Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

If your subsistence depends upon a contract, it doesn't matter whether you can seek a better deal, the contract is still coercive. The threat of starvation is just as real as the threat of being killed if somebody holds a gun to your head. It does not matter whether that threat comes from a person holding a gun or a large group of elites asserting unjust ownership over natural resources. In either case, it isn't voluntary because you must agree to the contract or die.

[LostSoul3412]

You can gather your own food, build your own house, sew your own clothing. Nothing's stopping you from doing so.

[Free Thinkr]

Nathyn wrote: If your subsistence depends upon a contract, it doesn't matter whether you can seek a better deal, the contract is still coercive. The threat of starvation is just as real as the threat of being killed if somebody holds a gun to your head. It does not matter whether that threat comes from a person holding a gun or a large group of elites asserting unjust ownership over natural resources. In either case, it isn't voluntary because you must agree to the contract or die.
Your argument requires the monopoly of natural resources, which isn't inherent in, or unique to, capitalism.

[perdidochas]

Nathyn wrote: If your subsistence depends upon a contract, it doesn't matter whether you can seek a better deal, the contract is still coercive. The threat of starvation is just as real as the threat of being killed if somebody holds a gun to your head. It does not matter whether that threat comes from a person holding a gun or a large group of elites asserting unjust ownership over natural resources. In either case, it isn't voluntary because you must agree to the contract or die.

When I went to Wal-mart last week and bought some fishing line, there was nothing coercive about it. I wanted (didn't "need" fishing line). I gladly exchanged money for that fishing line.

[Nathyn]

LostSoul3412 wrote: You can gather your own food, build your own house, sew your own clothing. Nothing's stopping you from doing so.
From where?

I do not have anywhere near enough land to sow crops. And I do not have the tools or skills to build a house, or sew clothing. Furthermore, in a modern society, we are inter-dependent. Modern economies foster interdependence. So, I buy my food from Giant foods, my clothes from Kohl's, my tools from Home Depot, and my everyday items from Wal-Mart. I buy a car from the car dealer and buy gas from the Chevron gas station. I buy energy from PepCo. We pay the local homeowners' association to keep the nearby roads and sidewalks clean. And I have to pay for health insurance. And, of course, we pay taxes.

If we all tried to live like the Amish, we would be in poverty. And we could only BEGIN living that way with pre-existing ownership of capital. So, no, in a modern society, our subsistence is so dependent upon others that it is not voluntary. We must work at the wages they agree to or die.

Now, you can assert that this is voluntary, that we reach an equilibrium between their demand and mine. But what do each of us have to lose? If I don't agree to their employment contract, they simply don't get an employment and the business-owners maybe, at most, lose a little money. But for me, if I don't get a job, I die. Can you really say that inter-relational utility is incomparable when it comes to a business-owner losing a few cents in additional income versus a worker losing THEIR LIFE?

[Nathyn]

Free Thinkr wrote: Nathyn wrote: If your subsistence depends upon a contract, it doesn't matter whether you can seek a better deal, the contract is still coercive. The threat of starvation is just as real as the threat of being killed if somebody holds a gun to your head. It does not matter whether that threat comes from a person holding a gun or a large group of elites asserting unjust ownership over natural resources. In either case, it isn't voluntary because you must agree to the contract or die.
Your argument requires the monopoly of natural resources, which isn't inherent in, or unique to, capitalism.
A lack of monopoly of resources implies a lack of individual property. If you don't own the resources, then you can't own anything derived from them. Land-value taxes do not redistribute the vast amounts of wealth that has been generated because of historical monopoly over resources. Bill Gates is not wealthy because of ownership over natural resources. He's wealthy because of wealthy investors whom have historically profited from monopoly over natural resources. It only gives back but a small portion of what was stolen.

I supported mixed markets on pragmatic grounds, but a Communist gift economy where poverty is eliminated, all resources are equally shared, and everybody owns what they use is the only ethically justifiable economic system. Statist Socialism and Capitalism are both coercive and contrary to liberty for the same reason: both involve powerful, wealthy elites asserting ownership and exercising arbitrary authority over what is not theirs, in the name of a distorted sense of justice, so that they can exploit the weak for their own benefit.

perdidochas wrote: Nathyn wrote: If your subsistence depends upon a contract, it doesn't matter whether you can seek a better deal, the contract is still coercive. The threat of starvation is just as real as the threat of being killed if somebody holds a gun to your head. It does not matter whether that threat comes from a person holding a gun or a large group of elites asserting unjust ownership over natural resources. In either case, it isn't voluntary because you must agree to the contract or die.

When I went to Wal-mart last week and bought some fishing line, there was nothing coercive about it. I wanted (didn't "need" fishing line). I gladly exchanged money for that fishing line. If you don't mind me asking, what do you do for a living?

[Kindred]

LostSoul3412 wrote: You can gather your own food, build your own house, sew your own clothing. Nothing's stopping you from doing so.
You require available land on which to do so and my guess is that those who chose between accepting a contract and destitution are not what we'd call the propertied class.

[Gus]

When defined as mere pressure by one human against another, coercion can't be resolved so long as two or more humans exist.

Stalin brought us closest to ending such coercion.

[Nathyn]

Gus wrote: When defined as mere pressure by one human against another, coercion can't be resolved so long as two or more humans exist.

Stalin brought us closest to ending such coercion.
Which is why I don't advocate authoritarian Communism.

Coercision can be resolve in a just court of law, though I agree that it can't be resolved in perfectly. However, in an economy with virtually no scarcity, it doesn't need to be because "coercision," would have no reason to exist.

I believe, based on current, albeit extremely rough, determinations of labor productivity that within the next century, scarcity will be virtually eliminated. And so, individual property and possibly even government will be totally unnecessary. We can simply have a gift economy, governed either by Minarchism or Anarchy.

[evil muppet]

If you are coerced into signing a contract, it is null and void. Contracts entered into with one party under duress is not considered a valid contract.

[Zoot]

LostSoul3412 wrote: You can gather your own food, build your own house, sew your own clothing. Nothing's stopping you from doing so.

From what land, on what land, with which basic materials?

The whole system is stopping you from doing so.

[evil muppet]

Zoot wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: You can gather your own food, build your own house, sew your own clothing. Nothing's stopping you from doing so.

From what land, on what land, with which basic materials?

The whole system is stopping you from doing so.

The system is not preventing you from doing anything. Simply because you have to earn your own way through life instead of living at my expense does not mean that the system is somehow stacked against you. Get a damn job. Earn the money you need for a plot of land and be your own hippy socialist.

[Zoot]

evil muppet wrote: Zoot wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: You can gather your own food, build your own house, sew your own clothing. Nothing's stopping you from doing so.

From what land, on what land, with which basic materials?

The whole system is stopping you from doing so.

The system is not preventing you from doing anything. Simply because you have to earn your own way through life instead of living at my expense does not mean that the system is somehow stacked against you. Get a damn job. Earn the money you need for a plot of land and be your own hippy socialist.

The system is preventing me from gathering my own food, building my own house and sewing my own clothes, which lostsoul suggested as an alternative to getting a job.

So your whole "get a job" thing is kind of missing the point.

[Mastea]

If it's a contract, it's not coercive by definition, otherwise it's not a contract.

[Zoot]

Mastea wrote: If it's a contract, it's not coercive by definition, otherwise it's not a contract.

So if I provide you with 100 contracts to choose from, and tell you that if you don't sign at least one of them, I'll starve your family to death, that's not coersion?

[Mastea]

Nathyn wrote:
Coercision can be resolve in a just court of law

Do you understand that since in a contract between two subjects both of them must have agreed to the formation of it in the first place, there is nothing a court can do, since there were no coercive powers used in the first place?

Quote:
I believe, based on current, albeit extremely rough, determinations of labor productivity that within the next century, scarcity will be virtually eliminated. And so, individual property and possibly even government will be totally unnecessary. We can simply have a gift economy, governed either by Minarchism or Anarchy.

Perhaps.

[LeopardPM]

Zoot wrote: Mastea wrote: If it's a contract, it's not coercive by definition, otherwise it's not a contract.

So if I provide you with 100 contracts to choose from, and tell you that if you don't sign at least one of them, I'll starve your family to death, that's not coersion?

The problem here is that you are assigning a positive action to what is actually a 'non' action on the part of the one starved: it is not YOU that is 'making' someone else starve, but rather, it is THEIR inaction which is doing so. Your situation proposed might be true if the person starving was being denied liberty, restrained in a cell perhaps where he is forcibly dependent upon others to provide him with food - but it does not apply in the outside world.

Quote: If we all tried to live like the Amish, we would be in poverty.
EXACTLY! Each and every person is perfectly capable (unless physicaly impaired) of striking out into the wilderness and subsisting upon their own labors - but we all already know the result: extreme hardship and poverty.

You might say that there is no unowned land, and I would reply that is solely because of government ownership which artificially restricts the land market - look at the percentage of government owned land in just the USA (supposed 'land of the free'). If this land were all to be on the market, there would be a general devaluation of current private land market prices and plenty of land available (at very low and affordable prices) for people for centuries to come. Already there are plenty of areas across the US which sell acreage for less than $300/acre which is well within the reach of even 12 year olds with a paper route.... Having unowned land available is not necessary given the total quantity of land available.

[Mastea]

Zoot wrote: Mastea wrote: If it's a contract, it's not coercive by definition, otherwise it's not a contract.

So if I provide you with 100 contracts to choose from, and tell you that if you don't sign at least one of them, I'll starve your family to death, that's not coersion?

Of course it is, but that's not a contract, since I have not signed upon the fact that if I do not choose a contract you'll starve me to death.

[Nathyn]

Zoot wrote: evil muppet wrote: Zoot wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: You can gather your own food, build your own house, sew your own clothing. Nothing's stopping you from doing so.

From what land, on what land, with which basic materials?

The whole system is stopping you from doing so.

The system is not preventing you from doing anything. Simply because you have to earn your own way through life instead of living at my expense does not mean that the system is somehow stacked against you. Get a damn job. Earn the money you need for a plot of land and be your own hippy socialist.

The system is preventing me from gathering my own food, building my own house and sewing my own clothes, which lostsoul suggested as an alternative to getting a job.

So your whole "get a job" thing is kind of missing the point.
How much would it cost to buy enough land, become trained, and the other basic materials to be a farmer? A few acres of land, alone, would be a couple hundred grand, at least, depending upon where you buy it. You'd also probably need farm equipment, unless you expect to farm the old fashioned way, which would set you back several thousand dollars. And assuming you aren't just a vegetarian, you'd need livestock, and I know cows cost several hundred dollars a piece, if not more.

We are born into slavery. If we all have equal ownership of the Earth, why should I have to live like, say, a farmer in Hong Kong and risk getting avian flu from handling chicken-s**t just because I don't want to be an indentured servant to the wealthy?

LeopardPM wrote: Zoot wrote: Mastea wrote: If it's a contract, it's not coercive by definition, otherwise it's not a contract.

So if I provide you with 100 contracts to choose from, and tell you that if you don't sign at least one of them, I'll starve your family to death, that's not coersion?

The problem here is that you are assigning a positive action to what is actually a 'non' action on the part of the one starved: it is not YOU that is 'making' someone else starve, but rather, it is THEIR inaction which is doing so. Your situation proposed might be true if the person starving was being denied liberty, restrained in a cell perhaps where he is forcibly dependent upon others to provide him with food - but it does not apply in the outside world.
No, the starvation is from their actions. They assert ownership over what is not theirs, through government force. If I try to use their land to grow food, they would put me in prison. Some, such as Bill O'Reilly, propose that prisons should even be labor camps.

Quote: If we all tried to live like the Amish, we would be in poverty.
EXACTLY! Each and every person is perfectly capable (unless physicaly impaired) of striking out into the wilderness and subsisting upon their own labors - but we all already know the result: extreme hardship and poverty.[/quote]
Precisely because of the wealthy's monopoly over land. Within 50 to 100 years, private property could be eliminated and we'd still all live like the American middle-class.

LeopardPM wrote: You might say that there is no unowned land, and I would reply that is solely because of government ownership which artificially restricts the land market - look at the percentage of government owned land in just the USA (supposed 'land of the free'). If this land were all to be on the market, there would be a general devaluation of current private land market prices and plenty of land available (at very low and affordable prices) for people for centuries to come. Already there are plenty of areas across the US which sell acreage for less than $300/acre which is well within the reach of even 12 year olds with a paper route.... Having unowned land available is not necessary given the total quantity of land available.
What difference does it make? Either way, it's in the hands of a wealth elite class with no regard for the people.

If the government uses such land for the public benefit, it's good. You would privatize roads and then, the wealthy certainly would have us by the neck, because they could buy all of the land around someone's house and hold them hostage, financially, charging them whatever fee they wanted in order to let them leave to go to work or go buy groceries.

[LostSoul3412]

(Since roughly everyone's assertions against me have been the same, I will address this one as a response to all of them.)

Nathyn wrote: From where?

From your own abilities.

Nathyn wrote: I do not have anywhere near enough land to sow crops.

I never mentioned sowing, growing, or harvesting crops. I said gathering food, meaning berries, hunting for meat, edible plants, grass if necessary. To anyone who claimed that there isn't enough land to become your own farmer, know that that is not that I'm claiming to become. I'm claiming to become your own hunter-gatherer in an attempt to sustain yourself as an alternative to entering a "coercive" contract of employment.

Nathyn wrote: And I do not have the tools or skills to build a house, or sew clothing.

Then you are out of luck under both capitalism and socialism. Under capitalism, you are compensated based upon your abilities, and if you do not have the skills, you do not have the rewards. Under socialism, you own the fruits of your labor, so if you do not build a house, you do not own a house. You can argue that you can trade your goods for someone else's, but that would be nothing different than a "coercive" contract that is present under capitalism. You can also argue that these things will be provided for you under a socialist system, however, that is more coercive than capitalism. To automatically sign your name upon a contract is worse than to force you to sign one yourself.

Nathyn wrote: Furthermore, in a modern society, we are inter-dependent. Modern economies foster interdependence.

I would agree. I never said that it would be easy/practical, I said it is an alternative if you detest working so much.

Nathyn wrote: So, I buy my food from Giant foods, my clothes from Kohl's, my tools from Home Depot, and my everyday items from Wal-Mart. I buy a car from the car dealer and buy gas from the Chevron gas station. I buy energy from PepCo. We pay the local homeowners' association to keep the nearby roads and sidewalks clean. And I have to pay for health insurance. And, of course, we pay taxes.

Are all of those contracts coercive as well?

Nathyn wrote: If we all tried to live like the Amish, we would be in poverty. And we could only BEGIN living that way with pre-existing ownership of capital. So, no, in a modern society, our subsistence is so dependent upon others that it is not voluntary. We must work at the wages they agree to or die.

If you want to live comfortably, yes. However, if you are so against working then I invite you to leave your worldly posessions behind and live among nature. I assure you, there will be no one forcing you to work there.

Nathyn wrote: Now, you can assert that this is voluntary, that we reach an equilibrium between their demand and mine. But what do each of us have to lose?

Irrelevant. I lose an arm and a leg at the gas station, but that isn't the trade in place. The trade is my money, for their goods. The outcome of that trade has no bearing on the trade itself, and therefore cannot be used to prove anything in relation to the trade.

Nathyn wrote: If I don't agree to their employment contract, they simply don't get an employment and the business-owners maybe, at most, lose a little money. But for me, if I don't get a job, I die. Can you really say that inter-relational utility is incomparable when it comes to a business-owner losing a few cents in additional income versus a worker losing THEIR LIFE?

No, but at the same time I'm not sympathetic. Business owners own their capital, and are free to operate it however they wish to do so. Saying that you lose more than they do is really a fiat claim in light of the contract. If you are so opposed to getting a job, then don't. I'm sure your parents wouldn't mind providing for you the rest of your life when you explain to them that capitalism is evil and that you don't want to get a job because its coercive. Have this argument with your parents, and I'm sure they'll embrace you and provide for you because you don't want to get a job.