= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (510)
That is indeed how the argument goes. Thank you for clarifying. I just want to add a single further clarification to (1): if the workers were paid so little they became homeless, we can presume they would be arrested for vagrancy at some point, and thus be unable to consistently come to work.
This is important to note, because our current-day ultra-inegalitarian cities like New York and London actually often have a large class of working homeless who really do face this problem.
Well, there is precedent for using incarcerated inmates as a captive work force, although admittedly that's more common for jobs that don't involve meeting the public.
Since we're in an ethical discussion, slave labor shouldn't even be raised as an issue. Of fucking course slave labor is evil.
Many people's ethical intuitions about using incarcerated inmates as a captive work force vary depending on the language used and the specific rules governing it.
Many Americans, for example, would agree that slave labor is evil but support UNICOR.
So I'm not quite as convinced as you seem to be that this sort of thing isn't worth specifically addressing.
To me, it's worth addressing in the sense that, if necessary, it is worth being able to argue that prison labor is slave labor and slave labor is evil. I don't see any reason to believe there's even the tiniest speck of good in it.
I would say it's also worth addressing in the sense that presuming that people arrested for vagrancy are unable to come to work may lead to false conclusions.
But, sure, if you believe that because this is an ethical discussion it goes without saying that organizations like UNICOR are presumed not to exist, since they don't have even the tiniest speck of good, then I understand why you make that presumption without further qualification.
Putting people in prison and financially benefitting from them is an inherent conflict of interest and this certainly applies to UNCOR, especially if you get to ignore minimum wage laws.