-
Look at my edit in the first post restating the question. I hope it's clear. If it's not to you, I'm uninterested in clarifying it.
-
Often, people say that those who work in sweatshops are slaves. I say sweatshop workers are not slaves because they voluntarily choose to be in the sweatshops. A slave is somebody who is involuntarily put to work. I define slave as someone who is put to work by someone else involuntarily.
-
Geez this is getting confusing. My post about not contributing was meant for hasem, not you. "Having said that, your bold question is a specific situation where C will encourage B to coerce A into further production." Yes that's true. I'm with you there. "Purchasing things with the knowledge of the coercion is the equivalent of
-
Thank you for your input, but I'm not interested in what you're trying to bring to the table. If you want to, put on your Rothbard cop and argue a position about the ethical or unethical nature of C engaging in such a transaction. If not, then I think you're done. My question again to all readers: If it is immoral/unethical for B to coerce
-
I'm talking about slavery similar to what there was in the southern states of the United States before the Civil War where some people were other people's property and worked on plantations and produced cotton because they were forced to by their owners--there was no voluntary choice on the part of the slaves. The difference is that slaves
-
I wasn't wanting to talk about economic consequences. I was wanting to get to the ethics of the situation. If we accept something like the NAP, then no one has the right to coerce somebody else into producing something for them (slavery). But what about when somebody else has a slave who produces goods and then wants to sell you the goods their
-
I'm interested in any ideas from any ethical/moral viewpoint from any branch of libertarianism. Yes, that includes a lot which is what I'm going for. These kinds of questions aren't my thing either, but I'd like to see what other people had to say.
-
So let's say a country has slavery (I mean real slavery, not the left's "slavery" of sweatshops), and the slaves produce almost all the goods for export from that country. Is it moral to buy the goods made from slave labor? Edit: Here is a clearer presentation of the problem-- If it is immoral/unethical for B to coerce A into producing
-
I wouldn't be surprised if it were true among lay people. Ron Paul supporters would be evidence of that I think. I hadn't a clue what Austrian economics was a few years ago, but now that's totally different. It was all because of Ron Paul introducing it to me (and then the Mises Institute for providing me the reading material). And now there
-
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned homesteading. With virgin land, whoever mixes their labor with it becomes the property owner. If the forestman had mixed his labor with the land, the land would be his, and the propertyman would be agressing against the forestman. The concept of property and homesteading would help the forestman in this situation