5 ms·

Voluntary interactions between consenting parties can still be extremely coercive if there's a power imbalance. In the Roman Empire, people used to sell themsel

Voluntary interactions between consenting parties can still be extremely coercive if there's a power imbalance. In the Roman Empire, people used to sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts.

mbg721 5y ago
I've heard this sort of thing proposed as a way of paying for college.
- emteycz 5y ago
  That doesn't make it a libertarian position.
  - ransom1538 5y ago
    Agreed.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
No, it can't be coercive, by definition. If a jury of your peers deems that you did not provide informed consent, then the contract is void. A contract cannot be deemed both coercive and valid under common-law/libertarian principles. Coercion is when someone reduces your option set, by threatening violence (against the person or property of you or someone you love). An offer, that you are free to reject, and have the faculty to fully comprehend, cannot meet the definition of coercive. As for selling yourself into slavery, that calls into question whether the you that exists today has a right to the you that exists in the future to the extent that the current you possesses a right to sell that you's liberty away, and I am fairly a certain a court would rule you don't. But these extreme/fantastical scenarios are not what libertarians are arguing about. There are far more mundane examples of people's liberty being repressed by anti-libertarian laws, that anti-libertarian apologists cannot excuse, so they resort to these hyperbolic examples.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  The example I gave happened with informed consent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Please see my edit where I address selling oneself into slavery.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Your answer avoids the ethical dilemma by means of a technicality about temporal ownership; it's not a very good rebuttal. Also its just one example of how voluntary transactions can be coercive, here's a few more just off the top of my head: - demanding sex in order to give an actress a part in a movie - offering food to a starving man in exchange for his kidneys - buying all the food in the market to drive up the price from people desperate to not die - basically the entire American healthcare system
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        It's a point about the ethics of exerting control over different versions of ourselves. It's not some procedural technicality. >demanding sex in order to give an actress a part in a movie There is nothing coercive about this. >offering food to a starving man in exchange for his kidneys Unless it's an emergency, where the starving man does not have the time to make/entertain offers on the wider global market, there is nothing coercive about this either. In an emergency situation, different rules apply, as a consequence of the physical space we each take, which displaces others. This exclusionary effect creates a duty to render help in an emergency, as opposed to abusing one's position in such a situation to exploit others. >buying all the food in the market to drive up the price from people desperate to not die There is nothing coercive about this, and in practice, it's impossible. This should certainly be guarded against by individuals, through means like securing long-term food purchase contracts through co-ops, or by growing one's own garden, but that doesn't imply that it's a form of coercion which we have an ethical right to employ coercion to remedy.
imtringued 5y ago
I have to mention that the silver/gold standard was introduced by many authoritarian rulers because they control the gold/silver mines. This includes the Roman empire. As the supply of precious is limited it concentrates at the top and this was very desirable for monarchies. The only way to get gold is to dig it out (mines owned by monarchs), borrow it with interest (which leads to the usual debt trap) or to sell your products and services to those who already have gold (which is heavily concentrated geographically and in the hands of the rich). If it is mandated that you must use a certain currency, then this automatically leads to a power imbalance between those who have money and those who don't. If you need to buy food or pay for shelter then you can't wait, but the rich have all their basic needs met, they can afford to wait until you are desperate to accept any offer. This is why Austrian economists are kind of right when it comes to competition among currencies. A terrible currency can ruin an economy. However, they still insist on the gold standard because they love playing the monarchy game, they even admit it themselves. Even in modern times the rich benefit from economic crashes because it means desperation and fire sales, in other words, discounts for those who already have more than they need for themselves.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Very true, and this is why right-libertarian ideas for increasing liberty are doomed to fail: all they ever do is change who's in charge, they never really question the system of putting people in power over each other.

Voluntary interactions between consenting parties can still be extremely coercive if there's a power imbalance. In the Roman Empire, people used to sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts.

mbg721 5y ago

I've heard this sort of thing proposed as a way of paying for college.

emteycz 5y ago
That doesn't make it a libertarian position.
- ransom1538 5y ago
  Agreed.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

No, it can't be coercive, by definition. If a jury of your peers deems that you did not provide informed consent, then the contract is void. A contract cannot be deemed both coercive and valid under common-law/libertarian principles. Coercion is when someone reduces your option set, by threatening violence (against the person or property of you or someone you love). An offer, that you are free to reject, and have the faculty to fully comprehend, cannot meet the definition of coercive. As for selling yourself into slavery, that calls into question whether the you that exists today has a right to the you that exists in the future to the extent that the current you possesses a right to sell that you's liberty away, and I am fairly a certain a court would rule you don't. But these extreme/fantastical scenarios are not what libertarians are arguing about. There are far more mundane examples of people's liberty being repressed by anti-libertarian laws, that anti-libertarian apologists cannot excuse, so they resort to these hyperbolic examples.

beaconstudios 5y ago
The example I gave happened with informed consent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Please see my edit where I address selling oneself into slavery.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Your answer avoids the ethical dilemma by means of a technicality about temporal ownership; it's not a very good rebuttal. Also its just one example of how voluntary transactions can be coercive, here's a few more just off the top of my head: - demanding sex in order to give an actress a part in a movie - offering food to a starving man in exchange for his kidneys - buying all the food in the market to drive up the price from people desperate to not die - basically the entire American healthcare system
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      It's a point about the ethics of exerting control over different versions of ourselves. It's not some procedural technicality. >demanding sex in order to give an actress a part in a movie There is nothing coercive about this. >offering food to a starving man in exchange for his kidneys Unless it's an emergency, where the starving man does not have the time to make/entertain offers on the wider global market, there is nothing coercive about this either. In an emergency situation, different rules apply, as a consequence of the physical space we each take, which displaces others. This exclusionary effect creates a duty to render help in an emergency, as opposed to abusing one's position in such a situation to exploit others. >buying all the food in the market to drive up the price from people desperate to not die There is nothing coercive about this, and in practice, it's impossible. This should certainly be guarded against by individuals, through means like securing long-term food purchase contracts through co-ops, or by growing one's own garden, but that doesn't imply that it's a form of coercion which we have an ethical right to employ coercion to remedy.

imtringued 5y ago

I have to mention that the silver/gold standard was introduced by many authoritarian rulers because they control the gold/silver mines. This includes the Roman empire. As the supply of precious is limited it concentrates at the top and this was very desirable for monarchies. The only way to get gold is to dig it out (mines owned by monarchs), borrow it with interest (which leads to the usual debt trap) or to sell your products and services to those who already have gold (which is heavily concentrated geographically and in the hands of the rich). If it is mandated that you must use a certain currency, then this automatically leads to a power imbalance between those who have money and those who don't. If you need to buy food or pay for shelter then you can't wait, but the rich have all their basic needs met, they can afford to wait until you are desperate to accept any offer. This is why Austrian economists are kind of right when it comes to competition among currencies. A terrible currency can ruin an economy. However, they still insist on the gold standard because they love playing the monarchy game, they even admit it themselves. Even in modern times the rich benefit from economic crashes because it means desperation and fire sales, in other words, discounts for those who already have more than they need for themselves.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Very true, and this is why right-libertarian ideas for increasing liberty are doomed to fail: all they ever do is change who's in charge, they never really question the system of putting people in power over each other.