Woozle at 00:43, 16 September 2019

2019-09-16T00:43:23Z

Woozle: Created page with "'''Coercion''' refers to the use of {{l/same|violence}} to obtain a desired goal. Where {{l/same|enforcement}} of {{l/same|property}} rights is used to obtain desired goals,..."

2015-03-21T22:26:53Z

Created page with "'''Coercion''' refers to the use of {{l/same|violence}} to obtain a desired goal. Where {{l/same|enforcement}} of {{l/same|property}} rights is used to obtain desired goals,..."

New page

'''Coercion''' refers to the use of {{l/same|violence}} to obtain a desired goal.

Where {{l/same|enforcement}} of {{l/same|property}} rights is used to obtain desired goals, however, this does not count as coercion – even though enforcement involves {{l/same|violence}} by definition – because trespassing is considered a form of violence and therefore the trespasser is the [[../initiation of violence|initiator]].

==Economic coercion==
When one person has something that they don't need in order to live, and another person needs that thing in order to live but doesn't have it, marketists consider that the first person has no {{l/same|obligation}} to provide the thing in question to the other person. They describe such obligations as "[[../positive obligation|positive]]", and argue that only "{{l/same|negative obligation}}s" are ethically mandated.

Threatening to withhold life-saving items if someone doesn't do what you want is therefore not considered coercion.

In other words, marketists don't believe in economic coercion. They therefore consider such things as {{l/wp|sweatshop}}s and {{l/wp|wage slavery}} to be perfectly acceptable, because coercion (in their definition) was not used to obtain that labor (leaving aside cases where workers ''are'' physically threatened). They argue that nobody is truly [[../freedom|free]] unless they are [[freedom to become enslaved|free to sell themselves into slavery]].

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Where {{l/same|enforcement}} of {{l/same|property}} rights is used to obtain desired goals, however, this does not count as coercion &ndash; even though enforcement involves {{l/same|violence}} by definition &ndash; because trespassing is considered a form of violence and therefore the trespasser is the [[../initiation of violence|initiator]].
+[[File:A54b14f09b150137b314005056a9545d.gif|thumb|600px|'''Fig. 1''': Moe attempts to blur the line between voluntary and involuntary.]]
 ==Economic coercion==
 When one person has something that they don't need in order to live, and another person needs that thing in order to live but doesn't have it, marketists consider that the first person has no {{l/same|obligation}} to provide the thing in question to the other person. They describe such obligations as "[[../positive obligation|positive]]", and argue that only "{{l/same|negative obligation}}s" are ethically mandated.
-Threatening to withhold life-saving items if someone doesn't do what you want is therefore not considered coercion.
+Threatening to withhold life-saving items if someone doesn't do what you want is therefore not considered coercion, while threatening to punch them (even non-fatally) is.
 In other words, marketists don't believe in economic coercion. They therefore consider such things as {{l/wp|sweatshop}}s and {{l/wp|wage slavery}} to be perfectly acceptable, because coercion (in their definition) was not used to obtain that labor (leaving aside cases where workers ''are'' physically threatened). They argue that nobody is truly [[../freedom|free]] unless they are [[freedom to become enslaved|free to sell themselves into slavery]].

Marketism/coercion - Revision history

Woozle at 00:43, 16 September 2019

Woozle: Created page with "'''Coercion''' refers to the use of {{l/same|violence}} to obtain a desired goal. Where {{l/same|enforcement}} of {{l/same|property}} rights is used to obtain desired goals,..."