gmalivuk wrote:Except, when you initially posted about it, it was in response to a request for a *non-exploitative* servitude contract.
I don't think the military contract is exploitative. You agree to these terms, which include the possibility of going to war and the possibility of not having your talents used the way you'd like and the possibility of having various body parts blown off... in exchange for a free education and whatever, which you consider to be better than the alternative (which the military did not create for you
. Yes, in some cases the marketing is... less than forthright. But this is true of all marketing, and that's a rant for a different thread.
It's particularly important when you've signed up for a contract of x years, and now are stuck. While it's a great deal easier to get out of the military now than in the past, it's not always to the standards of at-will employment, and it's been worse in the past. If a shady place advertises for work, and you show up, and realize it's door to door sales but they didn't say so...it's annoying, but ultimately you walk out, and have wasted a modest amount of time. The military has a longer contract. So, false advertising is significantly more important.
The draft is still legal, too. Unlikely at present, sure, but can the draft be exploitative? I think so. Essentially, it's being used to circumvent the market. Workers are telling you that they do not view the pay as compensating for the risks. Now, maybe one can make the case that the ends "winning ww2" are worth the exploitation, but still. It's less than ideal. Plus, not every war is ww2, some are Vietnam.
The military is necessary, but that doesn't mean everything the military does is morally just.
The point isn't whether I consider it exploitative; if that were the case then the discussion would be about what it is that constitutes exploitation in a contract - any contract. And to be fair, every contract includes exploitation.
To some degree, we are talking about that. Folks have suggested that a variety of arrangements can be exploitative. Now, I don't see work as exploitative provided certain conditions exist, but it's definitely an idea others have advanced.
Tyndmyr wrote:"It is a free market which makes monopolies impossible", after all.
I think it is a common misconception. "Free market" is not a stable macroeconomic structure, but an idealized state of the market conditions. "No monopolies" is not a consequence of this state, but an a prerequisite to it. So far, at least to me, it looks like - on finite-sized markets - it is an unstable state, and will degrade to monopolies and/or to a systemic intervention from non-market forces.
This hasn't happened with say, farming. There is consolidation, to be sure. A mature market is likely to have a handful of players, where as an emerging market may have a large variety of small players.
Consolidation appears to hit it's limit at a few large generalists, and a handful of specialists in many cases. It's difficult to find cases of monopolization without regulatory capture. I'm not sure it's flat-out impossible, and retaining anti-monopoly law just in case seems reasonable, but the biggest reason for monopolization appears to be government.
If it's flat out impossible or not is a cause for some debate, but ultimately, that seems to be mostly theoretical. Pretty much everyone is on board with monopolies being bad, so banning them isn't really a problem.
Kit. wrote: Tyndmyr wrote: Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Social safety nets reduce overall wealth and may actually further limit practical choices.
Citation needed. The reason we have social safety nets is because wealth inequality reduces overall wealth and reduces practical choices.
For US healthcare/employment ties limiting choice: "CBS/New York Times poll, 30 percent of respondents answered "Yes" to the question, "Have you or anyone else in your household ever decided to stay in a job you wanted to leave mainly because you didn't want to lose health coverage?"
[New York Times, September 6, 1991].
That's akin to saying: "High income limits practical choices because you don't want to lose it".
To a degree, that's true. You always *can* choose to be poor, to not have health ailments treated, etc. However, these are not usually desirable or popular options, so while sure, you can do that, those are not the sort of freedoms that need a lot of defending. If a rich person decides to give it all up, and go backpacking without possessions, he can do that under most forms of law. Same with a person deciding not to take care of health issues.
Still, there's an important difference in that the relationship between health insurance and employment is not intrinsic in the way that wealth/high paying job is. It's a relationship added by incentives via law. If it's an undesirable relationship, which I propose it is, then we ought to rethink how we approach it.
The Affordable Care Act has *somewhat* mitigated that relationship, but the overall result of our health care system is still not a very free market.
Given that libertarians are against consumer protections if it limits choices, as in the example of payday loans, title loans, other predatory loans etc etc. What about the Military Lending Act? It's prevents dealers from marketing gap insurance when you buy a car. The price from a dealer is often in excess of$1000. The price from the auto insurance is$30. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/13/63799238 ... r-military
Should soldiers have to have the freedom to pay more for insurance from an aggressive Auto dealer?
Short answer "yes". Long answer, the law probably doesn't matter. The car dealership is offering a service at an unreasonably high rate. If it's not okay for servicemembers, why is okay for anyone else?
On the flip side, the military probably shouldn't help with debt collection on it's members to the extent that it does. The military is a very strange subset of society in some ways. There's a ton of paternalism baked into it.
We should also axe a lot of the legal protections that auto sales places get(such as anti-competitive laws preventing manufacturers from selling direct). If you gut the protections, they'll be far less able to be exploitative.