Hacker News Reader

Comment by patricius | Hacker News Reader

Nah, no single decision was made about keeping a huge portion of the population on the edge of desperation. And companies are not generally to blame for people's desperation, unless they somehow cheat or commit fraud (usually in collusion with the state). Furthermore, always assuming that the employer is always in the position of strength is wrong. Even though Chinese factory workers are paid very little by Western standards, they are seeing their wages rise, which is exactly because they are increasingly able to negotiate from a position of strength.

Lastly, a transaction is either voluntary or it is not. There are no degrees of 'voluntary' if you use the word in the conventional sense.

View on HN

> Lastly, a transaction is either voluntary or it is not. There are no degrees of 'voluntary' if you use the word in the conventional sense.

So if I point a gun at your head and threaten to shoot you if you don't hand over your wallet, you would say that you voluntarily handed over your wallet because that was a fair price for keeping your head intact?

Most people mean something different when they use the word "voluntary".

But that is exactly an example of an involuntary transaction including threat of violence or murder.

OK, so here's a second example: suppose I somehow arrange to have control over all of the available food and tell you that in order to access it you have to hand over your wallet. Is your choice to hand over your wallet so you can eat now voluntary or not?

It is voluntary whether he chooses to hand over his wallet.

Edit: Irrelevant comment.

OK, so if you give me your wallet because I threaten to kill you with a gun (quickly, painlessly) that's not voluntary, but if you give me your wallet because I threaten to kill you by starving you to death (slowly, painfully) that is voluntary? That makes no sense to me.

If I don’t give you my wallet, I face starvation. I could choose to steal from you but that would be immoral.

I personally don’t have any control over any food. If I go the supermarket, they threaten to starve me if I don’t hand over my money. I believe it is a voluntary choice for me to pay up not to starve.

But supermarkets are competitive. The scenario I'm putting forward is one where I have a monopoly and use that leverage to charge you 100% of your income for just enough food to survive.

In the conventional sense of the word, no, that transaction is clearly not voluntary. And I don't think your example is making the point that you're trying to use it to make.

See my response above to Patricius.

> Lastly, a transaction is either voluntary or it is not.

Like many binary categorizations, this doesn't really work well in the real world, though it's analytically convenient.

>Lastly, a transaction is either voluntary or it is not. There are no degrees of 'voluntary' if you use the word in the conventional sense.

If I rescue you from a burning building contingent upon you signing over 90% of your wealth and future earnings first did we engage in a voluntary transaction?

I think you choose to use a redefined "voluntary" to refer to things that are clearly not (a ploy frequently used by certain corporate funded 'libertarian' think tanks). By doing this, a source of relatively unchecked power and profit is protected.

""The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."

Emphasis mine.

> I think you choose to use a redefined "voluntary" to refer to things that are clearly not (a ploy frequently used by certain corporate funded 'libertarian' think tanks). By doing this, a source of relatively unchecked power and profit is protected.

I was saying that you cannot talk about degrees of voluntary. If there are degrees of voluntary, then you end up in a situation where you can argue that any choice is both voluntary and involuntary. Stick a gun in my back and force me to choose to give up my wallet or my life. Is this a voluntary transaction, since, in the end, I make the choice? I would say it is absolutely involuntary.

Of course, stating that there are degrees of “voluntary” is a typical ploy by socialists to justify having the state loot their citizens.

I liked the part where you dodged the hypothetical question about your house being on fire and then declared the idea of there being shades of gray a socialist plot.

I see your point and agree with you to an extent but there are certainly degrees of voluntary.

A transaction at gunpoint is clearly not voluntary.

But what if I take you out partying, get you loaded up on tequila shots? Can you still make a voluntary transaction?

What if I know that you are cheating on your wife and hint that I won't say anything to her if you sold me your car for $100? In some sense of the word - this would be a voluntary transaction. At the same time, there's not much of a choice to be made.

Last theoretical scenario - I'm a steel tycoon and a multi-billionaire and I decide to buy up all the freight companies and airlines. You can ship whatever products you want on via my transport companies - except steel. You can only ship steel you've purchased from one of my companies. Is your decision to buy my steel voluntary?

A contract made under economic duress is voidable in many cases in the US, and for good reason. Voluntary isn't always as clear-cut as it seems.

There are degrees, I think. Consider the choice between:

- Working a job that requires intense physical labor for $30/hr. and benefits, cons include significant physical impairment starting in your late forties and high risk of serious injury

- Working a job that is largely sedentary for $20/hr. and benefits, cons include serious health risks

- Work a third shift part-time job for $40/hr and no benefits, cons include inconsistent weekly hours, practically no career advancement, and considerable disadvantage to your retirement (no 401k matching), huge risk if anyone in your family needs medical care (definitely put off having kids)

- Go (back, sometimes) to school, cons include significant debt and opportunity costs, coupled with the risk of no career options (went into welding, factory closed, etc.)

Many people in America have no real "good" options, so while yeah, their choices are always kind of "voluntary", there's almost always a big asterisk next to it.

>Lastly, a transaction is either voluntary or it is not. There are no degrees of 'voluntary' if you use the word in the conventional sense.

If that were true there would be no such thing as coercion. There would be 'forced to do it' or 'not forced to do it' not more subtle levels where varying levels of unpleasant pressure is brought to bear.

I’m not saying that there is no coercion. Coercion leads to an involuntary transaction. It is not a degree of voluntary/involuntary.

So, any degree of coercion means there is an involuntary transaction, full stop?

And, second question, should involuntary transactions be considered illegitimate like slavery or a mugging?

"Duress" (legal concept) and exploitation (narrower than voluntary) would be better tools for this work. There are of course degrees of exploitation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com