> Is the author against the mutual and willing trade of goods between free individuals?
Trade offered! You receive: enough sustenance to live for a day and a roof above your head so you don't have to sleep under a bridge. I receive: your 12 hours of labour of my choosing.
Yes, it is a mutually beneficial transaction, and millions of people historically have accepted it. Yet somehow there is this nagging feeling it might not be "fair"... but that's absurd, isn't it? It's both completely voluntary and mutually beneficial, so it has to be fair. That's what "fair" means, after all, doesn't it?
This "mutually beneficial" transaction only seems so simple and obvious if we refuse to investigate the many unstated assumptions here.
It would require far less labour to secure these living standards if all the land in the world weren't already claimed and violently defended by a property-owning class. Looking back through history, it's plainly evident that most ownership, especially of land, was acquired through violent means that most would condemn today.
If there were some great reset where we could all agree on a fair system in which no one had any benefits or disadvantages due to some historical events, there is no way the same labour trade "deal" would be maintained.
The authors speak about denial. Thinking that something unfair is fair is denial, when it helps you cope with your reality.
Finding a solution to being homeless doesn't make your life fair.
It can mean you're being exploited though.
If putting those 12 hours towards making food and shelter works then it’s not fair. If you need multiples of those 12h to make yourself a shelter, you’ve just invented capital.
In real terms: if every renter received equity in what they pay for rent (- maintenance) then housing would be more fair as both rent prices would come down as well as purchase being more affordable as landlords start selling the stock
Edit: note that I guess i’m replying to both you and the original commenter
Keep the thought rolling: "Hey boss, someone has an idea to make my work less unhealthy to body and mind. I figured you make a lot off my pain and might want to implement some of those ideas. I understand the fairness of my work and compensation but you have not compensated my pain thus far. Nice custom car, btw, and I really like the size of your house. Maybe you want to build a school in there or something?"
Pain compensated.Environmental consequences hit the fan.Documents disclosed: catastrophe was avoidable with a few dollars investment
...
And then there's the issue of sponsoring schools, hospitals, services and all kinds of shit not even remotely as often as it should be done even though the Pyramid of the benefits is stacked exactly that way.
I mean there is scarcity of kindergardens in some places, shitty meds, hospitals don't have what they need, supply chains are full of hazardous nonsense and there are scientists and journalists and citizens hunting all of that but there are walls of insurance people and lawyers as well.
So yeah, the whole "fair" thing is cool and all, but the entire system is a bit over-engineered against it.
Oh, you don't want them to waste the taxes. Got 'ya, corruption and bloated administrations, of course, lack of efficiency, uh-huh. How about more control mechanisms for just those financial mechanisms? No? Why not?
Trade offered! You receive: enough sustenance to live for a day and a roof above your head so you don't have to sleep under a bridge. I receive: your 12 hours of labour of my choosing.
Yes, it is a mutually beneficial transaction, and millions of people historically have accepted it. Yet somehow there is this nagging feeling it might not be "fair"... but that's absurd, isn't it? It's both completely voluntary and mutually beneficial, so it has to be fair. That's what "fair" means, after all, doesn't it?