On my given scenario, yes, it's specific, but no, it's not imaginary. It's something that happens fairly often to people with serious health issues. They live in constant fear of losing health coverage, and employers exploit that. Not every employer, but more than most of us want to admit. Even when managers don't do it intentionally, these workers are at a disadvantage in all negotiations, and they feel serious pressure to not rock the boat in ways that typical workers do not. I chose this example because it's relatively simple, realistic, and illustrative. It's difficult to call it anything other than exploitive, and while you don't explicitly agree that it is exploitive, you also notably don't say it isn't and have to try to downplay my example because it effectively makes my point. It's also on the more extreme side because once we agree that consent and exploitation aren't mutually exclusive, you can contemplate where the line should actually be drawn, which is impossible so long as they are considered mutually exclusive.
As for corporations and concentration of power, I fundamentally disagree. This presupposes that the state predates wealth and allows for its accumulation. I say it's the other way around, the accumulation of wealth bestows the power to create a state and entrench your wealth and power. And to be clear, the state DOES use its power to protect the status quo, including who has wealth and power. But it serves wealth in doing so, not the other way around. This is my biggest issue with ancap and agorism. They want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's not an issue, but once someone gets rich enough to start hiring their own militia, they have a fucking problem. It's willfully ignorant of human nature. Most are good, but it takes fewer than most think to cause problems.
As for donations, I think it's simply a matter of return on investment. Libertarian Party doesn't win seats. They don't get power. Therefore, bribing them with campaign donations is meaningless. At least a bought off Democrat might spoil legislation for you.
TheOneWithAReallyLongName
npub1f2…3wnvu
2025-05-14 12:53:42
in reply to nevent1q…jssh
Author Public Key
npub1f2d7g0p206c5nqjqfhftvrxg8u25gy6egqpv290qk27nc60k0fms43wnvuPublished at
2025-05-14 12:53:42Event JSON
{
"id": "6007bc8984b00ad90373b7d7e8b2c4d948dce2dd0c61b242cb1b5c2dddb562ce",
"pubkey": "4a9be43c2a7eb14982404dd2b60cc83f154413594002c515e0b2bd3c69f67a77",
"created_at": 1747227222,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9b56eb2ec875da986b9a255b9853a76d0062f41046a1495410f2694f4a7772bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"84f3bede6557345641f13cbb547ad394be00dc847e8abfe7102fdf3992912271"
],
[
"e",
"347d7e99c831f13919fa06b06daedbdfe219db02d1bed86217027042e2b0b91f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4a9be43c2a7eb14982404dd2b60cc83f154413594002c515e0b2bd3c69f67a77"
],
[
"p",
"874192fc49b2a6af514453d3e85d6340c664d893907e767ab6dc2949c507befc"
]
],
"content": "On my given scenario, yes, it's specific, but no, it's not imaginary. It's something that happens fairly often to people with serious health issues. They live in constant fear of losing health coverage, and employers exploit that. Not every employer, but more than most of us want to admit. Even when managers don't do it intentionally, these workers are at a disadvantage in all negotiations, and they feel serious pressure to not rock the boat in ways that typical workers do not. I chose this example because it's relatively simple, realistic, and illustrative. It's difficult to call it anything other than exploitive, and while you don't explicitly agree that it is exploitive, you also notably don't say it isn't and have to try to downplay my example because it effectively makes my point. It's also on the more extreme side because once we agree that consent and exploitation aren't mutually exclusive, you can contemplate where the line should actually be drawn, which is impossible so long as they are considered mutually exclusive.\n\nAs for corporations and concentration of power, I fundamentally disagree. This presupposes that the state predates wealth and allows for its accumulation. I say it's the other way around, the accumulation of wealth bestows the power to create a state and entrench your wealth and power. And to be clear, the state DOES use its power to protect the status quo, including who has wealth and power. But it serves wealth in doing so, not the other way around. This is my biggest issue with ancap and agorism. They want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's not an issue, but once someone gets rich enough to start hiring their own militia, they have a fucking problem. It's willfully ignorant of human nature. Most are good, but it takes fewer than most think to cause problems.\n\nAs for donations, I think it's simply a matter of return on investment. Libertarian Party doesn't win seats. They don't get power. Therefore, bribing them with campaign donations is meaningless. At least a bought off Democrat might spoil legislation for you.",
"sig": "f20d48936a43497476c70dc3fc4988d3065f19fa04a4029dd738c5731f1e2c68c1352a798fba109ad84602d90331a89a9c24ec82b33b58dfc32981f4e4045a2b"
}