3 ms·

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 b

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.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        I don't understand what your definition of coercion is, if withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive but demanding payment to avoid harm is. They're materially the same thing: you're paying to not die. You can't really argue with deontological positions given they're axiomatic, so there's probably no reasoning I can give that you would consider.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>if withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive but demanding payment to avoid harm is. They're materially the same thing: you're paying to not die. Could you elaborate? What exactly do you mean? By "withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive", do you mean a person that commits to providing aid in exchange for payment, and then reneges on their obligation upon receiving payment? This is clearly theft/fraud, and in the same class of behaviors as coercion. I'm totally confused as I don't know when we discussed such a scenario and why you think that I don't consider that coercive.
imtringued 5y ago
>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. In an economy that defines itself by a high degree of the division of labor, where people no longer gather their own food and are dependent on the cooperation of other people, being excluded from the division of labor is the same as ending their ability to participate in society. They must now scramble and get their own plot of land and work the fields themselves and become self sufficient. There are offers that people cannot refuse realistically. I would count this as coercion because people who own money can refuse to spend it indefinitely. As money is needed to conduct transactions, it becomes harder and harder to trade the more people keep money for the sake of having money instead of using money exclusively as a medium of exchange as many economists (even Marx) postulate, even though it has been proven wrong hundreds of times. A store of value cannot be used as a medium of exchange, those are two mutually incompatible and this conflict makes the money -> goods transaction inherently coercive, which ironically also backfires, because the only way you can beat coercion is through psychological manipulation. How do you convince someone to get something they don't need? By creating an artificial need.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>In an economy that defines itself by a high degree of the division of labor, where people no longer gather their own food and are dependent on the cooperation of other people, being excluded from the division of labor is the same as ending their ability to participate in society. No one has the power to exclude you from the market and the benefits of division of labor.. You would only be excluded if what you provide is of such little apparent value, that no one wants to trade what they have for what you provide. That is not coercion. People have a right to not associate with you, even if that choice means you starve to death. You do not own other people. >>I would count this as coercion because people who own money can refuse to spend it indefinitely. People can barter. People can create their own money. When the state, under anti-libertarian principles, intervenes, and prohibits voluntary exchanges involving certain kinds of money then yes, these problems can theoretically emerge. This is why libertarian philosophy is so adament about not using the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state orders) to restrict people from engaging in voluntary interactions with other consenting adults.

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.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I don't understand what your definition of coercion is, if withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive but demanding payment to avoid harm is. They're materially the same thing: you're paying to not die. You can't really argue with deontological positions given they're axiomatic, so there's probably no reasoning I can give that you would consider.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>if withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive but demanding payment to avoid harm is. They're materially the same thing: you're paying to not die. Could you elaborate? What exactly do you mean? By "withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive", do you mean a person that commits to providing aid in exchange for payment, and then reneges on their obligation upon receiving payment? This is clearly theft/fraud, and in the same class of behaviors as coercion. I'm totally confused as I don't know when we discussed such a scenario and why you think that I don't consider that coercive.

imtringued 5y ago

>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. In an economy that defines itself by a high degree of the division of labor, where people no longer gather their own food and are dependent on the cooperation of other people, being excluded from the division of labor is the same as ending their ability to participate in society. They must now scramble and get their own plot of land and work the fields themselves and become self sufficient. There are offers that people cannot refuse realistically. I would count this as coercion because people who own money can refuse to spend it indefinitely. As money is needed to conduct transactions, it becomes harder and harder to trade the more people keep money for the sake of having money instead of using money exclusively as a medium of exchange as many economists (even Marx) postulate, even though it has been proven wrong hundreds of times. A store of value cannot be used as a medium of exchange, those are two mutually incompatible and this conflict makes the money -> goods transaction inherently coercive, which ironically also backfires, because the only way you can beat coercion is through psychological manipulation. How do you convince someone to get something they don't need? By creating an artificial need.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>In an economy that defines itself by a high degree of the division of labor, where people no longer gather their own food and are dependent on the cooperation of other people, being excluded from the division of labor is the same as ending their ability to participate in society. No one has the power to exclude you from the market and the benefits of division of labor.. You would only be excluded if what you provide is of such little apparent value, that no one wants to trade what they have for what you provide. That is not coercion. People have a right to not associate with you, even if that choice means you starve to death. You do not own other people. >>I would count this as coercion because people who own money can refuse to spend it indefinitely. People can barter. People can create their own money. When the state, under anti-libertarian principles, intervenes, and prohibits voluntary exchanges involving certain kinds of money then yes, these problems can theoretically emerge. This is why libertarian philosophy is so adament about not using the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state orders) to restrict people from engaging in voluntary interactions with other consenting adults.