Comment by cloudfifty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cloudfifty | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> then it's voluntary

No, it's forced upon them by external circumstances. That's also in many cases setup and supported by the very persons exploiting them. Put people in a cage of poverty because you've decided and support that is should be like that then call is voluntary when they are force to give up their freedom is perverse.

No one in their right mind would ever call that a voluntary choice. Sending your children to do life-threatening work in the factory is not a voluntary choice. It's a forced concession. That it wasn't illegal doesn't make it voluntary.

> No court of law

Laws is no objective guide to neither morality nor justice. That's proven by history.

> I'm explaining that the fact that people are forced to do difficult things to survive does not make the situation authoritarian

If course it is. You can't first create and support the conditions then absolve yourself from what you've created when from people are forced to sell their freedom to you to survive.

> This is a blatant lie

What's the lie? Not forced by violence, but forced by the system the propertied support and have a disproportional influence over.

> Well if you're incredibly narcissistic, then you justify robbing people.

Not really? Withholding necessities to gain power over peoples labour and make a profit is pretty pathologically sociopathic and abolishing that state of affairs is righteous, not robbery.

>>No, it's forced upon them by external circumstances.

Like I said, in no context outside of socialist propaganda, is the external circumstances that involve no violence or threats of it, are considered to make the decisions one makes nonvoluntary.

>>Laws is no objective guide to neither morality nor justice. That's proven by history.

The law here is that voluntary contracts are valid, and no court of your peers would deem a contract involuntary based on the reasoning you're providing, showing your definition of words is unconventional, and thus misleading in the context of ordinary dialogue.

>>If course it is. You can't first create and support the conditions then absolve yourself from what you've created when from people are forced to sell their freedom to you to survive.

1. Employers did not create conditions that limited the options of job applicants.

2. Your claim that people who choose to work for pay are selling their freedom is an inflammatory characterization to falsely portray workers as victims of employers. It's an utterly dishonorable ideological framework that seeks to demonize the successful to rationalize robbing them.

>>What's the lie? Not forced by violence, but forced by the system the propertied support and have a disproportional influence over.

It's a blatant lie that makes the logical leap that not assenting to mass-socialist expropriation is tantamount to depriving others of their legitimate rights.

It's a degenerate claim based on perverse ideological premises.

>>Not really? Withholding necessities to gain power over peoples labour and make a profit is pretty pathologically sociopathic and abolishing that state of affairs is righteous, not robbery.

It's narcissistic of you to claim someone witholding necessities that belong to them, gives you the right to rob them. You believe what others earned belongs to you, and that you have a right to threaten them with violence to coerce them to forfeit it. It's a fundamentally sociopathic outlook.

For all your baseless claims, based on ideological narratives, of employers "forcing" employers to do things, you are the only one here advocating blatant violence and imposition.

This naked robbery you advocate is what all of your mental gymnastics and leaps of logic is intended to rationalize.

> is the external circumstances that involve no violence or threats of it

No, it's common sense. Do you honestly believe asking 100 people on the street that most would deem that voluntary? No, they would just say something like "yeah, it's sad, they had no other choice the poor fellas". That's not voluntary by any reasonable definition that's not self-serving.

And in fact, it does involve the threat of violence, albeit indirect, in the form of starvation. Just because your notion of violence only conveniently recognizes direct violence doesn't mean that that's the objective truth.

> The law here is that voluntary contracts are valid

Once again, you're using the law to support a moral common sense question, "court of peers" are bound to judge according to what the current law says, not what they think is obviously true.

> Employers did not create conditions that limited the options of job applicants.

Well, of course not all, but certainly the largest one and the owners behind them. This is a system issue, not an individual one.

> that seeks to demonize the successful to rationalize robbing them

Sigh, more suggestions to envy as motivation.

> It's a blatant lie that makes the logical leap that not assenting to mass-socialist expropriation is tantamount to depriving others of their legitimate rights.

That's not really explaining to me what the lie is, just a temper tantrum.

> It's a degenerate claim based on perverse ideological premises.

What makes my claims "degenerate based on perverse ideological premises" but not yours?

> You believe what others earned belongs to you

Earned is subjective, and in many cases not even remotely true under Capitalism due obvious things like inheritance.

> , and that you have a right to threaten them with violence to coerce them to forfeit it.

It's actually the exact opposite. Abolishing private-property rights removes the owners right to violence. No need to do any violence from the side that are abolishing them. For example: land that one was forbidden to enter under the threat of violence from the property-owner is now free to pass through. Only the property owner's threat of violence has been removed.

> you are the only one here advocating blatant violence and imposition

Uhm, what's the blatant violence I'm advocating?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com