Soul Destroying Labour

[grasping the after wind]

But people do, so local food prices inflate, and therefore people can be forced to join in or starve.

Where are you finding this connection between sweatshops and inflation of local food prices? Additionally, Do you measure the dignity of work by the wage offered to perform it? Should wages be higher for "undignified" work because of the lack of those willing to supply it and therefore "dignified" work should be less well paid because there is additional worth to the work that offsets the lower monetary remuneration? In other words should the cleaner of toilets who feels that his work is degrading be paid much more than the professor who believe that his work is a boon to humanity? OR is the wage the thing that makes them think that their work is either important or degrading?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Im asking not telling. Is there such a thing as soul destroying work. If so, is it a moral evil?

 

[Yekcidmij]

I think soul destroying labor would be something like paying someone more than their labor is actually worth and what it should actually earn. It gives them a sense of entitlement, dependency, and false sense of importance. It discourages learning, self improvement, and finding ways to acquire newer and better skills to use their labor more efficient, contributive, and productive manner. It turns a persons soul into a part of the collective to be taken care of by Papa Society rather than being recognized as a valuable individual worthy of respect. Nothing could be much more soul destroying.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Im asking not telling. Is there such a thing as soul destroying work. If so, is it a moral evil?

Murder, thievery, rape, etc. - iow - sin is "soul destroying" work.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Im asking not telling. Is there such a thing as soul destroying work. If so, is it a moral evil?

No to the first which makes the second question moot. Laziness and greed, however , are both definitely soul destroyers. I'm answering and not explaining.

 

[Shane Roach]

I don't even know where to begin trying to wrap my head around the solutions being offered here. Labor is destroyed because of three fundamental policies.

1. All the currency in circulation, not just in this country but pretty much world wide (there are some few exceptions) is issued by banks with the full permission of governments at interest. It is impossible to pay off the debt of nations currently because to do so is to withdraw almost all currency from circulation.

2. IP laws make it impossible to compete with large companies that gather all the IP and pop a squat on it. It is also extremely bad for free speech, and finally it makes teaching almost impossible. Anything of practical use that could be taught in school has to be done in the framework of not violating any of the now literally millions of mines laid by IP laws and their advocates.

3. Limited liability corporations are merely another word for slavery. A handful of people own other people's labor. These organizations buy up resources and kill jobs. It's so bad now that people, in all good faith, will actually mouth the phrase, "the rich create jobs." People are utterly unconscious of the fact that we do not live in a world that is short on work to do. We live in a world that is long on greed, and short on people with vision. The rich merely hoard wealth and refuse to let go of it unless they see a way of getting even richer.

After a while, it gets difficult to run an economy this way.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think soul destroying labor would be something like paying someone more than their labor is actually worth and what it should actually earn. It gives them a sense of entitlement, dependency, and false sense of importance. It discourages learning, self improvement, and finding ways to acquire newer and better skills to use their labor more efficient, contributive, and productive manner. It turns a persons soul into a part of the collective to be taken care of by Papa Society rather than being recognized as a valuable individual worthy of respect. Nothing could be much more soul destroying.

On the contrary, people do not OWE you or anyone else any labor at all. All their labor should be self serving by default. You have no business even making the judgment of what another person's labor is worth. "Papa Society" limits access to land, access to raw materials, and in the modern economy even restricts the right to do things for yourself via IP laws.

No one owes you their labor. No one owes you their peace either when you attempt to starve them into slavery.

 

[Yekcidmij]

On the contrary, people do not OWE you or anyone else any labor at all. All their labor should be self serving by default. You have no business even making the judgment of what another person's labor is worth. "Papa Society" limits access to land, access to raw materials, and in the modern economy even restricts the right to do things for yourself via IP laws.

No one owes you their labor. No one owes you their peace either when you attempt to starve them into slavery.

I think you really misunderstood what I said. You should probably read more carefully.

 

[Steve Petersen]

So there is dignity in cleaning toilets for a meagre wage? I would say if there is, then it results from a trade off with another kind of dignity, what I beieve "eudaimonists" might call flourishing. It is an affront ot the potential of the soul (or the brain) to have it "slave away" cleaning toilets for the majority of it's functional existence without much concern for its feelings or its intellectual life.

It is probably role specialisation that has created that situation, and that has probably resulted from the technologisation of man management.

There is an axiom in Judaism: All work is honorable.

Because work was commanded by God. It is obedience.

Paul reiterated the necessity of work. He even supported himself.

Now, where one is unable to work, God also made charity a requirement.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think you really misunderstood what I said. You should probably read more carefully.

There is no way to misunderstand what you said. You expressed that it is wrong in your opinion to pay someone more than they are worth, and yet you have no right to decide what a human being or their labor is worth. It is not the role of the many to have their work judged of greater or lesser worth by the few and the priviledged. It is quite easy to remove that priviledge in fact, and this is exactly what needs to be done.

 

[Yekcidmij]

you have no right to decide what a human being or their labor is worth.

If I'm the employer I certainly do. If they don't like what I offer to pay them, they go somewhere else or negotiate a wage with me. If I'm employing someone and they demand too much for their wage, I'm under to obligation to meet their demand. If a janitor working for me demands $500,000,000 a week, I'm certainly not going to pay them such a ridiculous price. Surely you wouldn't either, which would mean you are judging what their labor is worth. A wage rate is determined by a voluntary exchange between employee AND employer. If I'm an employer I certainly do have a right to determine how much of my own money I'm going to spend on hiring someone to work for me, just as they have the right to decide for what price they will lend me their labor. Once an agreement is reached, the wage has been determined.

Your labor is not worth infinite value. I'm not going to pay you just any ol' thing you want.

It is not the role of the many to have their work judged of greater or lesser worth by the few and the priviledged.

Then go work for someone else, or work for yourself. If I'm an employer, I'm absolutely going to judge your work and what it's worth. If you don't like my offering price and if we can't negotiate an acceptable wage, then you go somewhere else.

It is quite easy to remove that priviledge in fact, and this is exactly what needs to be done.

Good luck getting a job and having a higher standard of living then. Maybe you can spend your life with a picket sign in hand demanding everyone take care of you and give you free stuff. Maybe you can complain about how people judge you and how you are entitled to X, Y and Z. Maybe you can band together with others like you and vote to take other people's money and funnel it back into yourself. Just don't expect to be hired and have a job and don't expect the "priviledged" to stay around while you steal from them and don't expect to raise your standard of living.

 

[Shane Roach]

We seem to have done just fine without a King. I suspect the improvements to come once industrial and financial elites become answerable to the public will be similarly pleasant.

 

[Yekcidmij]

We seem to have done just fine without a King. I suspect the improvements to come once industrial and financial elites become answerable to the public will be similarly pleasant.

So, you're basically just out to get people who make more than you. It sounds more like a problem of jealousy than anything else.

 

[Shane Roach]

So, you're basically just out to get people who make more than you. It sounds more like a problem of jealousy than anything else.

I think I have made it clear that what I object to is your assumption that we need any sort of "leadership" whose function is to take the vast majority of the profit of other people's labor. I object to people making money off of the work of others. I object to any system that has this as its ultimate effect. I object to any made up moral authority that claims that this is the way things are "supposed" to be. And finally, I reject outright the silly claim that the Bible supports these sorts of systems. It does not. In fact, when the people of Israel demanded a king, God mocked them by granting them kings after explaining in minute detail just how disgusting the very concept of a king is.

We have no need of kings -- not by any name, and not under any pretended authority.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I object to people making money off of the work of others.

OK, then don't expect to actually have a better standard of living.

I object to any made up moral authority that claims that this is the way things are "supposed" to be.

Except that's exactly what you're doing.

We have no need of kings -- not by any name, and not under any pretended authority.

Which is why everyone would be wise to reject your ideas.

 

[Shane Roach]

It's funny to me how you reject the authority of the Bible, replace it with un-Christian ideas about ownership, debt, charity and so forth, then turn around and accuse me of doing what you actually do when I have cited my source. I promote freedom and you say I am trying to set up a king?

I only hope more people like you make your attitude towards the bulk of humanity known in the way you made it known to me here today. The more people realize to what extent our current leaders despise us all and consider us disposable and stupid, the more quickly they will rouse themselves to action.

By the way, I have always worked and have not once suggested people should not diligently work. I do not believe in people getting a free ride. Indeed, getting a free ride is what you HAVE to do to get substantially richer than the average person, and the laws put in place to allow people to do that simply need changing. That's all it will take.

Sadly, judging from history, the rich will not let go of their ill gotten gains through discussion. More's the pity because that really would be the best way -- for people to begin to respect each other as human beings rather than treating each other as commodities to be bought or sold, used or discarded.

 

[Steve Petersen]

If I agree to work for a certain amount of money making widgets for someone and the market will pay enough for those widgets to cover my labor, material, and other overhead and still generate a profit for the guy who hires me, how have I been cheated? I agreed to work for a certain wage and benefit package. How has the boss defrauded me?

 

[Yekcidmij]

It's funny to me how you reject the authority of the Bible,

I'm not moved by empty rhetoric.

I promote freedom and you say I am trying to set up a king?

No, I say you're not promoting freedom.

By the way, I have always worked and have not once suggested people should not diligently work. I do not believe in people getting a free ride. Indeed, getting a free ride is what you HAVE to do to get substantially richer than the average person, and the laws put in place to allow people to do that simply need changing. That's all it will take.

Sadly, judging from history, the rich will not let go of their ill gotten gains through discussion. More's the pity because that really would be the best way -- for people to begin to respect each other as human beings rather than treating each other as commodities to be bought or sold, used or discarded.

Why do you care how much money someone has? Did they take it from you?

 

[Shane Roach]

If I agree to work for a certain amount of money making widgets for someone and the market will pay enough for those widgets to cover my labor, material, and other overhead and still generate a profit for the guy who hires me, how have I been cheated? I agreed to work for a certain wage and benefit package. How has the boss defrauded me?

The market is controlled by the widget maker who denies me access to the basic necessities of life unless I work for him on his terms. I do not agree to the terms. I am forced to accept them. Therefore your example does not apply to my experience. If I were able to negotiate on an even footing for such arrangements, well, that would be a different thing, but when laws have been created to literally force me to work for others for their benefit -- IP laws, laws regarding the creation and distribution of legal tender, laws protecting people from being held fiscally accountable for decisions they make in the business place -- then your example does not apply.

 

[Shane Roach]

I'm not moved by empty rhetoric.



No, I say you're not promoting freedom.



Why do you care how much money someone has? Did they take it from you?

What am I promoting then? I have said that I agree with the Bible that people should be charitable and caring. I have pointed out that the neither the Bible nor any other source for moral or ethical authority supports your assertion that property rights regarding access to land are an absolute. And when I say that hoarding these physical assets and using them to force people to work for your benefit is wrong you accuse me of trying to set up a king?

For someone who is unmoved by empty rhetoric, you sure seem to be full of a lot of it.