3 ms·
> If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive You've made weird deductions and extrapolated on top of that then you reject that
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive
You've made weird deductions and extrapolated on top of that then you reject that caricature you've created. That has never been stated.
It would be helpful if we can try to keep this in plain English.
> Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not
People can have both agency and still use that agency into making an indirectly coerced "choice". The fact remain that it's coerced, and thus not particularly free as in freedom.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoThen you're using a convoluted definition of "coercion" How are you defining coercion or assessing its presence in a given agreement? Ignorance? Being in want? Genetic differences? When, in your view, are people not coerced?
- cloudfifty 5y agoI'll give you examples: Weren't the 19th century coal miners coerced by economic necessity to accept life threateningly bad working conditions? Weren't the parents of the child laborers coerced by economic necessity? How is this in any way shape or form even hard to understand and admit to? > When, in your view, are people not coerced? When one's general well being and access to necessities are not dependent on accepting the terms of the agreement.