From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 12:47:36 MDT
owner-extropians@extropy.org wrote:
> Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
>
> > Why do we think it's somehow "right" to forbid contracts for pay
> that's > not sufficient for living alone? Since when do we expect
> that everyone > capable of working should also be capable of living
> alone?
>
> It's a point of ideology. The notion is anyone willing to work a 40
> hour week, to contribute meaningfully to the well being of the
> broader community, is entitled to a subsistence standard of living
> and a measure of basic human dignity. That entitlement is independent
> of the amount of value one actually produces, and it's more important
> that the system be approximately just than perfectly efficient.
>
> At least that's the philosophical perspective from which forbidding
> some kinds of contract makes sense, though of course it's only one
> possible approach.
### But forbidding a below-minimum wage contract does not make the poor
person more likely to have a "dignified existence". Quite the contrary, as
evidenced by current levels of unemployment. Regardless of one's ideology,
minimum wage laws are irrational, whether you want to benefit the rich or
the poor.
Also, the use of "dignity" as a general catch-phrase to bolster one's
ideology is manipulative. No nice person would oppose "dignity", and this is
why so many want to twist the meaning of the word to sell the pet project.
There is nothing undignified with sharing an apartment with others (as I do,
to save money). If I can do it, the janitors can do it as well.
There is much more dignity in honest work than in demanding freebies.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 09:56:11 MDT