Originally posted by Visceral
Yes ... but when is that ever the case? I don't know of anyone who lives like this except to justify their behavior or give meaning to their misery; which is the whole reason people invented systems like these, either to give themselves the right to do a thing (that they might also wish to deny others), or to keep from being driven mad by their wretched lot in life.It's not a literal gun, but just as lethal if you defy it. Working for a specific employer can be a choice (provided the job market is good) but working period is never a choice. And you have no means to compel your employer to make it worth your while; you are utterly dependent on him (and I find dependency distasteful enough), and he takes full advantage of this, giving you only what it takes to keep you from suing his ass for unlawful treatment. Slavery with pay is still slavery; he has no choice but to work for someone, and when he's putting in far more than he gets out, it's even worse. I'm giving you my time when I don't want to, but that's only because I have no say in the matter - I can either serve or starve. The least you can do is make my servitude a pleasant fate by giving me what reflects my importance to you - or dare I say it, your dependence on me - rather than taking it for yourself and tossing me a bone.Both parties can profit, yes, but rarely proportional to their contribution. Microsoft didn't make the logo, the other company did - Microsoft only uses the logo, but they make more off of it in a week than the other company will make in a year. To me, this is incredibly unfair. Or worse, a CEO takes a paid vacation and makes more in that week than most of his employees will make in their lifetimes, but they do virtually all the work that makes the company that money. The employees are far more valuable to the company than the CEO, but the CEO is the one making the most. This is unconscionable to me; the only way I can think of that would allow you to justify this kind of exploitation is if you benefit from it. If you were not in that position, I have no doubt that you would feel very differently about it.Once again, if you were the starving man or the unable man - the victim of the system - you would feel exactly the opposite. You have this position not because there's any truth or value to it, but only because it benefits you to have it.Acting in one's self-interest is the basis of human behavior, I agree, but that doesn't make it moral, only practical. It's the basis of morality only because morality is human artifice; "moral" is just an arbitrary label given to justify something, especially if it's something everyone else on the planet would call immoral. If you're arguing that it's counterproductive to harm others in the pursuit of your own goals because it can lead to great harm to you in the future, then I agree with you and Rand, but only up to a point, as a person can be so powerful that retaliation becomes impossible or against one's own self-interest. Don't call this genuine concern for others' well-being, because it's not; it's pure selfishness. No sane person would choose to be wronged, and yet people are wronged on a daily basis; I cannot believe that these people are anything but victims of forces beyond their control, natural or manmade.How can the employee be mistaken about that? Are you saying he should be grateful to sacrifice a third of his life for the benefit of someone else? No-one could be grateful for that. I think the only reason people put up with it is because it's either that or starve. If there were a third option, one that didn't involve working or starving, they would take it in a heartbeat. "Screw the employer; I only care about him because he signs my paycheck." Get this through your head: nobody wants to work, especially not when someone else benefits from it; they only do it because they don't have a choice. The best they can do is convince themselves that they like it, but I'm certain that deep down they don't.
