4 ms·
> On a practical note, I disagree with you that reducing someone's income if they need to stay home to stay healthy is non-coercive, in the world as it exists t
by hiatus 3y ago
> On a practical note, I disagree with you that reducing someone's income if they need to stay home to stay healthy is non-coercive, in the world as it exists today.
If you are party to an agreement wherein you exchange labor for capital, how is it non-coercive to force someone to pay you for not holding up your end of the bargain?
- burkaman 3y agoYou can't look at one agreement in a vacuum. Organizing a society such that most people are forced to make such an agreement is coercive and inhumane (given our abundance of resources and ability to guarantee these rights to everyone). If we lived in a society where nobody was forced to make that choice and all people were guaranteed all the rights in the declaration, then two individuals entering into the agreement you describe would not be a problem. In this scenario, neither individual would be putting their health or safety at risk, even if one of them went without pay or the agreement fell apart. Shorter answer: an agreement itself cannot be coercive if you voluntarily agreed to it, but you can be coerced into making that agreement. That's often the situation in America today.