Difference between revisions of "Marketism/coercion"
(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,...") |
|||
| 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 – 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]]. | 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]]. | ||
| − | + | [[File:A54b14f09b150137b314005056a9545d.gif|thumb|600px|'''Fig. 1''': Moe attempts to blur the line between voluntary and involuntary.]] | |
==Economic coercion== | ==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. | 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]]. | 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]]. | ||
Latest revision as of 00:43, 16 September 2019
Coercion refers to the use of violence to obtain a desired goal.
Where enforcement of property rights is used to obtain desired goals, however, this does not count as coercion – even though enforcement involves violence by definition – because trespassing is considered a form of violence and therefore the trespasser is the 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 obligation to provide the thing in question to the other person. They describe such obligations as "positive", and argue that only "negative obligations" are ethically mandated.
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 sweatshops and 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 free unless they are free to sell themselves into slavery.