Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaylorAlexander | Hacker News Reader

I do not believe anyone should be compelled to work against their will. If we want to lock them up, we pay for it.

So what about cases where the penalty is a fine instead of (or in addition to) prison time? If I get a ticket, I have to pay. For the majority of people, that money comes through doing work of some form, which I'm now being required to do or else face possible prison time.

Yes, fines are far more punitive to poor people than they are for the rich. They're effectively just a small expense which allows them to commit crimes.

The fact that society forces us to work harder and harder in order just to live, when it could easily sustain a dignified standard of living for all at minimal cost, is the fundamental problem that people on the left are against.

That's why I love how Finland does at least some of their fines: set at X days' income for each given offense. Granted, my losing a week's income would be a lot less painful for me than it would be for a single mother working as a home health aide, but it at least approaches fairness (we both lose the benefit of a week of our own work, but without the complete upheaval that a week in jail would have caused us)

If a non-incarcerated person finds it necessary to work in order to pay for their food and housing, are they being forced to work against their will?

A non-incarcerated person has agency. They have a choice of what work to do, where that work takes place, when to work, the ability to negotiate wages, etc.

Not being independently wealthy, I don’t have a choice to work or not. In that sense, if I wanted not to work, then, yes, I would be working against my will.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

Edit: I should clarify, I have the choice not to work and be homeless, but that’s such a deplorable choice, it doesn’t constitute a real, free choice.

Sure you do have a choice; you can go live in the wilderness and live entirely self-sufficiently. Just because a choice is unreasonable to you doesn't make it less of a choice.

More importantly (and my entire point) is that you have a choice of exactly what kind of work you want to do. That self-determination differentiates you from a prisoner or slave.

You’re really reaching here. Who’s to say I have the skills to do that? Where do I get the basic supplies to do so, without working for money? And on whose land do I do it? What do I do when I need medical care? What if I already have a chronic illness that needs periodic attention (as, in fact, I do.) You’re telling me that going off into the woods to die is a viable alternative to working a job for money to live in an apartment and be able to go to doctors?

My point is that I have no choice other than to do something someone else will pay me to do. You haven’t addressed the argument; you are begging the question. “Work or die” sounds a lot like slavery to me.

Please reply again when you have a good faith argument.

I responded with an extreme example because of your extreme conflation of "needing to do some type of work of your choosing" with wage slavery. You seem to be ignoring the central point that you GET TO CHOOSE THAT WORK.

You said I get to choose exactly what type of work I want to do. That’s like saying I can choose to be executed by the gas chamber or lethal injection. The consequences of not working, as someone who is not independently wealthy are so extreme as to make that not a valid choice.

You are still begging the question. Do I get to choose not to work, or not? “Just go off and die,” on the streets or in the wilderness is not a valid choice.

There seems to be a huge break in the "it's unreasonable to do x therefore" in this argument, and many in American society.

If the prisoners who didn't work were next to starving, and sleeping on the ground, you would sure have someone come in asserting that they are "forced" to work. Because they are OSTENSIBLY being forced to work by the choices they are offered.

This type of pedantry goes beyond semantics and into deeper meaning that is very hard to communicate.

If I didn’t have to, I wouldn’t be working in the sense that I do now. I’d be pursuing interests that may or may not make money, but would bring me personal fulfillment.

If we chase this line of logic we will find that we are all slaves to something or another.

It's about whether or not we want society to force certain types of slavery. We've barred "defacto" slavery, but what about these myriad other forms?

Dragging old concepts out of their graves by repurposing words we thought we already knew the definitions is one way that progressives are trying to re-try, or appeal, certain concepts.

This one being modern imprisonment. I don't think the term slavery should alarm anyone in this instance, but it will, which is how we get progress in 2018.

Not all of us are slaves. Those with enough wealth get to buy their way out of rules that apply to ordinary people. Do you really think Jeff Bezos is a slave?

Well, yes. Food and housing should be human rights. A fulfilling or comfortable life is not, but life is a human right.

But even if you don't agree with that interpretation of the human right of life, prisoners typically aren't free participants in the market. They're being paid well below average wages for the work they're doing, which a) makes it feel like a technicality that they're getting paid for their work, and b) distorts the market for everyone else.

The right /to/ life is different from the right /of/ life.

The right to life means that no one can deprive you of your life, but neither is society obligated to ensure you have a life.

The right of life means that you are owed a life and it must be given to you by the relevant authorities.

The reason this is important because the former gives you control over your life, and the latter operates at the whim of the governing authority. To make that a little clearer, the right to life requires passive governmental involvement, the right of life requires active governmental involvement. Guess which one goes out the window as soon as its inconvenient.

</pedantry>

This seems inconsistent with how, if you are put in prison, the government is obligated to provide you with food and shelter at no cost to you. If you only have a right "to" life in your interpretation, could not the government say, you need to pay out of pocket for food and shelter, and if you can't afford it, it's your fault you're starving to death in a dungeon?

And given the potential savings, why don't more governments do exactly that?

That obligation is separate from the right to life. It falls more under the social contract than human rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com