Ask an Anarchist!

[civver_764]

No, I'm exploiting their need for Electronic expertise in order to buy cute little cars, gadgets and shiny wood flooring.

I'm not sure I understood that.

 

[amadeus]

If you mean what I think you mean, this may be the most reprehensible post I have ever seen on CFC.

Sexual degradation of the ill and extortion are not exploitation?

I didn't see you develop any cancer cures. Why wouldn't civver have the right to set the price for something he developed, no matter how reprehensible you or I find it to be?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Just because it's his legal right does not mean that it's morally right. How many times has this been explained on here?

 

[Yeekim]

Based on the fact that I don't want the state because it causes a ridiculous amount of problems yet it is forced on me.

So this is a personal preference based on subjective experience? Just out of curiosity, what kind of problems has state caused for you? Or have you possibly adopted some 19th-century anarchists´idea of a "state"?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Does Perfection have to go to heaven? I wanna hang out with Carl Sagan.

perfection small p. Meaning without sin. Not big P (As in you.)

Nobody, including you, is perfect, save Christ. And he never repented, and he's in heaven.

 

[Left]

I didn't see you develop any cancer cures. Why wouldn't civver have the right to set the price for something he developed, no matter how reprehensible you or I find it to be?

This is mind boggling. Having money doesn't put you above ethics? I don't know, this is the weirdest post I've ever seen. Inventing a medical treatment is not an excuse for sexual coercion of the terminally ill, I mean what can I even say? If you're willing to defend free market rape fantasy you're so unhinged I have no idea what to tell you.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, you didn't.

Ummm... Without a question yes he did. Unless you want to seriously defend this action as moral

Should it be legal? Possibly. I'd probably have to say yes. But it is still abhorrent and its still exploitation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Should it be legal? Possibly. I'd probably have to say yes. But it is still abhorrent and its still exploitation.

So you think exploitation should be legal?

So you're against slavery, why, exactly?

 

[Bill3000]

Ummm... Without a question yes he did. Unless you want to seriously defend this action as moral

Should it be legal? Possibly. I'd probably have to say yes. But it is still abhorrent and its still exploitation.

Erm, wouldn't you say that sexual exploitation is, you know, harm? In particular, coercive harm, considering that the ill would necessarily need the cure? Shouldn't that (coercive harm against another individual) be enough to make that illegal?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So you think exploitation should be legal?

So you're against slavery, why, exactly?

Exploitation's definition is trying to make someone accept something unfair by necessity. Depending on how its done, there may or may not be anything you can do about it.

Erm, wouldn't you say that sexual exploitation is, you know, harm? In particular, coercive harm, considering that the ill would necessarily need the cure? Shouldn't that (coercive harm against another individual) be enough to make that illegal?

Well, question A is, should prostitution be legal. If no, then that situation should be illegal.

If yes, then question B is, should it be legal to trade prostitution for something else rather than money. If no, then again, it should be illegal.

If yes, than question C is whether or not the person who came up with the cancer serum should have rules and regulations on what price he can sell it for. If yes, then you have again come to the conclusion that it should be illegal.

To the rare person who said yes to those first two and no to the last one, I think you'd have to say it should be allowed. I think Amaedus fits into that category, and I'd say I fit into that category. I would say anyone who did as was described was evil however.

 

[Traitorfish]

So you think exploitation should be legal?

So you're against slavery, why, exactly?

Presumably, it's Socialist. You should know how this works by now.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Presumably, it's Socialist. You should know how this works by now.

The reason is because slavery is not a choice, its required. If someone wanted to sell himself into slavery just because he felt like it (Assuming he was sane) I would let him, but nobody in their sane mind would do so.

If someone is in debt, and can't pay, the government should either require him to do a certain amount of community work and society will pay off the debt (In return for the work he did for the community) or the courts would decide how much work should be done for the person who was owed the debt to pay it off (The higher the debt, the more work in either case, but there would be a maximum.)

 

[Behind The Mask]

Nobody, including you, is perfect, save Christ. And he never repented, and he's in heaven.

Perfect? Hardly.

Muhammad was clearly better at not getting crucified.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Perfect? Hardly.

Muhammad was clearly better at not getting crucified.

Christ allowed himself to be crucified. He could have avoided it if he'd wanted too.

But if he had, we'd all be damned to hell because nothing could save us.

 

[Traitorfish]

but what happens if that "private" business kicks butt? That seems to be the problem with "collectivist" ideologies no matter how benign. How do you stop the brainiac from inventing and outproducing the "co-op"? Plenty of people would be happy to work for such a person...

Because Capitalism necessarily exploits its employees, causes their alienation from production, and leads to the rise of a ruling class. While it is far from impossible to imagine a scenario in which a given worker would be materially richer for engaging in class collaboration, that does not mean that he would be better off.

Also, "braniacs" rarely run private businesses; they are, for the most part, waged workers like everybody else. As I have said elsewhere, the Inventor-Entrepreneur is a myth (and a peculiarly American one, at that).

 

[Bill3000]

Exploitation's definition is trying to make someone accept something unfair by necessity. Depending on how its done, there may or may not be anything you can do about it.



Well, question A is, should prostitution be legal. If no, then that situation should be illegal.

If yes, then question B is, should it be legal to trade prostitution for something else rather than money. If no, then again, it should be illegal.

If yes, than question C is whether or not the person who came up with the cancer serum should have rules and regulations on what price he can sell it for. If yes, then you have again come to the conclusion that it should be illegal.

To the rare person who said yes to those first two and no to the last one, I think you'd have to say it should be allowed. I think Amaedus fits into that category, and I'd say I fit into that category. I would say anyone who did as was described was evil however.

The analogy with voluntary prostitution doesn't work, unless you're talking about prostitution being required to live. The choice being offered is "sexual exploitation or die from cancer", not "prostitution vs. some other job" which would be in the case of legalized, voluntary prostitution. This situation is precisely coercive because the victim is being given a "choice" between one option and the threat of death.

 

[Traitorfish]

The reason is because slavery is not a choice, its required. If someone wanted to sell himself into slavery just because he felt like it (Assuming he was sane) I would let him, but nobody in their sane mind would do so.

So you're unfamiliar with the institution of indentured servitude? Funny, given that your nation was built upon it.

Well, that and communism, but we don't like to talk about that one.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Christ allowed himself to be crucified. He could have avoided it if he'd wanted too.

But if he had, we'd all be damned to hell because nothing could save us.

I'm gonna be honest, I don't by into all this Christian mysticism.

Or any mysticism for that fact...

You can present it as fact if you wish, but I ain't gonna bite.

Besides who are you to judge perfection (and Perfection)? What makes you so sure I couldn't, oh I don't know, beat Christ in a game of chess?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The analogy with voluntary prostitution doesn't work, unless you're talking about prostitution being required to live. The choice being offered is "sexual exploitation or die from cancer", not "prostitution vs. some other job" which would be in the case of legalized, voluntary prostitution.

Did you read exactly what I said. It would be easy to say, rather than say "Suck my dick or die of cancer" (Someone else's words) to say "Pay me 100,000 bucks or die of cancer, or you can pay with it through sexual services."

Read carefully my three questions above. I'd respect a No to the first 2 or a Yes to the third. But I picked Yes to the first 2 and no to the third. So I have to support its legality I suppose.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Did you read exactly what I said. It would be easy to say, rather than say "Suck my dick or die of cancer" (Someone else's words) to say "Pay me 100,000 bucks or die of cancer, or you can pay with it through sexual services."

Read carefully my three questions above. I'd respect a No to the first 2 or a Yes to the third. But I picked Yes to the first 2 and no to the third. So I have to support its legality I suppose.

Ah yes, the Oral Contract.