Hacker News Reader

Comment by peacetreefrog | Hacker News Reader

This is a great issue to view through the lens of economist Arnold Kling's "3 axis model" (1) which says people tend to view issues through three separate lenses: oppressed vs oppressor (liberals), freedom vs coercion (libertarians) and civilization vs barbarism (conservatives).

It's pretty clear those in favor of the law view companies's as oppressing and exploiting their workers by making them read email after work to get ahead.

Those against would say it's a question of freedom. Companies are free to make outside of 9-5 email part of the job description, and get rid of people who don't measure up. Workers are free to find jobs where that's not expected.

Not sure the civ-barb axis really fits in that well here, but conservatives might view hard work and long hours as good traits we don't want to discourage, much less outlaw.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Languages-Politics-Arnold-Kling...

View on HN

I'm not familiar with Kling's model, but that seems like a terribly reductionist model. It scarcely sums up the range of ontological perspectives in America right now, let alone anywhere else in the world, and especially let alone outside of the present context.

I skimmed through Kling's history and some of his writings and I'd wager that he doesn't exactly have a pre-eminent voice on politics.

Well, it is a model.

I think it's helpful in seeing where people are coming from on different issues. And note, it's not like all three axis are "valid" or "right" or have equal weight for every given issue.

For example, I think most people today (regardless of party or political affiliation) would tend to view the issue of segregation and Jim Crow laws in terms of the oppressed vs oppressor axis, which makes sense.

Wish I understood the pro-business slant of libertarianism.

As companies become more and more powerful it seems reasonable to ask why it's the company's freedom that we protect rather than the individual's.

Surely one can see the company as governing our lives by making these rules, therefore restricting our freedom.

For one, if you limit your definition of freedom to "freedom to do things" and disregard "freedom from things", you end up being pro-organized-power, which is essentially pro-business.

What do you mean the companies making the rules? Do you mean laws or rules like "you have to check your email after 5 pm"?

You've framed the issue in a way that I think obscures a straightforward application of core libertarian principles.

Companies are just associations of people bound by various contracts, all freely entered into into.

So the libertarian belief in freedom of association and freedom of contract lead naturally to the support of any voluntarily formed organization including companies of all types, churches, non-profits, little leagues, partnerships, activist groups, and so on.

Au contraire, it could be the height of secular barbarism to force us to work around the clock like those San Francisco liberals, without time for appreciating a good book, raising families, or attending Mass.

EDIT: Or not, I'm just guessing...

Yes perhaps. I think the civilization vs barbarism axis is the one most most up in the air on this issue. Some conservatives might view the always plugged/everyone on their phone in culture as harmful and might be in favor of something like this. I know many religious Jewish people keep Shabbot, where they don't use tech for 25 hours.

But I also think you could make the argument that the oppressed-oppressor axis is coming through a bit in the "force us to work around the clock" part of your comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com