The intellectual standards of academics nowadays! Fred Block refers to capitalistic freedom as the "the Robinson Caruso [!!!] freedom", at time mark 09:43, if you care to watch this not-a-must-see-interview, and immediately goes on to explicate:
The freedom of some people to make a lot of money has a lot of consequences for the lack of freedom for other people who then have to work in Wal-Mart at low wages or whatever ...
I quote this excerpt not because I am particularly eager to point you to the interview. For the purpose of this post, I am solely concerned with a widely held attitude resonating in Block's pronouncement, which is congeneric with a rather popular argument that never fails to annoy me for being immensely absurd and hypocritical.
What I have in mind is the subliminal idea that there is a special class of people with a duty, call it the E-duty, as basic as the most elemental personal rights, to create opportunities for safe, durable and satisfying employment for another class consisting of people that are either not willing to or not capable of providing employment to anyone, while at the same time being fully exempt from the E-duty.
When people attack, say, "capitalist swine X" for laying off employees or not paying wages deemed sufficient by their recipients, I ask the accusers why it is that they do not provide these workers with employment at agreeable wages? In not even trying to provide jobs, are the accusers not being even more egotistical than "capitalist swine X"?
Apparently, it is perfectly virtuous for employees not to even begin to create employment and a flow of income to the employed, while the same inability or unwillingness in employers is being considered a moral failing of the severest kind.
If the accusers thought matters through, they would find that the non-employing employee would by definition have to be regarded as being morally more base than the employing employer, who at least provides some employment and some income for others.