4 ms·
I share the objectivist standpoint that, as long as wealth is accrued through fair transactions, having occurred without coercion (including monopoly influence)
by recursive4 5y ago
I share the objectivist standpoint that, as long as wealth is accrued through fair transactions, having occurred without coercion (including monopoly influence) and because parties provided equitable value to each other, it (and its distribution to heirs over time) is ethically acceptable.
- InitialLastName 5y agoSo then you'll agree that in a society where people without jobs are precluded from survival, labor is (in effect) coercive. Thus, any wealth accrued by arbitraging the labor of others was unethically gained and fair game for redistribution up to the point where joblessness is no longer an existential threat?
- josephcsible 5y agoThe fact that you need something to survive doesn't mean that every transaction providing it is coerced. Do you consider it coercion when you shop at the grocery store?