The following is part of a conversation I am having with someone else. But I seek help responding to the latest response.
Me: What is wrong with the use or utilization or a good or service, especially for profit; in other words, what is wrong with exploitation?
Other person: Well I think that comes down to being an ethical choice. For me, I think exploitation is wrong. Though of course I am very aware of how intricate it is in all our lives, even my own. But being someone who has spent most of her life on the side of the exploited, I can definitely say I have many problems with it. It seems that evolution (of which I am a firm believer) justifies things like exploitation and profit and whatnot. Being an idealist, I'd like to think that one day as a society we can grow beyond our barbaric origins. Or at least we can try to work toward a more just society. But I guess none of this applies to you though, because you don't think this system, which we can call capitalism if you like, is unjust. So it's comes down to ethical differences, and different life experiences.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Say this: All I heard was "blah blah blah". Now go back to the kitchen and fix me a sammich!
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus: Say this: All I heard was "blah blah blah". Now go back to the kitchen and fix me a sammich!
I hereby award you with the award for most hilarious post evarrr!
I feel exploited after reading that transcription by the way.
I think the problem is that the other person misunderstand the benefits of Capitalism. Ultimately, I think that Capitalist is utilitarian, because its a system of individual social contracts which benefits all parties involved. When a worker agrees to a labor contract that worker has already thought rationally—he has already thought out the marginal costs and the marginal benefits, and has decided that the benefits outweigh the cost. The same is true in any Capitalistic transaction, where nobody is coercing the other party to agree to the terms presented. This includes low-cost transactions in Africa, East Asia and other Third World geographical areas—those workers would not accept the terms if they had better options. China is a recent example of Capitalistic success, given that wages nearly doubled prior the bust.
I work for minimum wage, so I guess I'm on the side of the "exploited". I admit that I would like to have a higher wage, but it is not within my means to gain that higher wage. The only way I can get a higher wage is by coercing my employer to give me a raise. That contract would not benefit both parties, especially since my employer is not ensuring increased productivity out of me. As a student of economics, I understand basic labor relationships. Unfortunately, most do not and believe they are being exploited. Tell your friend to quit his or her job, and see if he or she rather be unemployed or making minimum wage.
Economic Thought (Latest Post): Don't Be Fooled by GDP
I just don't understand this.
If somebody is against "exploitation" - then they are against mutually beneficial trade, because there is profit involved on each side. Each person performs the trade because they benefit (ex ante).
So, somebody opposed to "exploitation" is against all trade. And then people basically die.
How has this person been "exploited"? If the relationships she has been in have not been of benefit to her, why did she enter into them and continue with them? She's arguing the perfect. In a perfect world with perfect people there would be no wants, everyone would be as intelligent, physically able as anyone else, and everyone would have the same opportunities and achieve the same results for any given pursuit. There would be manna from heaven, etc., etc., etc.
This perfect world is unattainable, therefore it can be used to argue against any system or scenario short of being perfect. So, put bluntly, what's her point? Sounds to me like she's just using the fact that her life is not ideal as some post hoc justification for her claim to being 'exploited'. She profited from her decisions too though, and everyone's life is less than ideal. So her point is... confused and kind of amorphous. I don't see a possible ethical objection to two people voluntarily doing something together, be it trading goods, services, body fluids, or whatever.
Daniel: The following is part of a conversation I am having with someone else. But I seek help responding to the latest response. Me: What is wrong with the use or utilization or a good or service, especially for profit; in other words, what is wrong with exploitation? Other person: Well I think that comes down to being an ethical choice. For me, I think exploitation is wrong. Though of course I am very aware of how intricate it is in all our lives, even my own. But being someone who has spent most of her life on the side of the exploited, I can definitely say I have many problems with it. It seems that evolution (of which I am a firm believer) justifies things like exploitation and profit and whatnot. Being an idealist, I'd like to think that one day as a society we can grow beyond our barbaric origins. Or at least we can try to work toward a more just society. But I guess none of this applies to you though, because you don't think this system, which we can call capitalism if you like, is unjust. So it's comes down to ethical differences, and different life experiences.
After reading this it appears that Daniel's definition of exploitation is "utilisation of a good or service", whereas the other person's is "stealing surplus value from the workers".
So if you wish to avoid talking past one another, adopt his erroneous view of exploitation and demolish it...
Irish Liberty Forum
MatthewWilliam: Daniel: The following is part of a conversation I am having with someone else. But I seek help responding to the latest response. Me: What is wrong with the use or utilization or a good or service, especially for profit; in other words, what is wrong with exploitation? Other person: Well I think that comes down to being an ethical choice. For me, I think exploitation is wrong. Though of course I am very aware of how intricate it is in all our lives, even my own. But being someone who has spent most of her life on the side of the exploited, I can definitely say I have many problems with it. It seems that evolution (of which I am a firm believer) justifies things like exploitation and profit and whatnot. Being an idealist, I'd like to think that one day as a society we can grow beyond our barbaric origins. Or at least we can try to work toward a more just society. But I guess none of this applies to you though, because you don't think this system, which we can call capitalism if you like, is unjust. So it's comes down to ethical differences, and different life experiences. After reading this it appears that Daniel's definition of exploitation is "utilisation of a good or service", whereas the other person's is "stealing surplus value from the workers". So if you wish to avoid talking past one another, adopt his erroneous view of exploitation and demolish it...
I anticipated that, which is why I made explicit what my definition of exploitation was. However, she obviously ignored it.
Note that the "Other Person" is one of the exploited, of course that person is a victim. In this day and age, it seems that everyone is some sort of a victim.
I do think that both Me and Other Person are ignorant of economics. A person who profits from mutually agreeable transactions for mutual benefit IS NOT AN EXPLOITER. I am not exploited by my employer nor am I exploited by any oil company or by the so called "Monopolist" Bill Gates. I exchange with these people/peoples on mutually agreeable terms for mutual benefit. The fact that my employer benefits in my opinion more than I do is not relevant as I can simply go find another employer. I am not explolited by Walmart, if I do not like their terms then I am free to go to Target or Sears or Home Depot.
The exploitation comes in where the terms are not mutually agreeable although there may be mutual benefit, in other words there is force applied to one party in the exchange. For example, Both me and my city contracted garbage collector benefit from me paying taxes for garbage collection and him receiving those taxes. But it is not mutually agreeable. I did not consent to the lone contractor and can not go find another one. So this transaction in addition to being exploitative, me being exploited is also inefficient.
Bogart: Note that the "Other Person" is one of the exploited, of course that person is a victim. In this day and age, it seems that everyone is some sort of a victim. I do think that both Me and Other Person are ignorant of economics. A person who profits from mutually agreeable transactions for mutual benefit IS NOT AN EXPLOITER. I am not exploited by my employer nor am I exploited by any oil company or by the so called "Monopolist" Bill Gates. I exchange with these people/peoples on mutually agreeable terms for mutual benefit. The fact that my employer benefits in my opinion more than I do is not relevant as I can simply go find another employer. I am not explolited by Walmart, if I do not like their terms then I am free to go to Target or Sears or Home Depot. The exploitation comes in where the terms are not mutually agreeable although there may be mutual benefit, in other words there is force applied to one party in the exchange. For example, Both me and my city contracted garbage collector benefit from me paying taxes for garbage collection and him receiving those taxes. But it is not mutually agreeable. I did not consent to the lone contractor and can not go find another one. So this transaction in addition to being exploitative, me being exploited is also inefficient.
You're making the same mistake that Other Person made. Both of you seem to believe that there is something wrong with exploitation, but the only thing wrong is its negative connotation. Re-read the definition of exploiation.
"Exploit" as a synonym of "use" is technical jargon these days; similarly, "sentient" is only(if ever) used in its original definition("having sensory perception") in certain fields.
Keynes must've been a fan of Brave New World; why else would he write a book about its economics?
BioTube: "Exploit" as a synonym of "use" is technical jargon these days; similarly, "sentient" is only(if ever) used in its original definition("having sensory perception") in certain fields.
You make a good. But then why do many of us continue to call our selves capitalists?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap