@Outsideness @topynate Christ on sale, that is long even for MM. Skimmed; I'll return if needed.
Q. Is his eventual argument as follows:
-
-
Replying to @CTZN5
@Outsideness@topynate IF we agree no one owns a man or his labor but he himself; THEN a man may sell his labor for any price he accepts ?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CTZN5
@fnxTX@Outsideness it would be closer to say 'labour is always owned by someone/something. modern society just forbids certain owners.'1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @topynate
@fnxTX@Outsideness but yes, the right to sell one's labour unconditionally is the first rung of the ladder Moldbug wants you to climb.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @topynate
@topynate I see no fundamental problem with this. Certain ways of interpreting it I would refute, but not the construct itself@Outsideness1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CTZN5
@topynate Presumably, just as a man owns himself, his labor, & the rightfully acquired products thereof (ie assets, $, etc) 1/@Outsideness1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CTZN5
@topynate and if we've agreed a man cannot be forcibly parted w/ those, then can one be compelled to accept a "slave's offer"?@Outsideness1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CTZN5
@topynate ...I suspect not. (3/3, sorry.) So the problem sorts itself out, w/out requiring exceptions to "self-ownership", yes?@Outsideness1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@fnxTX@topynate ... It's a nice universalistic story, but its roots aren't very deep. The kind of agency it presupposes is rare and recent.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.