Skip to main content

Commentaryism... No, AnComs, Wage Labour Ain't a Form of Violence...

A conversation in which somebody explains very neatly why the AnCom critique of voluntary, contractual wage labour is a non-starter, and no talk of theories of value was necessary!

In the Red and Black corner we have Cipher, and in the Yellow and Black corner, V!


Market contracts are not voluntary. That's an insane dichotomy. An ultimatum between starvation and a corporate tithe is not a choice. Don't paint it as such, it's f****** asinine.  It discredits an already ridiculous philosophy. Anarcho capitalism is just re-bagged laissez-faire capitalism. There's nothing original about it.

Who's forcing you to enter contracts? You either work, receive charity or starve under any anarchic system.

Sustenance is a biological prerequisite for survival, seems to me you're equivocating it with "force".


A system with only contracts is not voluntary. It's orwellian doublespeak.
Slaves also had the lovely "voluntary" choice of obeying their masters or being beaten within an inch of their lives as human chattel.

There are no real meaningful choices here, only ultimatums.

I shall elaborate since it seems you didn't answer my question or understand what I meant by equivocation. Force is an interpersonal dynamic. The fundamental attributes of human existence cannot accurately be characterized as 'force'.

E.g., to survive, one must eat. Eating is thus a requirement of existence. But this is not what it means to be forced to eat.

Being forced to eat would mean, e.g., a person physically putting food into your mouth against your will or threatening to harm you, if you did not eat.

Sustenance is thus a prerequisite of the entire concept of voluntary action vs. forced action. Everyone who has declined or failed sustenance is dead.

Consequently, the requirement of sustenance is part of the very definition of a group of people we are talking about when discussing force. "Humans are forced to survive" is an incoherent proposition. Forced by whom or by what?

The answer is: by their own existence and nothing else. Every human actively self-imposes this requirement or declines or fails it and dies.

You labor to produce and consume food, thus continue your existence. Production precedes consumption.

Just because you cannot decline labor for survival, doesn't mean you cannot decline, accept or terminate contracts with other individuals on mutual terms. Indeed, one could hypothetically live a completely contractless life.

I've only found anti-capitalist folks use 'force' in this way. Others mostly apply it to interactions between moral agents. What are your thoughts?

Have you ever received any other noteworthy responses to this argument?

See? Is it starting to get through one's layers of cognitive dissonance yet? There is no human agency in creating the unpleasant situation that we call poverty or the solution to that problem which we call wage labour!

If there is no human agency, then there is no moral dimension and any critique claiming one is now exposed as completely false.

EDIT; in case nobody believes that the quotes above are real, here they are in context;


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …