[ExI] Social right to have a living

[Kelly Anderson]

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 02:18:09PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Damien Sullivan
>
>> > I note a difference between "becoming rich" and "becoming rich
>> > ethically".
>>
> Hey, we can agree on a lot.

It's a start.

>> The following things are NOT unethical
>>
>> - Child labor (where the children choose to work)
> I think this is more problematic, given the ability of children to make
> an informed choice about work vs. education, and the possibility of
> parental exploitation.  Pace John Holt, this 'freedom' should come only
> with a bunch of other liberties or protections for children.

One huge difficulty in libertarianism (and other political systems) is
balancing the liberty of parents to raise their children as they see
fit with the liberty of children to do whatever they want. I don't
want to open children up for unlimited abuse, nor do I want the state
telling parents how to raise their children in detail (nanny state).

A child under a certain age (say 8 or 9) probably should be
represented in conflict with their parents by a surrogate. That is, a
child that has been seriously abused should be represented by another
adult. Perhaps from the government, but preferably from some
non-governmental organization with appropriate balances and appeal
rights. The right of a child to be free from abuse is important.
Parents should have rights to discipline their children by spanking
and similar, but there has to be limits. Similarly, for a child under
8 to work, another adult (someone without an interest) should have to
agree to that.

Most of all, whatever system there is has to work faster than today's
system. Some of my children have been in state care for nearly three
years! This is unacceptable. In "child time" this is like a decade or
more!

At some point, the government must make the rules, and provide some
degree of a justice system. I would lean to this being as light as
possible.

>> - Hiring huge amounts of labor at market prices (some call this
>> exploiting the masses)
>
> Note "market price" depends on the alternative opportunities available
> to the masses, which may in turn be constrained by previous unethical
> behavior.  Hiring landless workers at market prices, workers who are
> landless because they were kicked off their land by others, seems like a
> problematic grey area.  You may not be doing anything directly wrong
> yourself, but the whole system is messed-up and you're profiting from
> injustices.  Like, hrm, buying stolen goods.  You didn't steal them,
> but...

I refuse to be responsible for the actions of others, including my
ancestors. This is the slave reparations argument, and I don't buy
that either. Life is not fair, get over it and move on! The only thing
that CAN and SHOULD be made fair is that there should be liberty to
live one's life according to your own choice. You can't pick the
circumstances of your birth, but everything after that should be a
choice. Being landless is a minor issue in today's economy in any
case. Not having an education is a bigger problem, and I struggle with
whether public education should be provided, only insofar as it is an
instrument of the state in indoctrinating the proles. It is not a
problem IMHO with regards to teaching reading, writing, 'rithmatic and
economic literacy.

>> - Taking advantage of the benefits acquired through culture, history,
>> education and relations.
>> - Networking (it's not what you know, but who)
>
> How about profiting from benefits and networking derived from racial
> prejudice?

You can't legislate your way out of that one. It has to be wrong
according to the zeitgeist. I am part of the current zeitgeist that
says racism is wrong. The selfish gene gets in the way of that
sometimes... but that doesn't make it right.

> Networking can seem innocent on the surface, but the counterpart is the
> reduced ability of those not in the old boys' (say) network to have the
> same opportunities.  "With hard work and your parents knowing the right
> people anyone can get ahead!"  The solutions aren't obvious to me but
> dismissing the concern doesn't seem right either.

Again, I don't like the old boy's network, but it can't be fixed by a
political solution. It must be wrong according to the zeitgeist.
Hollywood has more to do with this than Washington. (Frightening)

-Kelly