To be fair to Hale, his position is a bit more nuanced than that. Maybe a bit, but not much. He is quite explicit that "coercion" (1) is not a perjorative, and (2) would describe my decision not to pay $80,000 for a Tesla (i.e., I would be coercing Tesla).
Let's reverse poles; is poverty harmful? Is poverty voluntary across the planet today? Do the labor contracts that have been developed over the last 75 years have something to do with that? Does the structure of market[s] competition have something to do with that? Without getting bogged down in definitions, I think we could all agree it is better to be rich than poor, and most people would prefer to be rich than poor. Some people, whether because of culture, temperament, life experience, etc., are better skilled at achieving their goals than others. I think market competition based upon clear and protected property rules, including labor contracts in which employers have the right to fire their employees and employees have the right to fire their employers (i.e. quit), has been the greatest contributor to the reduction of poverty in the history of the world. In light of the immense physical and intellectual capital that has been created since the Industrial Revolution, which has permitted certain countries in the past 50 years to go from poverty to wealth in one generation, the biggest contributor to continuing poverty around the globe is terrible government enforcing terrible economic rules that make wealth creation and preservation extremely problematic. David Shemano
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
