3 ms·

It's of course possible that two people on a "level playing field" agree to an employmeent like agreement - fair enough, one is providing the other with a servi

• logicchains 12y ago
  When you speak of a 'coerced' choice, it's not coerced in the normal sense (coerced by a person), it's coerced by nature. If the person doesn't get work, doesn't find some means of acquiring goods produced by other people, they'll starve; this is not the result of anybody threatening to starve them, it's simply the result of there not being enough food lying around to eat. To state or imply that the starving person has some form of right to the food produced by others, one must make a moral judgement. It hence becomes an issue of moral philosophy as to whether the fact that a person "just can't do without" the job has any bearing on the situation. If one assumes people owe others things by virtue of having those things (or by virtue of the others not having those things), then one can say it's coercion to refuse to give someone food one owns unless they perform work. If however one assumes that people owe others nothing apart from what they've specifically agreed to give them, then there's no coercion taking place. The pro-market position is that assuming people owe others things they haven't promised them necessarily entails coercion. If society things Joe Rich owes something to Bob Poor, but Joe Rich doesn't want to give it, then making him give it anyway necessarily requires violence or the threat thereof against Joe Rich. Through this lens, if Bob Poor starves then this doesn't necessarily imply anyone's committed violence or coercion against him, instead it's a simple result of the combination of nature's scarcity and his inability or unwillingness to do something for others in exchange for food or the purchasing power to acquire it.
  • jahaja 12y ago
    I often find it amusing when people say that swearing indicates a lacking vocabulary. I'd argue however that this is much more present when discussing economics and philosophical topics like this one, where a simple argumentation is replied to with an unnecessarily deep discourse into mathematics (usually in economics) or philosophy. Anyway, back to your reponse. You argue that it's coerced by nature. Which I believe is false; these conditions are derived from political decisions and uphold by political institutions. Private property is probably the most glaring example of such a political decision. Additionally, it's no longer true that scarcity is the main cause that people starve. I don't understand why it's relevant if a starving person has a right to the food produced by others; whether or not this true doesn't change the premise of the discussion, namely whether wage labor is a free choice or a coerced one (albeit indirectly) given the premise of modern society. And regardings morals in general: Hopefully peoples ideological beliefs is based on what they think is right and wrong. Unfortunately I think this is becoming less and less so, but that's another discussion.
    • logicchains 12y ago
      Simple argumentation often elicits a complex response when the issue itself is complex, as simple arguments can miss important elements of the issue. The difference here is regarding whether private property is considered a political institution (as you're considering it) or more a natural social institution (like language). This is also the essential difference between right anarchism and left anarchism. The right of a starving person to food produced by others is relevant to determining whether wage labour is free or 'coerced'. If they have no right to food produced by others, then modern society isn't forcing them to have any less food than they otherwise would, hence I would argue that it's not accurate to say society is 'coercing' them. In the sense that coercion is defined as threatening to make someone's life worse off if they don't do what you want them to (which is the definition I was using). Here's a thought experiment to identify libertarian/right anarchist morality. Imagine you're walking in a park, and see Rich Uncle Bob, who has just invented a cure for eugitis, walking along carrying sacks of the cure. You also see Poorman Joe lying on the ground nearby, soon to die of eugitis. You have a weapon. Assuming it was legally allowed and you were guaranteed success, would you threaten Rich Uncle Bob with the weapon to make him give some of the cure to Poorman Joe, saving Joe's life? People with personal moral philosophies that are more pro-property would generally say no. Now change Poorman Joe to one's sick spouse/child/parent. Generally only libertarians or market anarchists would still answer no in this case. I think that scenario acts as a microcosm for the general differences in moral beliefs between pro- and anti- market types.