Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#61

Post by valuearb »

jinjin2 wrote: post #37
Jabanga wrote: post #14

I hate to get pedantic, but with the misuse of terms for the purpose of demagoguing against those with more capital, I feel compelled to point out that an employment relationship is wholly contractual, and therefore not a "tyranny", and perfectly consistent with a completely democratic society. Maybe the author means "egalitarian" or some other concept tangentially related to democracy. Voluntarily formed hierarchies…

A better example would be schools, which are definitely run as tyrannies, and where the students are legally compelled to stay in place. Democratic schools do exist, but they are few and far in between.

That's only true of Public schools, Charter and Private schools give parents the ability to take their kids elsewhere if they are ill-served. Obviously children don't usually get a say, but they usually don't have a say in anything until they become adults.

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#62

Post by Jabanga »

jhbadger wrote: post #48
nxsynonym wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I am following. What would democracy, at its purest form, in a work place look like? Would employees have voters rights over every single decision that would be made? That seems inefficient. I don't think applying democracy to a workplace is crazy, I just don't understand why it's necessary.

Citizens don't have rights over every single decision in a democracy either. They elect representatives. Worker democracy could work similarly. As for why it is "necessary", presumably it would guide decisions so that the needs of the workers were taken into account, which very often doesn't happen.

Worker-owned coops exist. No one is stopping people from forming them. By all means, help develop these organisations. But the government shouldn't be stepping in and prohibiting other voluntary organisational structures.

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#63

Post by Jabanga »

dragonwriter wrote: post #50
nxsynonym wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I am following. What would democracy, at its purest form, in a work place look like? Would employees have voters rights over every single decision that would be made? That seems inefficient. I don't think applying democracy to a workplace is crazy, I just don't understand why it's necessary.

> What would democracy, at its purest form, in a work place look like? Exactly like corporate governance, except that instead of stockholders with voting rights weighted by size and class of their stockholdings, the people voting on the basic rules which govern the degree and manner in which routine authority is delegated to elected directors, officers, etc., are the employees each having an equal vote. > Would emplo…

Do you mean every company should be a worker owned coop? If that's your suggestion, that's already possible. Why not continue giving people the option of working in a traditional hierarchical enterprise, and working in a coop? Why make the latter mandatory?

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#64

Post by Jabanga »

crdoconnor wrote: post #53
nxsynonym wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not making an argument then why even mention it? True freedom is living in a society that provides the necessities for every individual, or living in a completely lawless non-society. What is it that you are getting at, exactly? Or are you just posting to being argumentative (without making an argument).

To determine if you really thought that not being able to choose your master was the distinguishing feature of slavery as you previously claimed. Apparently you didn't really think that. My point was that there's no stark dividing line between freedom and slavery and that wage slavery does indeed share many of the same features as chattel slavery.

Being dependent on someone to survive is not antithetical to freedom. What distinguishes a free society from an unfree one is that in the former, no one violates your right to your person or property, through theft, fraud, violence and threats of violence, as long as you do not violate other people's equal right to the same.

Laws prohibiting private enterprise, or mandating that individuals pay a tax on their private income, limit a person's freedom, as they involve a threat to their person, in a situation where they have not violated any other party's rights.

Freedom does not mean economic security. It does not mean empowerment. These are independent attributes.

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#65

Post by Jabanga »

coldtea wrote: post #52
GhostVII wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice? The governments job is to ensure that regulations allow people to switch jobs without putting their family in jeopardy by having unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc, not the companies job.

> Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice Yes.

You want to compel people to be nice, by force of government?

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#66

Post by Jabanga »

coldtea wrote: post #51
GhostVII wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a minimum wage job not optional? People stay in their minimum wage jobs because it is better than their other options, not because the company forces them too. Really, the company giving the person their minimum wage job is more 'moral' than the other companies in the area, because the other companies offered an even worse job, or didn't offer one at all.

> How is a minimum wage job not optional? People stay in their minimum wage jobs because it is better than their other options, not because the company forces them too. Because by optional we mean a totally free choice -- not merely the necessity to chose among N available options (lest you starve). There are degrees in freedom (a rich person doesn't have to work at all if they don't feel like it), but when you're sc…

You're confusing freedom in the figurative sense, which denotes empowerment, with freedom in the literal sense, which is a state of living where one is not deprived by anyone else of their right to their person or property through force.

The solutions you propose would limit freedom in the literal sense, through taxation of private property and regulatory prohibitions on mutually voluntary interactions.

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#67

Post by TheCoelacanth »

dragonwriter wrote: post #60
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a democracy, shouldn't the middle class get their preferred outcome far more often than the rich since their are far more of them? If the rich get their preferred outcome even just as frequently as the middle class do, they have way more power than they would in a pure democracy.

> In a democracy, shouldn't the middle class get their preferred outcome far more often than the rich since their are far more of them? Even in theory in a democracy, outcomes are not democratically chosen, actions (at some level, which may merely be choice of representative) are; therefore, those who have more resources to devote to understanding the relationship between actions and outcomes, and to understanding ot…

"Democracy" is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes an outcome, not specific methods.

If the outcomes don't match the will of the people, it is not a true democracy regardless of the method of governance used.

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#68

Post by coldtea »

Jabanga wrote: post #65
coldtea wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yea, so the company provides a significant benefit, because without them the person would starve. I don't see why any of that is the companies problem, should they pay people more money just to be nice Yes.

You want to compel people to be nice, by force of government?

Better than compelling them to be selfish.

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#69

Post by coldtea »

Jabanga wrote: post #66
coldtea wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is a minimum wage job not optional? People stay in their minimum wage jobs because it is better than their other options, not because the company forces them too. Because by optional we mean a totally free choice -- not merely the necessity to chose among N available options (lest you starve). There are degrees in freedom (a rich person doesn't have to work at all if they don't feel like it), but when you're sc…

You're confusing freedom in the figurative sense, which denotes empowerment, with freedom in the literal sense, which is a state of living where one is not deprived by anyone else of their right to their person or property through force. The solutions you propose would limit freedom in the literal sense, through taxation of private property and regulatory prohibitions on mutually voluntary interactions.

>You're confusing freedom in the figurative sense, which denotes empowerment, with freedom in the literal sense, which is a state of living where one is not deprived by anyone else of their right to their person or property through force.

This is absolutely not a case of "figurative freedom" vs "literal freedom" -- there's a large body on work on the issue, and the most used terms for those two types of freedom are "negative freedom" (for what you call "literal freedom") and "positive freedom" (for what you call "freedom in the figurative sense"). You might also find them referenced by the simplified terms "freedom from" and "freedom to". In any case, it's very limiting to consider "negative freedom" (the most limited form) as THE "literal" freedom.

I would still argue that hanger is a force, and being obliged to work for food (even if you have a choice of employment options) is not being free in the "literal sense" (you are not "free from hunger") and even less so if your choice is (because of your "market value" or lack of skills, or being unfortunate to be born in a family that couldn't invest in your education) between awful minimum wage jobs.

Just because what compels you is not an actual master/person, but the collective arrangement we call a "job market", and just because you have a choice, doesn't mean you're free or that you enter those contracts without an external force leading your hand.

>The solutions you propose would limit freedom in the literal sense, through taxation of private property and regulatory prohibitions on mutually voluntary interactions.

Voluntary is a spectrum: my solutions will only harm the much-less voluntary types of interactions. Sort of like preventing the poor from selling their kidneys for money -- it's indeed a regulatory prohibition, and they could make a good buck off of it if they were allowed, but I also believe its better to not allow it until it becomes a positive freedom choice and not "what could I do, I had to pay the bills or I'd lose my house" kind of "voluntary" choice.

Re: Americans think they live in a democracy. But workplaces are small tyrannies

#70

Post by Jabanga »

coldtea wrote: post #68
Jabanga wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to compel people to be nice, by force of government?

Better than compelling them to be selfish.

Of course, but that's not the alternative to what you propose.
Post reply on HN