captainjackjohnson:
I don’t think libertarians understand that coercion does not require force.
No, we get it. Fraud or the threat of force are two forms of aggressive coercion that are not necessarily physically forceful. There is no confusion on our end.
Whenever I sign an employment contract or a loan or even a phone contract, I am being coerced.
Nope. Probably not.
Power is in the hands of the contract-creator because I am being given the choice between accepting their terms letter for letter, or being unemployed, without the money I need, or without a phone, respectively.
“…because I am being given the choice…”
The choice is yours. And, literally, one of your options is to return to your exact state of existence before the offer. Nothing lost.
Jobs are not abundant; they don’t come in goody bags on the shelf that I can just choose whenever I want. I cannot simply “quit and pick another” because nothing is available.
And so how is that the fault of the employer who has offered you an opportunity for a job that you have just rued is quite scarce?
There are many reasons why there are fewer jobs than there should be. From minimum wage laws, to excessive taxation that makes hiring people far costlier than their wage, to subsidies that prop up less efficient sectors of the economy, to The Fed making every dollar worth less, to countless other protectionist policies that make goods and services more expensive - there are myriad ways government shrinks the number of available jobs.
And even if I did, it will simply be more of the same because they have the thing that I need to live, which is money, or what I want, which is their service, and so they make the terms.
But if you have enough of what they want - which is usually “skilled labor,” but some jobs even need not much more than a heartbeat - then you are not reliant on their charity; they want what you offer as much as you want what they do. The problem arises when government makes hiring you - through aforementioned wage floors and taxes - more expensive than whatever increase in productivity your labor would provide.
And I cannot simply choose another service provider, or alter the terms with them, because they all provide almost exactly the same service and refuse to renegotiate their contracts.
You’re all over the place with your simultaneous conflation of employment and purchasing, but with things like phone service, you usually have your beloved government and its regional monopolies and licenses to thank for the lack of competition. After all, if a business can pull your patronage from another carrier by offering a better service or price, it will. No business will ever self-immolate for the sake of protecting an ostensible oligopoly.
The deal is “take this job/service exactly as we dictate, or go without”. They coerce me into accepting their terms without ever laying a finger on me.
I constantly renegotiate terms with businesses I patronize. I just bought some kids DVDs at the mall for 40% less than the asking price because I talked them down. Two kiosks over, I bought a personalized bib for 15% less than asking - and convinced them to throw in a princess figurine. I got a free pound of ground beef at the farmer’s market yesterday because I suggested I might be considering another grass-fed farmer for my business. Last month, I renegotiated my DirecTV contract to receive more channels for a smaller monthly bill. Two months ago, I purchased a new shotgun; all I did was ask, after gesturing to a business card I had on hand from the gun store two blocks over, “Is this the best you can do?” and, after waiting four minutes for the clerk to check with his manager, he knocked $50 off and gave me a free box of shells.
In a free market, both parties have a say on terms. If you do not, consider why. It always comes down to competition being scarce. Then, ask yourself why that is. Only government, with its monopoly on force, can (and regularly does) protect businesses from competition and outright failure.
Threatening a man with poverty, which will harm him and his family, is just as immoral as threatening him with theft or violence; both imply a highly negative consequence, both will be harmful and both will deprive him of his property if he does not obey you to perform exactly the job that you command of him. Whether direct or indirect, both are forms of coercion and both are immoral.
Your definition of the word “threat” has no basis on reality. An employer offering a job is not threatening a potential employee with poverty (and certainly will not ‘deprive him of his property’) any more than a prostitute offering sex is threatening anyone with abstinence.
The Coercion of Choice. Brilliant. What’s next? The Violence of Peace?
