View source for What do voluntary mean?
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to:
navigation
,
search
<!-- you can have any number of categories here --> [[Category:Matt Bruenig]] [[Category:Voluntary]] <!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old URL and 1 End URL.--> {{URL | url = http://web.archive.org/web/20160322015819/http://mattbruenig.com/2014/03/07/what-do-voluntary/}} {{Old URL | url = http://mattbruenig.com/2014/03/07/what-do-voluntary/}} <!-- {{Other URL | url = }} --> <!-- {{Old URL | url = }} --> {{End URL}} {{DES | des = Matt Bruenig makes clear that following antidiscrimination rules for business is exactly as voluntary as following property rules for business. Because you have a choice of not being in that business. And if one violates [[Self-Ownership|self-ownership]], so does the other. | show=}} <!-- insert wiki page text here --> <!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them. Use these explicit workarounds. --> <!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}} --> {{List|title=What do voluntary mean?|links=true}} {{Quotations|title=What do voluntary mean?|quotes=true}} {{Text | Consider this tweet: In a truly liberal society, anyone could refuse to engage in private commerce with anyone for any reason http://t.co/UxqCQKYyb4 — JustinGreen4000 (@JGreenDC) March 7, 2014 Now ask yourself this question: can people in the U.S. refuse to engage in private commerce with anyone for any reason? The answer is clearly yes. If you do not want to engage in commerce with, say, a black person, you are not forced to. Nobody requires you to operate a hotel, a restaurant, or any other business. If you don’t want to serve a black person at your restaurant, you can refuse to do so by not opening or operating a restaurant. There is no legal penalty for that whatsoever. We know of course what Green means. He doesn’t mean that people should be able to refuse to engage in private commerce with anyone for any reason (something they already can do). He means that they should have the affirmative ability to engage in private commerce without following the rules we establish for such engagements, in this case non-discrimination rules. Here is the list of things we are talking about: Refuse to engage in commerce. Engage in commerce while following non-discrimination laws. Engage in commerce while not following non-discrimination laws. Green acts like he is mad that (1) is not an option even though it is an option. He fashions his comment as focused on (1) for rhetorical reasons. What he is really mad about is that (3) is not an option. But now consider my list: Refuse to engage in commerce. Engage in commerce while following property and contract laws. Engage in commerce while not following property and contract laws. I am quite mad that (3) is not an option. The state has regulated the way in which I am able to engage in commerce so as to prevent my engagement of it in a way that runs afoul of property and contract institutions. It has in this case and in the anti-discrimination case (in the words of Robert Hale) placed background constraints on the universe of socially available choices. If you think voluntarism and non-force requires that the state not create rules of the game for commercial transactions, then that means property and contract must be out as well. On this view, it must be concluded that wage labor is nothing but an involuntary farce, something people are forced into doing because the state’s regulation of commerce does not let them just go into their workplace and run it collectively. Green does not want to reach this conclusion. If you think voluntarism and non-force merely requires some alternative to the activity that is being objected to, then non-discrimination laws do not run afoul of that. There are alternatives because you do not have to engage in commerce, be an employer, open a business, or anything of the sort. Green also does not want to reach this conclusion. Conservatives have to somehow thread the needle here and claim that requiring people to follow property and contract regulations in the course of engaging in commerce is consistent with voluntarism while claiming that requiring people to follow anti-discrimination regulations is not. They cannot do so. The arguments they provide for why anti-discrimination is involuntary also render wage labor involuntary. The arguments they provide for why wage labor is voluntary also render anti-discrimination voluntary. }}
Template:DES
(
view source
)
Template:End URL
(
view source
)
Template:Extension DPL
(
view source
)
Template:List
(
view source
)
Template:Old URL
(
view source
)
Template:Quotations
(
view source
)
Template:Red
(
view source
)
Template:Text
(
view source
)
Template:URL
(
view source
)
Return to
What do voluntary mean?
.
Navigation menu
Views
Page
Discussion
View source
History
Personal tools
Log in
Search
Search For Page Title
in Wikipedia
with Google
Translate This Page
Google Translate
Navigation
Main Page (fast)
Main Page (long)
Blog
Original Critiques site
What's new
Current events
Recent changes
Bibliography
List of all indexes
All indexed pages
All unindexed pages
All external links
Random page
Under Construction
To Be Added
Site Information
About This Site
About The Author
How You Can Help
Support us at Patreon!
Site Features
Site Status
Credits
Notes
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Guidelines To Create
Indexable Page/Quote
Indexable Book/Quote
Indexable Quote
Unindexed
Templates
Edit Sidebar
Purge cache this page