• 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
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        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
            3
            ·
            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

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Generally speaking, slavery is also benefitial to both parties, you’re either a slave out you get killed. While technically voluntary (because a slave can still choose stand up to the oppressor, even if it’s guaranteed to fail) we don’t consider slavery voluntary. We can say that in this day and age our work is voluntary, but it’s debatable.

      You can look to this year how “voluntary” it is when the Hollywood execs literally said they will wait for the protesters to starve so they’d get back to work. When there’s such a severe power dynamic it becomes almost no different to slavery, because you, individually, can be effectively forced back to work. The only reason Hollywood protests have any chance to have impact is because they collectively oppose the oppression. The power dynamic is being balanced (or dipped in the favor of labor) by sheer number of protestors / workers.