• w2qw@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Generally the idea is that both parties need to benefit from any transaction if it is voluntary.

    • migo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      When you have to eat and the means to feed ourselves is held by few, no transaction is voluntary.

      • hemko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course it’s voluntary. You choose what you buy, when you do it, how much and from whom.

        If someone held you on gunpoint and told you to buy their product, that would be involuntary.

        • Ranolden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can choose what, when, how much, and from whom, but you are still are still forced to do so. Choosing which person puts me at gunpoint doesn’t make it voluntary

          • hemko@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can also feed yourself by growing food or hunting. Neither of those are banned, just more inconvenient and you probably have some other skills to sell and buy food instead

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You are forced to buy food, shelter, healthcare, a vehicle (US). You are forced therefore to have a job to pay for these things. Employers know this, and suppress wages with those together, the proverbial gun.