8 ms·
Signing an agreement with a gun to your head is not voluntary. This is, after all, the normal complaint of the libertarian regarding the extortion of taxes, no?
by mpyne 13y ago
Signing an agreement with a gun to your head is not voluntary. This is, after all, the normal complaint of the libertarian regarding the extortion of taxes, no?
Well the same logic applies when the "gun" is not physically a gun: If your set of viable choices has a size of 1 then you cannot be honestly said to have any "voluntary" choice.
- Houshalter 13y agoAs I said, the same is true of food or any other necessity. But we aren't going around claiming farmers are exploiting us. The problem with the person holding a gun to your head scenario, is that they are abusing your rights in the first place by putting a gun to your head. We don't want people to do that for various reasons. But in this scenario it isn't the employer or farmer holding the gun, it's mother nature. They are just offering assistance from that.
- bluecalm 13y agoThe problem with that is that you see property rights as part of "mother nature". So if one side controls all the resources and can coerce the other to w/e they please you see it as "mother nature" on the other hand when I put a gun to your head it's no longer mother nature it's "abusing rights".
- Houshalter 13y agoI didn't say property rights were part of nature, but hunger is, which is what I meant.
- JanezStupar 13y agoSo in demand surplus, the farmer is exploiting consumers. Does that mean that in supply surplus, the consumer is exploiting the farmer? Phrasing world in the terms of zero sum game is really not the best idea.