tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4357620132379563790.post5332487965293928086..comments2023-04-13T17:09:27.720+01:00Comments on Englands Freedome, Souldiers Rights: Boycotts, coercion and blogging handbagsTrooper Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01505221473081871071noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4357620132379563790.post-81936806762258412092011-09-15T10:09:02.104+01:002011-09-15T10:09:02.104+01:00I've responded in some detail over at mine. Re...I've responded in some detail over at mine. Regards LRLongriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15139120804208136012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4357620132379563790.post-7336034523212381782011-09-14T23:00:53.371+01:002011-09-14T23:00:53.371+01:00James,
a large part of the argument is over the d...James,<br /><br />a large part of the argument is over the definition of the word 'coercion'. That is, in itself, a small matter.<br /><br />A second part is around, I think, the limits which a libertarian would put on the law, those limits being the protection of property rights and no more. This leads to certain things which are morally unjust being permissible by law. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I would argue for freedom, both from an absolutist point of view and from a utilitarian point of view.<br /><br />For more of this fascinating head to head, see Longrider's post:<br /><br />http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2011/09/14/on-hayek-and-rothbard/Trooper Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01505221473081871071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4357620132379563790.post-22086388080508807682011-09-14T21:12:59.439+01:002011-09-14T21:12:59.439+01:00Boycotting and coercing - well yes, they're di...Boycotting and coercing - well yes, they're different but the argument seems a tad different to that.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4357620132379563790.post-53923078940269671262011-09-14T12:08:10.824+01:002011-09-14T12:08:10.824+01:00Okay, I am writing a fairly long screed in respons...Okay, I am writing a fairly long screed in response over at mine at the moment.Longriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15139120804208136012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4357620132379563790.post-4634078310141319012011-09-14T11:29:06.876+01:002011-09-14T11:29:06.876+01:00It got caught in spam - I don't know why. I sh...It got caught in spam - I don't know why. I shall respond when i get a chance.Trooper Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01505221473081871071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4357620132379563790.post-81472240942559941612011-09-14T11:23:37.836+01:002011-09-14T11:23:37.836+01:00I wrote a long and thoughtful response here and it...I wrote a long and thoughtful response here and it seems to have disappeared. Bugger!Longriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15139120804208136012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4357620132379563790.post-54408493096504395832011-09-14T11:17:59.552+01:002011-09-14T11:17:59.552+01:00Actually, you are making a mistake in your assessm...Actually, you are making a mistake in your assessment of my position here. I have never said that boycotting is illegitimate - nor did anything that I said imply that. Indeed, I reaffirmed that during the discussion.<br /><br />However, one cannot deny that campaigning for a boycott is, indeed, an attempt to change behaviour and is, therefore the application of coercion - that is how they are designed to work. If they didn't, no one would bother, after all.<br /><br />Those who state that coercion is merely the application of force are ignoring the fact that force is not necessarily violence as one commentator seemed to think, it can be subtle; the raising of awareness that damages reputation, for example, is a perfectly apt demonstration of the initiation of pressure designed to change behaviour in the subject.<br /><br />Nowhere at any point in the discussion did I say that people should not be allowed to do this, merely that I disapproved of a group of people campaigning to have a product removed to suit their prejudices and everyone else be damned. Such behaviour is reprehensible. One commenter likened it to a witch hunt. He has a point.<br /><br />My first point of call for intellectual backup is not political philosophers, rather it is the etymology of the words we are using, the structure of the English language we use to convey our meaning. Clearly some folk didn't like that. However, I am not the one doing a Humpty Dumpty here. My use of language was accurate and words do not always have one narrow meaning.<br /><br />Yes, I am with Hayek here and no, his use is not wrong, nor is there any need for confusion.<br /><br />It is an interesting example used in the link about the employer threatening dismissal in the event of employees not going along with actions not originally contracted for. The article then falls back on the defence of the capital owning employer not wishing to engage in further exchanges. No, wrong, he is trying to enforce a unilateral change to the contract via coercion - the loss of work being the force. And Rothbard makes the error of assuming that the employee can just move and take other employment. As I well know from recent experience, this is not the case. In periods of economic downturn, the employee will often be trapped, the contractual arrangements are one-sided in favour of the employer. T ignore that one party has more power in a contract is to ignore real life facts. Providing the employer behaves equitably, that is fine, no problem. However, the insistence on unpaid overtime is an arbitrary variation to contract and the threat of dismissal is, most definitely intentional coercion, the employer knowing full well that moving to another town for work is not a simple matter, nor is there any guarantee of finding alternative employment there, nor is it cheap to do. Rothbard is wrong here as he is ignoring the real world in favour of a hypothetical one. Hayek, however has grasped the pressures that apply in the real world to real people in difficult situations. Do you think for one moment I would still be stacking shelves in Sainsbury's if I had a choice in the matter (or even taken the job in the first place)? A soon as I manage to find a suitable opening, I'll be gone like a shot and I won't be working any notice, either. Their failure to apply their legal duty of care is a breach of contract. They have persistently refused to abide by it, so the contract is void as far as I am concerned.<br /><br />Yes, absolutely I am with Hayek all the way.<br /><br />Some interesting and thought provoking stuff here. I might exp[and over at mine later on.Longriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15139120804208136012noreply@blogger.com