Voluntary Exchange

[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.

[patches70]

And for those who stated "unless free to leave" should be aware of some facts.

One cannot just renounce their citizenship. There are conditions, in the US at least, I speak for no other country. In the US you must go through a process. There is a fee involved, $450 you must pay if you wish to renounce your citizenship and your renunciation is not automatic.
Also, for those who renounce their citizenship there, in addition to the fee that must be paid, there is also a tax that can be imposed.
Also, the US is the only nation in the world that taxes not according to residency, but rather according to citizenship. So unless you actually renounce your citizenship you are still subject to the taxes and fees that the US deems you are to pay, you can't just simply live in another country to escape the involuntary exchanges in any of BBS' examples. You can even still be drafted even if you've never set foot in the US if you are a US citizenship.

The only way to escape these involuntary exchanges is to renounce one's citizenship and leave the country, which isn't free by to do by any means. It'll cost ya.

There was once a time when there was no cost associated with renouncing one's citizenship, but those days are long gone. There is a specific process you must go by and it takes months and you still might not be allowed to proceed. If it is deemed you are attempting to renounce your citizenship for the purpose of escaping the very involuntary exchanges that BBS noted, you will not be allowed to do so and will be committing a crime of which you can be fined and jailed.

You are not "free to leave".

So you should all consider that, at the very least.

[Funkyterrance]

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.

I think there certainly is a point where it becomes no longer voluntary. Would you say that slavery is a voluntary exchange? How about a prisoner locked in a dungeon in shackles? In these scenarios you may or may not have the ability choose between complying or not . There comes a point where its no longer reasonable to say "Well, you've still got options". The difference of course is in the details but the slippery slope just is not a viable course on this one.

[patches70]

3.Yes, if you choose to continue to live there.
4." "
5.Yes, if you willingly lived there up until you were drafted.

For 3. you wrote that it is a voluntary exchange if you choose to continue to live there. But in the US if you said "I don't want to pay these taxes so I'm leaving". Leave you do to another country, but due to the way the US runs it's tax code, by citizenship and not by residency, even if you leave you are still required to file tax returns. Because you are a US citizen. You'll pay the taxes of the nation you live and still be required to give the US it's "fair share". Even if you don't live there.

You could give up your citizenship, but you'll pay the fees and could face an expatriation tax. Not to mention you'd have to lie about why you are giving up your citizenship. If you state that you are giving it up because you don't want to pay the taxes provided in the example, which you state is voluntary so long as you can leave, then you'll find yourself charged, arrested and imprisoned for tax evasion.

That French actor, if he'd tried that stuff in the US he'd have been charged with tax evasion and tossed straight into prison.

And you still think it's voluntary?

Same applies to #4.

In #5, if you were born a US citizen and on your first day of life you and your family move to Mexico or somewhere else and you stay an American citizen and never return, within 30 days of your 18th birthday you are still required to register for the draft and you can still be drafted if the draft was ever enacted. Even though you'd spent but a single day of your life in the US, you'd still be drafted. Leaving the country doesn't matter, you must also renounce your citizenship. refusal to register for the US selective service is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and up to $250K in fines. No one has been charged with dodging the draft since the 80's though, being in another country you'd probably get away with it but if an actual draft ever came around it'd be a different story.

The draft is a heavy thing, you are probably too young to remember, but it was a huge problem for the Vietnam war. Some were convicted of actual draft dodging, but it was a touchy thing for the government. They couldn't crack down too hard or else they'd turn the citizens against the nation.
Being forced to be inducted into the military, given a rifle, shipped to the other side of the world and told to risk your life when you never actually volunteered is anything but voluntary. It's laughable that you say "Yes, if you willing choose to live there till then" when it doesn't even matter if you don't live here, if you are a US citizen then you are required to register and can be drafted, even if you don't live here.

The government understands that a draft isn't voluntary, that's why it's called a draft. That's why the penalties for not reisgering for the Selective services is so severe. You won't go to prison most likely if you don't register, but there are other consequences for not registering that display the involuntary nature of the arrangement. If you don't register you won't ever be eligible for Federal Student loans, Federal assistance and virtually ever Federal program and service that you will still have to pay taxes to fund, but won't ever be eligible to receive.

Your naive notion of simply moving some where else would change the nature of these involuntary exchanges is funny. The American citizen is economic property of the United States. There is no doubt about that fact unless you choose not to see it. Doesn't change the fact, though, that the US citizen is a cow and Big Brother is the farmer.

[Funkyterrance]

Your naive notion of simply moving some where else would change the nature of these involuntary exchanges is funny. The American citizen is economic property of the United States. There is no doubt about that fact unless you choose not to see it. Doesn't change the fact, though, that the US citizen is a cow and Big Brother is the farmer.

Yeah, ok, this is the second time you've posted directly towards me about this "freedom to leave" thing and I'm not really interested in entering a debate regarding this little detail. I might remind you that this is a hypothetical question and was not specifically a modern example of France, USA, etc. so I'm not sure why you are focusing so intensely on a non-existent prerequisite. There do exist examples where one is free to leave, historically or otherwise, so my assuming this in regard to my answer of the very non-specific question in the OP is my right and doesn't warrant calling my notion "naive".
Besides, in an earlier post I made it clear that if you weren't free to leave and you didn't like the exchange it would be involuntary so what the hell are you actually bothered about?

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Good point.
As greekdog noted, anyone can move. More important, perhaps is that a lot of people really don't care that much about the "grand choices".. unless they are young college students. Most people are too busy working, paying bills. Most people can be sufficiently happy in a pure monarchy or something close to a Democracy, as long as they are able to meet their basic needs, educate their kids, generally speak their minds (within basic limits) and have a reasonable amount of other freedoms. A really true Democracy is essentially impossible becuase most people don't have time to think out every last choice, so whether that choice is made by a monarche or elected officials is partially irrelevant.

[patches70]

Yeah, ok, this is the second time you've posted directly towards me about this "freedom to leave" thing and I'm not really interested in entering a debate regarding this little detail. I might remind you that this is a hypothetical question and was not specifically a modern example of France, USA, etc. so I'm not sure why you are focusing so intensely on a non-existent prerequisite. There do exist examples where one is free to leave, historically or otherwise, so my assuming this in regard to my answer of the very non-specific question in the OP is my right and doesn't warrant calling my notion "naive".
Besides, in an earlier post I made it clear that if you weren't free to leave and you didn't like the exchange it would be involuntary so what the hell are you actually bothered about?

Maybe two hundred years ago! LMAO. Good luck traveling the world without a passport, or in other words, permission. One cannot just simply leave, permission is required. A majority of the peoples of the world, in general are stuck wherever they are.


"Free to leave" means you can just say one day "I'm outta here!" and roll right over the border without a care in the world. Which is impossible. Better have a passport, which has a cost in money and time. When arriving in said new country, that passport will be examined and you must obtain permission enter. That permission is noted on your passport. There is nothing "free" about it.

I'm free to walk in a public park. I need not ask for permission from anyone to do so. I just don't agree with your apparent definition of free I guess.
There is nothing voluntary in any of BBS' examples except for #1. Your caveat makes no sense. Even if one is free to leave, they are all still examples of involuntary exchange. I was just pointing out that none of us are "free to leave". And even if one does leave, they still face the exact same involuntary exchanges anywhere they would go.
Unless you can cite any nation on the planet where you can pick and choose which taxes you will pay or won't pay.

Involuntary exchanges happen all the time. There is nothing wrong with calling them out for what they are, involuntary. You aren't the only one who doesn't know the difference between voluntary and involuntary exchanges. The US is just more Draconian in it's application of involuntary exchanges than virtually any other nation on the planet and does a good job making us think we agreed to such exchanges. And we like to think of ourselves as "the freest nation on the planet" just because we get to pick which politician is going to rob us. Free indeed.

But, believe as you will, in that you are indeed free.

[patches70]

And it's important to note a few definitions-

VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE: The process of willingly trading one item for another. The emphasis here is on "willingly." Voluntary exchanges are the heart and soul of market transactions, and should be contrasted with the "involuntary" exchanges mandated by government taxes, laws, and regulations. While involuntary government-forced exchanges play an important role in a mixed economy, economists really, really like voluntary market exchanges because they promote economic efficiency.

INVOLUNTARY EXCHANGE: The process of being forced to unwillingly trade one item for another. The key term here is on "unwillingly." For all practical purposes, involuntary exchanges is essentially another term for government taxes, in which people are forced to give part of their income to government in "exchange" for government services. Involuntary taxes should be contrasted with the "voluntary" exchanges that are fundamental to market transactions.

[PLAYER57832]

And it's important to note a few definitions-

VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE: The process of willingly trading one item for another. The emphasis here is on "willingly." Voluntary exchanges are the heart and soul of market transactions, and should be contrasted with the "involuntary" exchanges mandated by government taxes, laws, and regulations. While involuntary government-forced exchanges play an important role in a mixed economy, economists really, really like voluntary market exchanges because they promote economic efficiency.

INVOLUNTARY EXCHANGE: The process of being forced to unwillingly trade one item for another. The key term here is on "unwillingly." For all practical purposes, involuntary exchanges is essentially another term for government taxes, in which people are forced to give part of their income to government in "exchange" for government services. Involuntary taxes should be contrasted with the "voluntary" exchanges that are fundamental to market transactions.

What difference does it really make to the average person. That is the REAL question!

[Funkyterrance]

What difference does it really make to the average person. That is the REAL question!

I think the real question here is the merit of equivocation.

[Haggis_McMutton]

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.

I think there certainly is a point where it becomes no longer voluntary. Would you say that slavery is a voluntary exchange? How about a prisoner locked in a dungeon in shackles? In these scenarios you may or may not have the ability choose between complying or not . There comes a point where its no longer reasonable to say "Well, you've still got options". The difference of course is in the details but the slippery slope just is not a viable course on this one.

The point is any line you choose to draw will be arbitrary. To maintain the voluntary/involuntary dichotomy you have to choose a random point and say "ok, decisions to the left of this point are voluntary and decisions to the right of this point are involuntary".
I'm just saying that's not a good system.

Accepting that a sliding scale exists doesn't mean that you are rejecting the extremes (see argument of the beard), it still allows for things which are clearly near the voluntary end of the scale and for things which are clearly near the involuntary end of the scale.
Accepting the existence of the scale just means you can be more objective in your descriptions and not create stupid arguments and useless divisiveness which will inevitably arise when your arbitrary delimiter between voluntary and involuntary is different from someone else's random delimiter.