I think a lot of people believe that the voluntary exchange of money and services is essentially no different to being forced to give up a portion of your wealth with the power of the state (I.e. fines, cages, guns)
There is no gun to our heads so to speak- but “voluntary” is a somewhat misleading term.
There are certain things that are all but demanded for participation in mainstream society, or which a choice otherwise incurs heavy penalties that put anyone choosing otherwise at a supreme disadvantage.
Humans can live without driving- but for most people having their own transportation is a necessity to being able to go about an “ordinary” life right? So you need insurance- the government is going to force you go to a private regulated company for that unless you qualify for government aid or have the money to self insure. Laws like smog, increasing taxes and fees etc. are specifically designed to incentivize the purchase of newer vehicles and take older ones off the road by making them too expensive or troublesome to keep, and with increasing laws to incentivize electric vehicles or ban non “alternative fuel” vehicles entirely- we see another example where the government and their full…
… force is used to leverage consumers towards private business. When we consider that mass transit was specifically bought up and destroyed and has long been hampered by the same interests selling personal vehicles as a way to essentially force the need for their products- we can see the picture becomes more complex.
This Carrie’s across industries, where the policy makers and regulators of corporations in government are often owners or major stake holders in those same interests. Where the law literally compels corporate officers and share holders to place the interests of share holders and the corporation first- this creates a clear stage for conflict of interest where a public official is sworn to two masters while also naturally being inclined to serve their self interest.
We can then comping it further when we consider the mingling of government and business- firstly we have businesses propped up entirely by government welfare- bail outs, laws, and anti competitive policies with the specific goal to rescue and preserve a single company or industry which wouldn’t survive in a free market. Laws meant to entrench the status quo and prevent the disruption of new innovations and competitors: and of course straight up bail outs.
We have companies that only exist thanks to government contracts and contracts given just to keep these companies solvent until they are actually needed. Companies providing essential services to the government and taking over the duties of branches of the government such as in the justice system or national defense or even social services and emergency response.
There are of course also cases where private forks are used specifically to circumvent controls and protections- where a government entity couldn’t act a certain way or is bound by restrictions that hiring a private entity for the same task on behalf of the government creates a legal shield.
The intermingling of government and legal aids to corporations and their protection over citizens as a strategic asset to long term growth blurs the lines between what is or isn’t so voluntary- it’s a thin disguise to say you don’t face force from the government when the government is laying behind these things pushing them forward or ready to have their powers invoked through law to work towards the success of a corporate entity.
Being able to live without the internet or a vehicle etc. are sort of exceptions. Even school children are increasingly expected to have access to the internet for their compulsory education- again I suppose a “choice” would be home schooling- if one has the ability to take that choice.
Of course the disadvantages that come with that choice generally make it not the best option for most people, especially those who want their children to succeed or be functional in society to their peers.
So we always have “a choice.” Even if a literal gun is held to your head and you are told to do something- you can choose to die or fight back for example. Those choices each are generally impractical alternatives and have risks and severe downsides right?
The “it’s still a choice” line of thinking doesn’t align with society or legal precedent- if you got a meeting with Elon Musk and held a gun to his head while he signed his companies over to you- no court would rule that contract enforceable.
The concept is one of duress- a concept that says: “yeah, you have a choice, but that choice isn’t one you’d make of you weren’t essentially forced to by external actions of the other party…”
Monopoly laws and competence laws are supposed to ensure a market where consumers have choice. When a combination of money, power, and laws created to serve individual interests in dominance conspire to create environments where consumers “choice” amounts to “pay these guys or go live on a farm…”
There isn’t really a voluntary exchange.
Most people wouldn’t pay their internet bill if they had the choice to use a public internet for example- but the problem is largely in that most carriers will offer similar plans because they are all using most of the same infrastructure as most of it is held by titanic pseudo monopolies that are enshrined by legal frameworks that essentially make competition impossible. Even if one had the money to lay the cable and machines for a new internet- a myriad of laws from telecom to zoning to environmental laws and other factors make the task essentially impractical for anyone.
In the simplest terms we could all choose tomorrow to stop paying internet, to stop buying newer cars and to walk out of jobs that take advantage of labor. We could all stop paying insurance and stop streaming content and vanish off social media and cancel our phone plans and communicate via smoke signals or something. We could- but the “choice” being given is to basically walk away from your entire life as you know it and from society as it has existed for generations and become a part of the most unlikely and unprecedented revolution in recorded human history. That isn’t a reasonable choice.
Tl:Dr and conclusion- what so many think or are asking is for the government to make laws and act in the direct internet of the citizen and not act under a doctrine that the best interest of the citizen is preserved when established corporations are served so that we can get “trickledown” benefits from their stability and prosperity.
The big ask is that a “free market” be a place where the government ensures competition and opportunity and maintains stability not by entrenching establishments but by cultivating public infrastructure that can provide the things people need to live and what in a modern age are considered
Necessities for daily life in society in a manner that doesn’t upend daily life if a single corporation fails. As we move towards the future, the private sector should be the place we turn for OPTIONS, not the place we turn because there are no other options.
To sum up what I said above- the mingling of government and private business and how they support and feed off each other and abuse systems and power for self interest is at the core of the issue. Without government support it just isn’t possible that so few people could amass and hold so much wealth. The government quite literally holds the keys to say who is allowed to play on the field of commerce and the rules they must follow. These rules have been tailored by the same people running both government and industry to create an environment where they have every advantage.
So to say that the exchange of money is totally voluntary ignores the fundamental truths of how the world works. Every aspect of things- an economic system based in consumer credit and so much more- create a system where you are penalized and denied opportunity to basically exist on equal terms unless you behave in the way the people running the system want from you. “Do it or be whipped and put in a corner.”
There are certain things that are all but demanded for participation in mainstream society, or which a choice otherwise incurs heavy penalties that put anyone choosing otherwise at a supreme disadvantage.
Humans can live without driving- but for most people having their own transportation is a necessity to being able to go about an “ordinary” life right? So you need insurance- the government is going to force you go to a private regulated company for that unless you qualify for government aid or have the money to self insure. Laws like smog, increasing taxes and fees etc. are specifically designed to incentivize the purchase of newer vehicles and take older ones off the road by making them too expensive or troublesome to keep, and with increasing laws to incentivize electric vehicles or ban non “alternative fuel” vehicles entirely- we see another example where the government and their full…
This Carrie’s across industries, where the policy makers and regulators of corporations in government are often owners or major stake holders in those same interests. Where the law literally compels corporate officers and share holders to place the interests of share holders and the corporation first- this creates a clear stage for conflict of interest where a public official is sworn to two masters while also naturally being inclined to serve their self interest.
We have companies that only exist thanks to government contracts and contracts given just to keep these companies solvent until they are actually needed. Companies providing essential services to the government and taking over the duties of branches of the government such as in the justice system or national defense or even social services and emergency response.
The intermingling of government and legal aids to corporations and their protection over citizens as a strategic asset to long term growth blurs the lines between what is or isn’t so voluntary- it’s a thin disguise to say you don’t face force from the government when the government is laying behind these things pushing them forward or ready to have their powers invoked through law to work towards the success of a corporate entity.
Of course the disadvantages that come with that choice generally make it not the best option for most people, especially those who want their children to succeed or be functional in society to their peers.
So we always have “a choice.” Even if a literal gun is held to your head and you are told to do something- you can choose to die or fight back for example. Those choices each are generally impractical alternatives and have risks and severe downsides right?
The concept is one of duress- a concept that says: “yeah, you have a choice, but that choice isn’t one you’d make of you weren’t essentially forced to by external actions of the other party…”
Monopoly laws and competence laws are supposed to ensure a market where consumers have choice. When a combination of money, power, and laws created to serve individual interests in dominance conspire to create environments where consumers “choice” amounts to “pay these guys or go live on a farm…”
There isn’t really a voluntary exchange.
The big ask is that a “free market” be a place where the government ensures competition and opportunity and maintains stability not by entrenching establishments but by cultivating public infrastructure that can provide the things people need to live and what in a modern age are considered
Necessities for daily life in society in a manner that doesn’t upend daily life if a single corporation fails. As we move towards the future, the private sector should be the place we turn for OPTIONS, not the place we turn because there are no other options.
So to say that the exchange of money is totally voluntary ignores the fundamental truths of how the world works. Every aspect of things- an economic system based in consumer credit and so much more- create a system where you are penalized and denied opportunity to basically exist on equal terms unless you behave in the way the people running the system want from you. “Do it or be whipped and put in a corner.”