Comment by lurk2
5 hours ago
> Independence, as our culture usually defines it, means completing a task without help.
This isn’t true. A business owner completes tasks with the help of employees, but unless he is indebted to a lender, he is still ordinarily thought of as being independent. Independence is a spectrum, and people who require that the world be re-engineered so that they can access it are generally on the lower end of that spectrum.
> The difference between their dependence and mine is not that mine exists. It is that mine is visible. […] A person who drives to the grocery store is considered independent, although the car depends on fuel, roads, mechanics, insurance, and a global manufacturing network. A person who orders groceries because they cannot walk through the store may be considered dependent.
The author is conflating two kinds of dependence. Lots of people rely on food delivery. If a food delivery system breaks down, it could be an existential threat to both parties, the difference is that the able-bodied will tend to have a greater level of optionality in how they respond to this kind of breakdown.
Someone suffering from kidney failure is obviously more dependent on the supply chain than someone who is not suffering from kidney failure. There is a debate to be had about how much this gradation matters if both categories of people are still mortally dependent on a system; am I independent if I can cross the street by myself but don’t know how to grow enough food to feed myself?
You talk about still different things, like resilience.
The idea, a business owner must be "independent" refers to them being financially independent regarding their income streams relative to "dependent" employees.
That doesn't necessarily hold true in all cases, it's an over-generalization to begin with. But it also is independent from your "lower end of the spectrum": you can be disabled and own a business. And demands of disabled people aren't worth less?
So, (in)dependence is context-dependent. Hence your spectrum. But the author's point is, it's not the same as (it's independent from) autonomy.
Shaping society based on vaguely defined/understood concepts leads to undesirable outcomes.
> And demands of disabled people aren't worth less?
You’re making an implicit argument about the nature of worth. I am using a simplified model based on economic value; if the author has a certain lifestyle that she believes she is entitled to live, and she cannot provide this lifestyle for herself, then the obligation to provide it will necessarily fall on other people. Disability advocacy groups obscure this detail constantly; they want to purchase their dignity using other people’s money.
I think there is a strong case to be made that a just society would be organized around these sorts of principles, but where disability advocates have failed is in wanting to put these obligations on others while resenting the idea that the disabled should even have to show gratitude for the gift they are being given (because this would, in their minds, diminish their dignity). Social justice in the 2010s was built around this idea that marginalized minority groups could treat the majority of the population as workhorses simply because it was considered to be the right thing to do. The model fell apart when people realized they could game the system by claiming marginal status, and also led to a trend of people traditionally tasked with serving as workhorses checking out of the workforce altogether.
A wildly grotesque framing you engage in there.
Apparently you didn't even read the article, otherwise your exposé hardly makes sense. She is bodily disabled, not financially.
There is a thing called human dignity and it involves granting everybody the basic right of dignified sustenance. You seem to have difficulty imagining yourself in such a situation, but that is the fundamental starting point to understand it and its justification.
How would the disabled "show their gratitude" to you, the supposed provider of the financial support? Why do pretend it was a "gift" and not a simple necessity for you to live in a just society?
You go on veering off into generalities about imaginary 'leeches' to your efforts. The author details how you yourself are dependent on that society you denigrate here.
1 reply →
The business owner has the illusion of independence until he/she pisses off enough of their staff all at the same time that they walk out and there's nobody to open the store.
If the average employee was less reliant on his employer than vice versa, why doesn’t this situation occur every day?
> This isn’t true. A business owner completes tasks with the help of employees, but unless he is indebted to a lender, he is still ordinarily thought of as being independent. Independence is a spectrum, and people who require that the world be re-engineered so that they can access it are generally on the lower end of that spectrum.
This concept is a myth - the "self made" isn't any such thing