cloudfifty

> so long as it's the choice of the property owner.

and there you have it. why libertarianism in it's propertarianism form has nothing to do with freedom and all to do with giving power to the property owners.

> And yes, people can walk away.

You surely can't believe that people can just walk away from their only source of income?

I'll give you examples:

Weren't the 19th century coal miners coerced by economic necessity to accept life threateningly bad working conditions?

Weren't the parents of the child laborers coerced by economic necessity?

How is this in any way shape or form even hard to understand and admit to?

> When, in your view, are people not coerced?

When one's general well being and access to necessities are not dependent on accepting the terms of the agreement.

> If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive

You've made weird deductions and extrapolated on top of that then you reject that caricature you've created. That has never been stated.

It would be helpful if we can try to keep this in plain English.

> Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not

People can have both agency and still use that agency into making an indirectly coerced "choice". The fact remain that it's coerced, and thus not particularly free as in freedom.

Just so I follow, do you recognize the existence indirect coercion by necessities (which very well could be the result of private property creating artificial scarcity) at all?

Because if you do I have no idea how you can come to the idea that one can just "walk away".

> The USDA is not a tangent

It is, you're switching the topic to be about government, and a contemporary setting, instead of continuing on the topic of a private property owner and a hypothetical libertarian society.

Libertarians seem to have a bad habit of using unnecessarily convoluted language.

yup, exactly. Unfortunately the original meaning is almost never what's meant by libertarianism.

An agreement under coercion, direct or indirect, can't be reduced into some intentionally sterile and neutral "choice" without any context. When someone try to do that, it suggests that one is uncomfortable with that fact and prefer to rationalize it.

> What's euphemistic about my phrasing?

Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference?

> A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head is to practice labor is.

Yes, and for the masses without property? I think I hinted at indirect coercion by "to feed yourself".

and I have no interests in going off into some USDA tangent.

What exactly in essentially removing the state but keeping private property precludes this scenario?

What's the difference in practice apart from the more euphemistic wording?

The only "safe guard" libertarianism brings to the table here is that a person must sign on the dotted line first. Not exactly rock solid when you also allow and encourages the inevitable concentration of wealth through private property at the same time.

Private property IS coercion.

How does "this land is mine now, you can work on it to feed yourself" translate somehow into the opposite of slavery?

> What you are talking about is more Austrian economics.

No, it's just the what libertarianism means 99 times out of a 100 when talking on HN or well, just Americans in general.

There nothing "freedom" about some sole family owning the only water supply generation after generation or whatever dystopian scenario that libertarianism likely would bring about. In practice it's just a dismantling of democracy in favour of feudalistic power through wealth and property.

> libertarianism, which is literally to let everyone be themselves

No, it isn't. Its core is to enforce private property rights? That will very likely not translate into "letting everyone be themselves".

To add some IMO relevant context: concordDance is a self-described racist.

> I really hope that the rent-controls are abolished in my lifetime

Well, of course you want that if you have a large salary and can pay the rents other people can't. Why not support government lead building of housing according to need instead of just throwing out the poor as a "solution"?

This is a laughably biased article from my Swedish point-of-view. Really embarrassing from something like the BBC.

They established that this is caused by rent control by fails throughout the article to even mention that rent control was _of course_ accompanied by large scale involvement by the government in providing housing. That was however abolished in favour of market based construction.

This of course has made the price of housing - those you actually take a mortgage for - to sky rocket and building of rental apartments to crash. That end result is not surprising.

But this isn't that rent controls has failed per se, it's that the construction has moved to the marked with rent controls still in place. The best solution for the average Swede would be to have the government involved in building housing again, rather than to throw out the poor through market rents.

> Gig work works at some level since both workers and customers want it.

That's rather superficial.

Workers want it compared to what? A full time job with benefits? Most likely not. It's mainly driven by sweatshop market logic, "So you want the textile workers to starve?".

Customer want it? Of course, the lower prices enables an inflated lifestyle.

What an absurd amount of benefit of the doubt.

The [city] government can build housing according to need just as any other infrastructure.

This would however go against a lot of interests, both institutional and citizens with a large mortgage, that depends on high housing prices. So it's rare. But one can see Vienna, Austria, as a good example of where the government takes an active role in building housing and can show a great result in low rents and high availability.

It's blatant.

> Or are you a denier?

You really are 100% trolling on this site.

Here's refurb's previous "contributions" to the topic for anyone curious as to why I called him out:

> Do you have data showing that every hurricane, tornado, fire and monsoon season is “getting worse and worse”?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28094216

> Pretty sure they predicted the collapse of another ocean current like 5 years ago, yet here we are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28086413

I'm confident that there's more where that came from.

Update: As I thought, here's some more FUD/derailing on climate change in just the last month or two:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27739215

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27727460

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27711924

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27699141

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27671657

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27671641

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27872967

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27792095

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27771181

And you're talking about good faith in other comments?

I've answered both your original questions multiple times:

> What is a "living salary"?

> If I'm a single mom with 3 kids, is the "living salary" the same as a single 20 year old who lives at home?

Your diversion with focusing on a new totally unfruitful topic is not my problem.

> You sound very upset.

Not really, but what's the purpose of this particular reply other than to try to wind me up?

For the last time. The concept of a living wage is not adapted on an individual basis. The problem of the US wrt a living wage is certainly not that single mothers of 3 children are the standard model, and you know that, hence bad faith. You can't change the subject to your own trolly question if it constitutes "corporate welfare" and expect an answer.

I'm not repeating myself again. But given your comment history I'm sure that you're just here in bad faith in general.

No. I've already written that obviously the amount of children of each individual can't determine what a living wage is supposed to be, but then you still twist this to be a question of subsidy to the business in bad faith?

That seems much more targeted and specific than the usual right wing talk about taxes causing high income people to work less (which implicitly values that above redistribution). It's also not a result (as in, X% of doctors have cut their working hours) but a plead (we may do this unless!).

> people will find ways to work less to keep their earnings down

Even if that is true and significant, I don't really find high income people skipping overtime to be major problem?

But I'm curious to read more about the claim that doctors skipping overtime due to high taxes, can you share a link?

Furthermore, the aim can't be to institutionalise overtime through tax cuts (I don't believe it would work either and those would in turn have other effects) but to increase the amount of doctors.

Pretty low quality question. Of course the salary will not adapt according to individuals expenses and neither will it here in Scandinavia. However, the father will of course be obliged to pay child support. The mother will also receive a monthly allowance for each child. She will also likely be eligible to rent support. So children is a special case, but a living wage doesn't involve that.

How did you think this would actually work?