Someone smarter than me is probably gonna own me after this comment, and I know this is a comic so it can’t include a ton of nuance, but if I willingly exchange/gift my property to someone else, they didn’t gain it through violence (state or otherwise). Sure, the threat of violence might prevent someone else from breaking the social contract, but it isn’t like the buyer did something unethical to acquire the property.
This pig is obviously a capitalist libertarian private property owner stand-in. If you exploit other people’s labor by paying them a wage lower than the value of their labor, you are effectively stealing from them. Profits are theft via extortion.
You may say “they both agree to this, that’s what makes it ethical”. I disagree. If you are held at gunpoint, you will do what the person says, it doesn’t mean it was willing. This is called being “under duress”. If not working for a property owner means that you face homelessness, starvation, and police violence; your life is similarly threatened.
the reason why you’re faced with homelessness if you don’t work for a company is because we don’t have an universal basic income. therefore, truly “free will employment” can only exist if there’s strong enough social safety nets sothat you don’t need to work. only then can the property of the owning class actually be accumulated through a series of “freely entered into” contracts.
And even if they’re not being held at gunpoint, a difference in available information between the parties can make it unethical. Consoder if the employer says someone’s labor is worth x amount, but it’s really worth significantly more. But then the employer doesn’t disclose that and does everything in their power to make sure the employee doesn’t know the true value than their labor, that’s effectively lying and therefore unethical.
Willing agreements can only be ethical when all parties involved are fully informed. It’s one of the fundamental principles under age of consent laws
For sure. I’m only taking issue with the last panel’s broad assertion that any gain of property is the result of violence. The landlord in this comic is an asshat.
When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, […] knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains.
A person only has the rights they can hold on to.
— Kumo Crew
I feel like this quote from Elite: Dangerous sums up well, the lower bound.
In the comic, the other animals that freely decided to abide by the non-aggression principle lacked a way to ensure compliance by those, outside of the contract.
Not amassing power is a good way to prevent internal threats, but in case of external threats, which will amass power, this makes it too weak.
Are we responsible for the sins of the fathers? For how many generations? No thank you. And if the state has to use force to prevent someone from taking my property by force, does that really count?
Just like you don’t want to be affected by the actions of your fathers and not be held accountable for their sins, others don’t want to still be affected by the exploitation of their father’s.
History still affects us either way, there is no getting around it. Not even if you say no thank you.
Just like you don’t want to be affected by the actions of your fathers and not be held accountable for their sins, others don’t want to still be affected by the exploitation of their father’s.
Just like you don’t (…) actions of your fathers (…) others don’t want to still be affected by the exploitation of YOUR father
the owner abused the poor people, because he has a capital and they don’t. and he will now charge them everything they have for the rest of their lives.
in wild west, people used guns to take everything from you,
we live in a world where people with money convinced people without them to forgo weapons and accept money as a means to play the same game, and he used his money against them in the exact same manner as he would use the weapons. and so you can argue it is unethical in a same way as being robbed at gunpoint.
and this their power is only power because we tolerate it. this comics is about what happens when we finally stop.
Someone smarter than me is probably gonna own me after this comment, and I know this is a comic so it can’t include a ton of nuance, but if I willingly exchange/gift my property to someone else, they didn’t gain it through violence (state or otherwise). Sure, the threat of violence might prevent someone else from breaking the social contract, but it isn’t like the buyer did something unethical to acquire the property.
Unethical is a matter of prospective and degrees.
This pig is obviously a capitalist libertarian private property owner stand-in. If you exploit other people’s labor by paying them a wage lower than the value of their labor, you are effectively stealing from them. Profits are theft via extortion.
You may say “they both agree to this, that’s what makes it ethical”. I disagree. If you are held at gunpoint, you will do what the person says, it doesn’t mean it was willing. This is called being “under duress”. If not working for a property owner means that you face homelessness, starvation, and police violence; your life is similarly threatened.
the reason why you’re faced with homelessness if you don’t work for a company is because we don’t have an universal basic income. therefore, truly “free will employment” can only exist if there’s strong enough social safety nets sothat you don’t need to work. only then can the property of the owning class actually be accumulated through a series of “freely entered into” contracts.
And even if they’re not being held at gunpoint, a difference in available information between the parties can make it unethical. Consoder if the employer says someone’s labor is worth x amount, but it’s really worth significantly more. But then the employer doesn’t disclose that and does everything in their power to make sure the employee doesn’t know the true value than their labor, that’s effectively lying and therefore unethical.
Willing agreements can only be ethical when all parties involved are fully informed. It’s one of the fundamental principles under age of consent laws
For sure. I’m only taking issue with the last panel’s broad assertion that any gain of property is the result of violence. The landlord in this comic is an asshat.
The comic, and the deeper philosophical meaning talks about a lower bound, not an upper bound (pick your own point of reference).
What is necessary to force a system against somebody else’s will. A gift or exchange implies agreement and cooperation.
I feel like this quote from Elite: Dangerous sums up well, the lower bound.
In the comic, the other animals that freely decided to abide by the non-aggression principle lacked a way to ensure compliance by those, outside of the contract.
Not amassing power is a good way to prevent internal threats, but in case of external threats, which will amass power, this makes it too weak.
What the story of that property? Wharever it’s come to you came from violence at some point in history, and was maintained by that violence.
Are we responsible for the sins of the fathers? For how many generations? No thank you. And if the state has to use force to prevent someone from taking my property by force, does that really count?
Just like you don’t want to be affected by the actions of your fathers and not be held accountable for their sins, others don’t want to still be affected by the exploitation of their father’s.
History still affects us either way, there is no getting around it. Not even if you say no thank you.
Just like you don’t (…) actions of your fathers (…) others don’t want to still be affected by the exploitation of YOUR father
the owner abused the poor people, because he has a capital and they don’t. and he will now charge them everything they have for the rest of their lives.
in wild west, people used guns to take everything from you, we live in a world where people with money convinced people without them to forgo weapons and accept money as a means to play the same game, and he used his money against them in the exact same manner as he would use the weapons. and so you can argue it is unethical in a same way as being robbed at gunpoint.
and this their power is only power because we tolerate it. this comics is about what happens when we finally stop.