monkey labor

[Birdjaguar]

Have you ever heard of Godwin's law?

Yes and it refers to Nazis and not the antebellum South. I see that you have brought us to that point without the actual use of the word Nazi or Hitler.

 

[The Civs 6]

Yes and it refers to Nazis and not the antebellum South. I see that you have brought us to that point without the actual use of the word Nazi or Hitler.

It stands for a broader principle about hysterical and unproductive references (IE to every government action being 1984 all over again).

And I'm not saying I agree with killing the monkeys. I'm just saying that that's what they are probably going to do if public pressure causes them to lose contracts.

 

[Samson]

It stands for a broader principle about hysterical and unproductive references (IE to every government action being 1984 all over again).

No it does not. Godwin's Law is saying that WW2 is an overused comparison and you should think if there are more appropriate historical examples to use.

And I'm not saying I agree with killing the monkeys. I'm just saying that that's what they are probably going to do if public pressure causes them to lose contracts.

What do you see as the appropriate libertarian solution?

 

[Birdjaguar]

It stands for a broader principle about hysterical and unproductive references (IE to every government action being 1984 all over again).

Actually no.

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".[2][3] That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread ends.

Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

And I'm not saying I agree with killing the monkeys. I'm just saying that that's what they are probably going to do if public pressure causes them to lose contracts.

But do you disagree with it. So again, as a libertarian, do you agree that it is appropriate to kill the monkeys? Should the government make a law against such killings? Or is that overreach?

 

[The Civs 6]

Actually no.


But do you disagree with it. So again, as a libertarian, do you agree that it is appropriate to kill the monkeys? Should the government make a law against such killings? Or is that overreach?

I disagree with it on moral grounds, and I think morality should always be our basis for action. If I was a sub-contractor that used monkey labor, and all of a sudden I couldn't use it anymore, I would do my best to make sure the monkeys have a good situation.

 

[Samson]

where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs

reductio ad Hitlerum: Coined by Leo Strauss in 1953

So TIL it only took 8 years from the end of WW2 for this sort of "playing the Nazi card" to get a name? Nothing new in the world.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I disagree with it on moral grounds, and I think morality should always be our basis for action. If I was a sub-contractor that used monkey labor, and all of a sudden I couldn't use it anymore, I would do my best to make sure the monkeys have a good situation.

If contractors refuse to do the moral thing though, should the government step in and make laws against immoral acts?

 

[The Civs 6]

If contractors refuse to do the moral thing though, should the government step in and make laws against immoral acts?

Well that's for Thai people to decide, not me. And before you create a hypo on this subject, I couldn't tell you my opinion without considering a concrete situation.

But for a rich country like America? We have the resources to create a monkey sanctuary, which might be of some benefit to the public. Considering the avoided cruelty, it would probably be worth it.

 

[Samson]

Well that's for Thai people to decide, not me. And before you create a hypo on this subject, I couldn't tell you my opinion without considering a concrete situation.

But for a rich country like America? We have the resources to create a monkey sanctuary, which might be of some benefit to the public. Considering the avoided cruelty, it would probably be worth it.

That sounds like welfare entitlements!!!!! How does that fit with negative liberty?

 

[The Civs 6]

That sounds like welfare entitlements!!!!! How does that fit with negative liberty?

Because just because there is a possible logical position to take doesn't mean that everyone goes to that extreme point.

And I have a moral basis that is personal and irrelevant to this discussion that supersedes any vague libertarian inclination I might have.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm not much for hypotheticals. The real world is sufficient. Trump has left us more than enough real world examples of what happens when immoral, corrupt, right-wing hate ideology takes hold.

 

[The Civs 6]

I'm not much for hypotheticals. The real world is sufficient. Trump has left us more than enough real world examples of what happens when immoral, corrupt, right-wing hate ideology takes hold.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NobodyAsked/

 

[Birdjaguar]

The title on that page is Who Cares? I guess you don't. Reddit is your go to response?

 

[The Civs 6]

The title on that page is Who Cares? I guess you don't. Reddit is your go to response?

It's a reddit forum where people often jokingly post about diatribes they saw that were neither responsive to nor relevant to a topic of discussion. Get it?

 

[Birdjaguar]

IIRC you were the one who brought up hypotheticals in post 28. I just responded to you and said I don't like them and told you why. I understand why you brought it up as a protection from someone saying "Well, what about this [made up situation]"

 

[The Civs 6]

IIRC you were the one who brought up hypotheticals in post 28. I just responded to you and said I don't like them and told you why. I understand why you brought it up as a protection from someone saying "Well, what about this [made up situation]"

It's just a joke lol.

 

[Yeekim]

I'd say that slaughter putting an end to this practice is, in my opinion, preferable to endless multi-generational abuse.

EDIT: Also, the issue is obviously not about "living wage", but about training methods and living conditions. And I'd wager that the described cruelty is essential in making monkeys to perform as a reliable workforce in industrial production, as opposed to picking maybe half a dozen nuts in return of a treat, until they get bored and switch to some other activity.

 

[amadeus]

Do the coconut farms write off old monkeys as depreciated capital?

What do you see as the appropriate libertarian solution?

A possible solution would be to mechanize the process and cut out the monkeys altogether.

This NPR story from 2015 seems to take a more skeptical approach to the view that abuse is widespread. I have no clue, just food for thought.

 

[Samson]

Do the coconut farms write off old monkeys as depreciated capital?


A possible solution would be to mechanize the process and cut out the monkeys altogether.

This NPR story from 2015 seems to take a more skeptical approach to the view that abuse is widespread. I have no clue, just food for thought.

The problem is what to do with the monkeys when you are not longer forcing them to pick coconuts.