It seems that one of the main pathos tricks that leftists use to force their will on others is the idea that people are often "coerced" into buying something or working a job that most people would agree is undesirable and have no bargaining power. This can be seen in basically every case pertaining to unions, anti-price gouging laws, "living wage" laws, and so on.
These could all be addressed separately, but the particular example that I found most egregious was one that was in my law textbook:
“[Economists] argue that the law treats rights as more flexible and less absolute in situations where it is hard to enter into voluntary transactions over them. So when it is difficult for parties to make deals with each other as a practical matter (when “transaction costs” are high), the law allows people to take each other’s entitlements and pay damages; by awarding damages, the law makes the deal for the parties that they might have made for themselves if bargaining had been feasible.”
When can one differentiate between voluntary action that is "hard" and voluntary action that is "easy" to decide? Is it simply whether a third party would imagine that they, too, would happily enter into the same contract?
The example in the book detailed a situation where a man desperately needed to dock his sinking ship, but the owner of the dock asked for a huge amount of money. The book says "[this involves] a bilateral monopoly: situations where there is no alternative but to bargain with the other, which may give one of the parties inordinate leverage...there is not a well-functioning market for the rights involved."
Does a lack of bargaining power nullify voluntarism? Socialists certainly think so.
No. Property rights are simpler and there is no such thing as a monopoly outside government privilege. This was in an issue earlier that respecting property rights is relevant to social convention and legitimate third party determined restitution. Just because the options available to a person stink does not mean that the person can violate the private property rights of others with impunity. And just as in the last response the violator will attempt to use the property of the dock owner and be responsible for damages in excess of any costs as determined by an impartial arbitrator for using the property without the dock owners permission.
Now if the dock owner attempts to defend the property with force, which he is entitled to do, then it is up to the community to reconcile that via ostracism and an arbitration process to determine if the dock owner was wrong in preventing the person from docking their boat with no other recourse.
It doesn't nullify voluntary action per se. Saying that a person who scrubs toilets for a living is doing so voluntarily is true in a way, in another way it isn't true, because anyone with a choice in the matter would not take such a crappy job. Kind of like how you technically have a choice even when being mugged, you can choose to give the mugger your wallet, or you could choose not to which means a very unpleasant experience. With the mugger you have a choice, a unpleasant choice, but a choice anyway. The same can be said for the guy who takes the job cleaning toilets, he had a choice, but a unpleasant choice.
The conclusion, Serpentis, is true. It doesn't matter whether the choice is pleasant or not, especially since "pleasantness" is subjective. The way you started is what I disagree with, which contradicts the conclusion: "...true in a way... In another way it isn't true..."
If people value clean toilets and want them, then (in a free society) compensation will be high enough that those that accept prefer the compensation and work more than the alternative.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
"True in a way..." was used because some people wouldn't see the situation as voluntary. Many things can be considered voluntary technically, this doesn't take into account the reason why a person would take the crappy job, Leftists would say the person took the job because he wasn't in a financial position to turn down the job. (Something which they may consider unjust.) Now the toilet cleaner is one of the scenarios where there likely isn't a injustice, the principle of the "unpleasant" choice can be applied to situations where there is a injustice, such as sweat shops. Sure, the people working in the sweat shops had a choice, sure they are better off taking the job, that doesn't make their situation just, which can be clearly seen when you ask "Why are they in a position where they had to take such a terrible job in the first place?", usually the answer involves a prior wrong such a government intervention. (I wish more Libertarians would think about that before defending sweat shops.)
Serpentis-Lucis:"Why are they in a position where they had to take such a terrible job in the first place?", usually the answer involves a prior wrong such a government intervention. (I wish more Libertarians would think about that before defending sweat shops.)
We do, its just that when Libertarians talk to other Libertarians about these issues, the injustices of the state are simply assumed. It would be largely wasted breath to even comment on it, and, in the scenario of sweatshops, we are usually defending them against those who would claim that the sweat shop owner is aggressing against the laborer it employs. We make note that the owner is not the aggressor so long as he is neither coercing nor threatening to coerce the laborer to perform his labors in the sweat shop.
I highly doubt that any half-way learned libertarian would neglect to mention to the layman that the reason the laborer's choice of employment is so shitty is in large part due to prior actions of the state.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
Also I'll add that on the issue of sweatshops, it's usually not that libertarians are defending them, but rather pointing out the errors of shutting them down or somesuch.
Does a lack of bargaining power nullify voluntarism?
No two parties ever have the exact same amount of bargaining power which makes this a red herring argument. The hypothetical situation involves a person who has a substantial need for something they don’t possess. Is this any different than a hungry person stealing food? An AID patient stealing medication? These scenarios are always presented by people who use the ends to justify the means.
Winder: simple, yet I wholly agree. Red herring is right, but I feel like there is a more descriptive and well aimed fallacy term for it---perhaps a nice Latin term...
No we are not victims of our circumstances. There are some things in life that are inalienable involuntary, your parents, where you are born, what you look like etc. But your circumstances, specifically in the context of labour and employment is voluntary. When it is no longer voluntary then it is no longer employment and becomes slavery. Coercion usually manifests in the form of a limitation of choices of another individual.
In contractual law when someone is blackmailed or have their choices limited by a third party then they can be seen as incapacitated and if the contract is brought before arbitration it has a higher chance of being void.
/delete (Strangely this seems to have gotten posted into the wrong thread - sorry!)
@Jack Roberts
So would you say that voluntaryism exists insofar as a person makes a choice without violent coercion?
"But poor people are born into bondage where they only have the illusion of choice because, without an alternative, there can be no true choices nor decision making; ergo, the whole system of voluntaryism is sullied and null"