How annoying. It seems as though, while free from external coercion, man can be subject to a kind of internal coercion. Maybe this is impossible. Self coercion certainly is, but there’s an extent to which man may fight with the demands of his body.
I don’t want to do away with this problem semantically. That is, I don’t want someone to come on here and say “well actually coercion is defined as when someone ELSE attacks you, not yourself, so that’s stupid”. Yawn. Not interested.
Chomsky seems to think that if someone is starving, they have no choice but to associate with food-owners. The association might not involve either actor pointing guns, but the starving man certainly has a gun pointed to his head.
yawn Maybe im just tired. Going to sleep. Will check in morning.
His immediate needs were met through exchange. I’d see that he met satisfaction through the market, and to quote Esuric from his very recent post:
The economy does not produce commodities; it produces satisfaction.
I don’t see how if you are starving you are “coerced” to purchase bread from a baker, just because at that time he may be the only one who can offer it. There is no coercion, only transaction and goals being met. Starving man needs bread, and the baker is selling bread, and in the end they both benefit.
So there’s a starving man and a man who wants to offer him food for work? What exactly is the problem here? Without the food-guy, the starving man would starve and die.
Apparently providing starving people with options is a joke to Chomsky, but it’s not to me.
Chomsky and his ‘economic exploitation’ certainly is getting old. Give the man an economics book (a real one). Economic freedom is a god-send to people who are poor. Barriers to entry, taxation and inflation is what is keeping them down.
Well if the starving person is being forced to abide by a form of property that they disagree with, then they basically do have a gun pointed to their head. “Abide by there rules to aquire goods, or you will be punished.”
Well if the starving person is being forced to abide by a form of property that they disagree with, then they basically do have a gun pointed to their head. “Abide by there rules to aquire goods, or you will be punished.”
Yes, I agree that private property is a requirement for civilization. But a starving person (or anyone for that matter) who is being forced to abide by private property when they don’t agree with it is being coerced.
The only reason anyone ever exchanges anything with anyone else is because they want the thing they get more than the thing they’re giving up. Why is the morality of the situation somehow magically different if the want is particularly strong (“need”)? Chomsky should stick to linguistics.
The argument is that the starving man does not make a voluntary contract based on what’s fair, but simply admits to the supreme power because of his inferior and desperate position.
Chomsky is awesome. Over 100 published books, over 70 years of political activism? Yeah…
if he submits to an unrightful power, that may be an ethical problem but it is not an economic problem. If making a fair trade was something on the highest point of his value scale the worker would never agree to the employer and the employer might just have to make concessions.
Coercion requires private property to exist by definition. Without private property there can be no coercion. So your argument is absurd: if the person denies property, he also denies his body as his property, and denies being coerced.
What power? There is no power in the free market on anything except a persons own property. No one has power over another person.
The issue isn’t fairness. Its that he in effect has a gun to his head. Just because an agent isn’t holding it really doesn’t make a difference from his perspective. There may as well be a metaphorical bad guy who follows the starving man around, saying if you don’t get food asap i’ll kill you.
I agree that the market could take care of this problem easily. The potential to profit enormously from seeking out people in dire need would encourage entrepreneurs to enter the market of life-saving. Competition among entrepreneurs would lower profits to their MRP. One can imagine a barren wasteland where people often get lost, and dudes drive around in jeeps looking for survivors. Signs and bilboards further facilitate price competition, directing people to meeting points where they can be picked up for $1000 by company X.
But the OP doesn’t bar this kind of arrangement. It still maintains that association is not free, even if the market can do things to put starving people in much better positions.
The similarities between starving and being forced at gunpoint to buy food are too close to ignore though. In both cases, the man has a choice. Either die or buy food. If he buys food, he benefits. But we turn around and claim that in the former case, exchange is voluntary, so both parties benefit. But in the latter case, exchange is involuntary, but has the same outcome?
Why even give Chomsky the satisfaction of creating a thread about him? Every time I’ve listened to the man speak, I hear words, but it’s never coherent.
Its that he in effect has a gun to his head. Just because an agent isn’t holding it really doesn’t make a difference from his perspective. There may as well>>be a metaphorical bad guy who follows the starving man around, saying if you don’t get food asap i’ll kill you.
what exactly is the point here, that nature/reality are malevolent and cruel? is there something about libertarianism that prevents a man from issuing a claim against nature for breach of the NAP? no, its just pure madness. like so…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
the argument boils down to denouncing good samaritans. without employers, ‘starving workers’ would starve. the employers come along and give them a better option, not starving and working for them. suddenly they are evil.
