This is an important lesson. Even the most noble of intentions come with unintended consequences.
It's one thing if the situation was a matter of children being forced to work. If a kid finds work on purpose to help himself or his family eat and you suddenly make it illegal without removing the NEED for him to have to work to help his family then you've made the situation worse while instituting a policy to make yourself feel better.
My view on politics as I've gotten old has gone squarely to the singular point: No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up.
If generations are exploited and then we decide we can no longer carry the ethical burden of exploitation, then we have a responsibility to help them recover as well (or hell, reparations).
But in these "We must keep the slaves so they don't starve" arguments, there's always a nasty whiff of condescension - the implication that they cannot care for themselves, without handouts. Given freedom and sufficient resources, most people will choose to better their circumstances. Humans fed themselves for a long time before they were enslaved. Getting back to feeding themselves may not be easy, but it's certainly not impossible.
I poked at a different part of this post, but I'm glad you replied with tihs. You've isolated a big problem with the rhetoric in this thread. Kipling would be nodding at a whole bunch of it.
The problem in the responses is the logical inconsistency.
In my reply, I said if they were being forced to work (aka - slaves) it was not okay but if they went out and choose to work it was another story.
In your response you cited a "we must keep the slaves so they don't starve" argument...which is not at all what I said. That's the logical disconnect that happens in many political discussions of these types. You're arguing with something I didn't say unless I'm misreading you, because it partially looks like you're agreeing with me as well regarding people choosing to better their circumstances.
They're slaves because they are prohibited from bettering their circumstances. Now, if you abolish the slavery and then say "You're free now! Go better yourself!" without giving them any resources with which to do so - if they lack the tools to feed themselves - they'll starve, yes.
To better themselves, they need to be able to make something where they're at, or be able to go somewhere else. If they're sitting on ruined land, unable to leave, that's a problem that can't be solved with mere hard work. But that's a problem that would not have happened without the slavery in the first place.
> My view on politics as I've gotten old has gone squarely to the singular point: No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up.
This is a really good way to make sure that important things aren't talked about (and, it should go without saying, disproportionately hurts already marginalized people even further). Complaints about a situation are step one of finding a collaborative solution. It may take time to get there, and the process might be annoying (heaven forfend). But I would suggest considering the circumstances you find yourself in that allows you to find them annoying, and being charitable about the search for a solution instead of decreeing from on high.
I expect people who are not in positions of decision making power to talk about things and complain about things.
I expect people who are campaigning on the basis of those complaints to be able to explain why the problem is a problem and exactly how they plan to solve it along with the expected ramifications of their solution.
Campaigning on complaints without being able to extrapolate those details is essentially nothing more than pandering.
> Complaints about a situation are step one of finding a collaborative solution.
Can parties opt-out of your definition of a collaborative solution, or does your definition of collaborative include forcing people to participate, whether they wish to do so or not?
Of course you can opt-out. But rejection goes both ways: we live in a society, and there are consequences to being asocial and antisocial, and depending on the problem, and the solution, that might be a thing. But you can always leave if something's so untenable, if you can find somewhere with rules more to your liking.
Can I choose not to leave, if I respect other people's natural rights?
My issue about leaving is that if I have done nothing wrong, I shouldn't have to flee from others who wish to violate my rights. Instead, they should respect my right to be unmolested.
Interested in your thoughts, if you wish to expand on this topic.
I tend to fall in line with Rousseau in that "natural rights" are not relevant in a societal context and that what we conceive of as rights exist only in the context of the society that grants them--basic social-contract stuff, subordination to the general will rather than subordination to the will of other citizens being as close to optimal as a practical society is likely to become. I think that the notion of "rights" as something sacrosanct is frankly hilarious and that jurisprudence should not rely on them, but rather build upon the notions of the body politic (and in practice this is what happens; see the contortions in many SCOTUS rulings that are a legalistic form of "yeah, we get it, the zeitgeist has spoken"). This has its drawbacks--demagoguery is a threat, for one--but I contend that there isn't a better method that doesn't enshrine one particular group of people as being Special Enough to enjoy a place of permanent privilege.
To that end, there is no "right to be unmolested", and I would underline that particularly for--given the context of this thread--conceived-of rights that effectively serve to provide legal supremacy over other people. (Of which we have many.) "Done nothing wrong" can mean very different things to very different people, and while I am not in favor of ex post facto convictions or anything of the like, I am in favor of amending the rules to the game to be more equitable and, I hold, thus better for the aggregate of humanity--and enforcing them to that end.
So, no. The general will sets the rules of the road, and dissenters can comply (and seek to change that general will if they so choose; part of the societal privilege to try to change that general will is the societal responsibility to obey it when it breaks against you), accept the consequences of civil disobedience (the abrogation of the aforementioned responsibility in hopes of demonstrating injustice to encourage a change in that general will), or leave (fold your hand). As it happens, there are cases where I'd do the second and a couple where I'd do the third.
It's one thing if the situation was a matter of children being forced to work. If a kid finds work on purpose to help himself or his family eat and you suddenly make it illegal without removing the NEED for him to have to work to help his family then you've made the situation worse while instituting a policy to make yourself feel better.
My view on politics as I've gotten old has gone squarely to the singular point: No complaints. No rules. Solutions or shut up.