Voluntary Exchange

[BigBallinStalin]

So, I will drop the bomb. Note: I don't actually care about the answer.

Question: How can any individual who lives in a physical world, and therefore subject to physical laws, be said to have a choice in anything? I mean this in two senses: the deterministic one and the fatalistic one. Being in a situation to make a choice is itself an involuntary exchange.

Or: if God knows everything that will happen, how can humans be said to have free choice?

Whoa, dude. This isn't a debate on Free Will v. Determinism. We examine the exchange, and deem if the exchange is voluntary or involuntary.


(@ DY and others--Haggis, TG).
Answer: You're thinking that "physical laws" are the only laws which involve human interaction, but this isn't the case for the social sciences. We're examining several examples of exchanges, and each exchange involves concepts such as property rights, contract law, and in some cases explicit v. implicit consent--which can differ in each example.

[notyou2]

I thought this thread was about voluntary exchange of bodily fluids.

Man you let me down BBS.

[DoomYoshi]

So, I will drop the bomb. Note: I don't actually care about the answer.

Question: How can any individual who lives in a physical world, and therefore subject to physical laws, be said to have a choice in anything? I mean this in two senses: the deterministic one and the fatalistic one. Being in a situation to make a choice is itself an involuntary exchange.

Or: if God knows everything that will happen, how can humans be said to have free choice?

Whoa, dude. This isn't a debate on Free Will v. Determinism. We examine the exchange, and deem if the exchange is voluntary or involuntary.


(@ DY and others--Haggis, TG).
Answer: You're thinking that "physical laws" are the only laws which involve human interaction, but this isn't the case for the social sciences. We're examining several examples of exchanges, and each exchange involves concepts such as property rights, contract law, and in some cases explicit v. implicit consent--which can differ in each example.

For an exchange to be voluntary, does that not demand that the participants both have free will?

[BigBallinStalin]

I call false dichotomy.

There seem to be various degrees of voluntariness based on the existence of alternate choices and the cost incurred in taking those choices.

It's, of course, very hard to come up with exact percentages, but here's how I'd rank these from most voluntary to least:

1, 3, 4, 5, 2

voluntary exchange
Let's say I want to join a gym. They offer access to their facilities in exchange for $30 per month. The formal laws (codified) are written on some billboard (e.g. don't run around the pool; wear protective footwear whilst in the weight room; etc.). The informal laws are implicitly understood and usually don't need to be written (e.g. don't enter the building while screaming ferociously, and other variously understood laws within the Golden "Don't Be a Dick" Rule).

I'm generally aware of what kind of behavior they expect in a gym, and since I value the gym membership more than $30 per month, then I voluntarily agree to the exchange.


involuntary exchange
If an exchange involves coercion, i.e. made under duress by threat of physical violence, if one other party has not previously agreed upon the exchange, thus not upon the previous rules, then this is an involuntary exchange.

So, with this in mind, what contract did you sign when you were born into a liberal democracy?

[thegreekdog]

1. A Story of Two Gentlemen
Bubba and Hotep wish to exchange goods with each other. Bubba brings some beer, and Hotep brings a book titled “Social Commentaries of the Unhelpful Kind.” Bubba offers a price of 10 beers, and since Hotep values the 10 beers more than his perceived benefits of the book, he agrees to the exchange.

This is an example of voluntary exchange—on the individual basis. However, some of us implicitly think that the word “voluntary” acquires the same meaning when mixed in the company of words like “government,” “common good,” and “national interest.”


2. Bandits
Suppose a group of bandits—like the Mafia—come into your town, wave their guns around, and offer their security services in exchange for $100 per month. Since it is ‘an offer you can’t refuse’, you accept the exchange. Is this a voluntary or an involuntary exchange?


3. The King
Suppose you reside in a highly esteemed city of King Shekel’s humble empire. The municipal government provides and/or funds basic services like justice, policing, ‘national’ defense, etc. Regardless of how much of these services you use--if at all, you are levied $100 per month. Is this a voluntary or an involuntary exchange?


4. The Liberal Democracy
Suppose you live in a particular boundary over which a democratic government was formed some time before you were born (e.g. the US, GER, JPN, S Korea, France, etc.). Regardless of your voting habits and your proportional use of government-provided goods and services, you are taxed at a $100 per month. Is this a voluntary or an involuntary exchange?


5. The Liberal Democracy
You live in a liberal democracy, but you are unwillingly drafted into the armed services. Is this a voluntary or an involuntary exchange?


Is this a voluntary or an involuntary exchange?
1. Voluntary
2. Involuntary, unless free to leave
3. Involuntary, unless free to leave
4. Involuntary, unless free to leave
5. Involuntary, unless free to leave

Correct answers above.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, I will drop the bomb. Note: I don't actually care about the answer.

Question: How can any individual who lives in a physical world, and therefore subject to physical laws, be said to have a choice in anything? I mean this in two senses: the deterministic one and the fatalistic one. Being in a situation to make a choice is itself an involuntary exchange.

Or: if God knows everything that will happen, how can humans be said to have free choice?

Whoa, dude. This isn't a debate on Free Will v. Determinism. We examine the exchange, and deem if the exchange is voluntary or involuntary.


(@ DY and others--Haggis, TG).
Answer: You're thinking that "physical laws" are the only laws which involve human interaction, but this isn't the case for the social sciences. We're examining several examples of exchanges, and each exchange involves concepts such as property rights, contract law, and in some cases explicit v. implicit consent--which can differ in each example.

For an exchange to be voluntary, does that not demand that the participants both have free will?

Recall the long drawn-out "Free Will v. Determinism" thread with natty dread, me, and others. Natty and I, the "free willers," did concede that determinism may be correct in a particular circumstance: determinism may hold true across everything, so that it encompasses our perceivable system. However, it would fail to explain 'the finer details', such as the choices one faces when making or rejected an exchange. In other words, determinism isn't useful ITT, e.g., why did he choose X but not Y? "Cuz determinism + [insert long chain of events from which 'determinism theory' predicts]."

So, in this thread, we're assuming that either party makes choices involving different prices within a framework of formal and informal rules. If you wish to expound upon your philosophical point, please start a new thread, and I'll respond there. If we find something very relevant to this thread, then we'll put it here. But, I want this one to stay focused, so please respond in a new thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

You have shed yourself of responsibility Funky. Each act is a choice, but you saying that you have no choice in your acts. If there is no choice, such as a tree falls on your head, it by definition wasn't voluntary.

The tree falling on your head doesn't comply with the scenarios presented; one is a happenstance occurrence between a person and non-sentient organism. I think BBS was interested in events between people and the results therefrom.

-TG

True, but sabotage's analogy may still be correct. For example, the government itself is a non-decision-making entity, thus in this sense must be a "non-sentient organism."
(One of the problems with an exchange involving the Individual and the Government is this: who exactly is the government? Whose contract did I explicitly or implicitly agreed to--and when?)

[Haggis_McMutton]

"Voluntary" is an absolutism. Either something is a voluntary act or it is an involuntary act. If it's an involuntary act, it can have varying degrees of involuntariness (i.e. slavery, servitude, compromise, contract commitment, etc.). There cannot be varying degrees of volunteerism.

"Death" is an absolutism. Either something is dead or it is alive. If it's alive, it can have varying degrees of life (i.e. vitality, coma, etc.). There cannot be varying degrees of death.

By this standard aren't we left with very few things (if any) as being voluntary?

Buying your kid a McDonalds - voluntary?
Well if you factor in the cost you would incur if you didn't buy it i.e. your kid having a tantrum in the middle of the store, then there is some element of coercion - involuntary

Going on holiday to Paris - voluntary?
Maybe you really wanna just stay home and engage into a sleep/eat/watch TV marathon, but what about the fact that the neighbors went to Vienna last summer? Will staying home be interpreted by all your friends as financial troubles ? Not to mention what the wife is going to say when you mention your vacation plans to her. - again some elements of coercion are present

And so on and so forth. Our decisions almost always have some external factors constraining them and by the strictest definition are therefore not voluntary.
So then, to maintain the dichotomy you have to draw some arbitrary line. Like if this decision is influenced 90% by internal factors and 10% by external ones it's voluntary. This arbitrary line seems unsatisfactory to me.

voluntary exchange
Let's say I want to join a gym. They offer access to their facilities in exchange for $30 per month. The formal laws (codified) are written on some billboard (e.g. don't run around the pool; wear protective footwear whilst in the weight room; etc.). The informal laws are implicitly understood and usually don't need to be written (e.g. don't enter the building while screaming ferociously, and other variously understood laws within the Golden "Don't Be a Dick" Rule).

I'm generally aware of what kind of behavior they expect in a gym, and since I value the gym membership more than $30 per month, then I voluntarily agree to the exchange.


involuntary exchange
If an exchange involves coercion, i.e. made under duress by threat of physical violence, if one other party has not previously agreed upon the exchange, thus not upon the previous rules, then this is an involuntary exchange.

So, with this in mind, what contract did you sign when you were born into a liberal democracy?

I agree that paying taxes is more involuntary than signing up for a gym. I just don't agree that the fact that a contract is involved in the first case and a gun isn't pointed at your head then that means it is 100% voluntary.
What if your girlfriend says to get your fat ass in the gym or she's dumping you. is that not a form of coercion ?

[saxitoxin]

Buying your kid a McDonalds - voluntary?
Well if you factor in the cost you would incur if you didn't buy it i.e. your kid having a tantrum in the middle of the store, then there is some element of coercion - involuntary

Going on holiday to Paris - voluntary?
Maybe you really wanna just stay home and engage into a sleep/eat/watch TV marathon, but what about the fact that the neighbors went to Vienna last summer? Will staying home be interpreted by all your friends as financial troubles ? Not to mention what the wife is going to say when you mention your vacation plans to her. - again some elements of coercion are present

Firstly, the negatives in these scenarios all involve horizontal transfers of subjectively valued (non-) commodities (emotions). BBS' scenario presumes vertical transfers of objectively valued commodities (material). Your scenarios are way out-of-bounds for this exercise.



Secondly, I would never buy Hans-Joachim a restaurant franchise, unless it were an Arby's.

[Funkyterrance]

What if your girlfriend says to get your fat ass in the gym or she's dumping you. is that not a form of coercion ?

You've always got the option to tell her to f*ck off, therefore it's voluntary. As the OP describes, either it's worth it to you to go to the gym and remain her bf or it's not and you cut her loose. You voluntarily go one way or the other.

[Funkyterrance]

1.Yes
2.No
3.Yes, if you choose to continue to live there.
4." "
5.Yes, if you willingly lived there up until you were drafted.

You're assuming a framework where the king or liberal democracy have unquestioned rights to your land or personhood, which is therefore not voluntary by definition. If, in cases of 4 and 5, they are truly democratic gov'ts, imposing taxes or conscription upon you is counter to a gov't of free individuals, i.e. their threat of force (which I assume is there should one not yield) makes the situation not voluntary and is, in fact, authoritarian.

-TG

Since the questions were not very explicit in the first place I did the best with the information I had. If the questions become more specific I may change my answers. How can you answer those questions as they are without assuming one thing or another? Besides, I consider a condition in which you are free to leave yet decide to remain as inherently voluntary.

Then please list your assumptions which you imposed on the examples (nothing wrong with that). I'm wondering what assumptions you used in order to justify your choices.

Wtf, that's a lot of work to actually write out...
Sigh. Ok.

2. I'm assuming that the gangsters will "whack" you if you don't pay/try to leave.
3.You have the freedom to leave this Kingdom. The kingdom is more or less satisfactory to you since you haven't left yet. So if you don't actually own your own property, etc., you're ok with this exchange, else you would have left for greener pastures. I suppose you could be forced to live in this Kingdom and not want to stay in which it would be an involuntary exchange but that's just not what I imagined.
4.Basically the same as #3 only it's a different framework. I would add that for either #3 or #4 it's understood that if you aren't old enough to make these decisions for yourself, your guardians are. That's just how it goes.

Basically, I think that if you receive the services of a society and you have the option to leave then it's a voluntary exchange. If you are being forced against your will to stay in a situation that you don't think is worth it, it's involuntary. If you're being forced to pay the piper for your receipt of services, it's still voluntary even if you don't like it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Firstly, the negatives in these scenarios all involve horizontal transfers of subjectively valued (non-) commodities (emotions). BBS' scenario presumes vertical transfers of objectively valued commodities (material). Your scenarios are way out-of-bounds for this exercise.

Can you spell it out for me. Where is the line drawn?
I thought it was drawn between external/internal motivators for an action.

You're saying it's drawn on whether the cost you incur is subjective or objective ?

What if your girlfriend says to get your fat ass in the gym or she's dumping you. is that not a form of coercion ?

You've always got the option to tell her to f*ck off, therefore it's voluntary. As the OP describes, either it's worth it to you to go to the gym and remain her bf or it's not and you cut her loose. You voluntarily go one way or the other.

And when the bandits come you have the option of telling them to f*ck off, picking up a spade and lunging towards the nearest one, therefore your decision to give them the money is voluntary.
Either it's worth it to pay the money or it's not and you prefer taking the high-risk option that will likely lead to you dying but might lead to you starting an uprising and becoming a hero. The choice is yours, therefore it's voluntary.

See the problem with this line of thinking?

[Funkyterrance]

And when the bandits come you have the option of telling them to f*ck off, picking up a spade and lunging towards the nearest one, therefore your decision to give them the money is voluntary.
Either it's worth it to pay the money or it's not and you prefer taking the high-risk option that will likely lead to you dying but might lead to you starting an uprising and becoming a hero. The choice is yours, therefore it's voluntary.

See the problem with this line of thinking?

I see a slippery slope forming but not necessarily a major problem. It's implied that the bandit scenario involves either paying up or dying. In other words you don't really have a choice, therefore no real exchange at all. We like to call that scenario robbery lol.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... reading some more it apperas that all exchanges are voluntary, by some peoples' reckonings.

Exchange book for money - voluntary
Pay taxes or go to jail - voluntary
Pay taxes or die - voluntary

[Haggis_McMutton]

And when the bandits come you have the option of telling them to f*ck off, picking up a spade and lunging towards the nearest one, therefore your decision to give them the money is voluntary.
Either it's worth it to pay the money or it's not and you prefer taking the high-risk option that will likely lead to you dying but might lead to you starting an uprising and becoming a hero. The choice is yours, therefore it's voluntary.

See the problem with this line of thinking?

I see a slippery slope forming but not necessarily a major problem. It's implied that the bandit scenario involves either paying up or dying. In other words you don't really have a choice, therefore no real exchange at all. We like to call that scenario robbery lol.

There is rarely such a clear cut situation in real life. Many people overpowered the would be robbers.And for some people dying is not the highest cost (i.e. they would voluntarily take the cost of dying over the cost of betraying their cause). So simply saying that it's only involuntary if it will likely kill you does not seem like a good definition to me,

[saxitoxin]

Firstly, the negatives in these scenarios all involve horizontal transfers of subjectively valued (non-) commodities (emotions). BBS' scenario presumes vertical transfers of objectively valued commodities (material). Your scenarios are way out-of-bounds for this exercise.

Can you spell it out for me. Where is the line drawn?
I thought it was drawn between external/internal motivators for an action.

Well, to start with, your scenarios all involve intercourse between horizontally aligned actors, BBS' scenarios all involve intercourse between vertically aligned actors.

You're searching for a universality that would apply to all occurrences of an identical situation in which only the penalties and personalities were substituted. But your scenarios are not identical situations substituting only penalties and personalities. They are functionally different. To begin to address your question you would need, first, to reframe your scenarios so that the two parties had a strong-to-weak relationship.

edit - On second thought, I'm not confident in my response and am inclining to defer to Haggis on all his points.

[notyou2]

I find #5 strange. Is there a Liberal Democracy on the planet that has an involuntary draft?

[Funkyterrance]

Well, to start with, your scenarios all involve intercourse between horizontally aligned actors, BBS' scenarios all involve intercourse between vertically aligned actors.

You're searching for a universality that would apply to all occurrences of an identical situation in which only the penalties and personalities were substituted. But your scenarios are not identical situations substituting only penalties and personalities. They are functionally different.

To begin to address your question you would need, first, to reframe your scenarios so that the two parties had a strong-to-weak relationship.

Will you marry me?

[PLAYER57832]

The first is voluntary, the last 4 are not.

Not sure why the question though, unless this is a trap thread.

[Funkyterrance]

The first is voluntary, the last 4 are not.

Not sure why the question though, unless this is a trap thread.

I wouldn't call it a trap thread so much as maybe a "softening up" thread where we are eased into a concept so when we come into the real subject we are more open mined. Either that or BBS just finished reading some boring ass article and subsequently was inspired to experiment on us all.

[thegreekdog]

Firstly, the negatives in these scenarios all involve horizontal transfers of subjectively valued (non-) commodities (emotions). BBS' scenario presumes vertical transfers of objectively valued commodities (material). Your scenarios are way out-of-bounds for this exercise.

Can you spell it out for me. Where is the line drawn?
I thought it was drawn between external/internal motivators for an action.

Well, to start with, your scenarios all involve intercourse between horizontally aligned actors, BBS' scenarios all involve intercourse between vertically aligned actors.

You're searching for a universality that would apply to all occurrences of an identical situation in which only the penalties and personalities were substituted. But your scenarios are not identical situations substituting only penalties and personalities. They are functionally different. To begin to address your question you would need, first, to reframe your scenarios so that the two parties had a strong-to-weak relationship.

edit - On second thought, I'm not confident in my response and am inclining to defer to Haggis on all his points.

I'm in favor of intercourse both horizontally and vertically.

[notyou2]

The first is voluntary, the last 4 are not.

Not sure why the question though, unless this is a trap thread.

I wouldn't call it a trap thread so much as maybe a "softening up" thread where we are eased into a concept so when we come into the real subject we are more open mined. Either that or BBS just finished reading some boring ass article and subsequently was inspired to experiment on us all.

The Tea Party anti-tax stance set up is my guess.

[john9blue]

a lot of good points have been made in this thread... i don't have much to add but i think haggis is the most correct so far... there's no strict dividing line between "voluntary" and "forced"... it's a continuum like most things are... you don't have to be a total determinist to realize this.

[patches70]

Haha, only the first example is a voluntary exchange. All the rest are involuntary.

[KoolBak]

How can people answer "Yes" and "No" to an "Either / Or" question?

Is the answer X or Y?

Yes.