then we wouldn’t make those laws. It wouldn’t make sense for those laws to be on the books.

              And yes the laws do and should pick winners and losers. If you are a serial killer, the laws are not in your favor, your a loser.

              • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There are laws against killing because you don’t have the right to deprive another sentient being of their right to live and potentially contribute something to society as a whole (even if that contribution is merely to serve as a bad example.)

                Again, laws are not moral or immoral, that’s not why we have laws. Cheating on your significant other is immoral, it’s not illegal. There are a whole host of things people consider to be immoral based on their own upbringing or religion that are not illegal.

                Attempting to legislate morality is a fast way to failure. See the 18th and 21st amendments to the Constitution.