Introduction and Recap
You might remember my entry on Voluntarism. If you haven't read it, it's basically the 'philosophy' co-opted by 'anarcho'-capitalists to justify wage-slavery. I outlined central issues and condemned it as an ideology which failed to adapt to the realities of capitalism as it expanded to dominate the globe. The reasons for this failure I can't really speculate much on. I suspect it didn't gain much traction when first introduced because its central tenet is a fundamental truism. Physical aggression is generally undesirable.
Wow, so insightful. That really needed to be incorporated into a philosophy. Not just that -- prioritize the truism to the point where it severely limits serious ethical practice. I can't see voluntarists/'anarcho'-capitalists successfully setting up their notion of an ideal society without violating the non-aggression principle. I think it would go something like this:
Voluntarist #1: (on an island) Alright! We've finally escaped from the treacherous claws of the State. We founded this island paradise for ourselves. So how are we going to divide this up?
Voluntarist #2: Hmm... Okay. You see that tree over there? (points to the only coconut tree). That's mine. And to prove it... (he draws a gun and aims it at Voluntarist #1).
Voluntarist #1: (In shock) But that's... that's the only tree on this island. Are the coconuts yours too?
Voluntarist #2: Damn right.
Voluntarist #1: But what if I want one?
Voluntarist #2: That's easy! According to our God, the Free Market, the price always matches supply versus demand. Since I'm in control of the only coconut supply, and it's in great demand, I'll charge you $89.95 for one coconut.
Voluntarist #1: I can't afford that!
Voluntarist #2: Okay. How about you work for me? I'll pay you $5.00 an hour. (Cocks the gun).
Voluntarist #1: ...It'll take me eighteen hours of work to buy one coconut. I need to eat in between then, you know.
Voluntarist #2: That's fine! Just ask for charity.
Voluntarist #1: ...will you give me charity?
Voluntarist #2: No. And you can't force me to be charitable, because that would be immoral and involuntary. (Presses the gun against the other guy's temple). Or you could starve to death. Your choice!
Voluntarist #1: ...Fine. I'll work for you.
Voluntarist #2: Great! And by the way, the coconuts you crack open belong to me too. I'm glad we could come to an understanding. (Presses the gun even harder).
Voluntarist #1: But --
Voluntarist #2: Remember, it's voluntary, because you agreed to work for me. I claimed this tree first. Resources are scarce. There's no way we could possibly accord ownership fairly. I'm just taking advantage of the scarcity. It's not my fault. (Readies the trigger).
Voluntarist #1: ...Kill me now.Humor aside, I've mentioned how voluntarism is outdated. It's time for a new philosophy to take its place. I've dubbed it "Consensualism". It differs from Voluntarism in three important ways:
1. It clearly distinguishes between 'voluntary' and 'consensual' relationships.
2. It doesn't declare consensual relationships to be ethical, unlike Voluntarism.
3. It accounts for coercion occurring through both non-violent and non-malicious means.
'Consensual' vs. 'Voluntary'
"Anarcho"-capitalists conflate the bare-bones definition of 'voluntary' with the loaded term of 'consent'. The 'bare-bones' designation specifies any action you consciously undertake. Typing a reply is voluntary. Choosing what shirt to wear is voluntary. Hence, so is employment. It shouldn't be used as an ethical metric, since its rhetorical flatness impedes genuine ethical inquiry. The term we really want to look at is consent.
'Consent' means agreement to participate in a relationship of some sort. You can choose whether or not to join (thereby entering and exiting or remaining outside). That implies freedom of choice. If you cannot freely enter or leave the relationship, you can't freely participate, and so the relation cannot be consensual. To interchange it with voluntary just trivializes the meaning, as by definition all conscious undertakings are, well ... voluntary.
A relationship/transaction is deemed consensual in nature if participation is non-essential. Employer-worker contracts are non-consensual since participation in the work-force is essential to continue living past a certain point in life (e.g. adulthood). You can't choose not to work, rendering freedom to participate, and thus consent, non-existent. It's voluntary on a semantic level, but that isn't helpful to our understanding of the case. All consensual relationships are voluntary. Not all 'voluntary' relationships are consensual.
It's important to note that wage-labor alternatives like social assistance remain first world luxuries. If the opportunity isn't equal, then it cannot be an equally viable option. The general compulsion of the system remains unchallenged.
'Consent' means agreement to participate in a relationship of some sort. You can choose whether or not to join (thereby entering and exiting or remaining outside). That implies freedom of choice. If you cannot freely enter or leave the relationship, you can't freely participate, and so the relation cannot be consensual. To interchange it with voluntary just trivializes the meaning, as by definition all conscious undertakings are, well ... voluntary.
A relationship/transaction is deemed consensual in nature if participation is non-essential. Employer-worker contracts are non-consensual since participation in the work-force is essential to continue living past a certain point in life (e.g. adulthood). You can't choose not to work, rendering freedom to participate, and thus consent, non-existent. It's voluntary on a semantic level, but that isn't helpful to our understanding of the case. All consensual relationships are voluntary. Not all 'voluntary' relationships are consensual.
It's important to note that wage-labor alternatives like social assistance remain first world luxuries. If the opportunity isn't equal, then it cannot be an equally viable option. The general compulsion of the system remains unchallenged.
Consent != Ethical
Consent alone can't tell us if a relationship is legitimate. Let's say you have a spouse. It turns out he/she's been cheating on you with your next door neighbor. He/she consented to have sex (i.e. he/she freely participated) with him. But he/she's been unfaithful to you. Now it's harder to declare the relation 'legitimate' because we've sewn an extra ethical layer on. But it was absent of coercion. The relationship was not legitimate, even though it was consensual. In summary, consensualism is broader than voluntarism, but remains constrained in application. Care must be taken not to use this metric inappropriately.
Coercion Isn't Only Violence
I define 'coercion' as the deliberate placement of someone into a compromised position to another party's benefit at the targeted party's material or emotional expense. I define 'compromise' as the otherwise unnecessary expense incurred by the targeted party. It's not required that both parties incur net expenses, since this doesn't reflect the material reality of capitalism. In negotiation between people, expenses are referred to as concessions and thus possess a strictly material value. The term compromised, in this context qualifies the concession in question as inevitable, and of significant value to both parties. If what's conceded is of no material impact, then the position cannot be truly compromised. I have two things to note about the first definition: Nature of intent and means.
Nature of Intent
Just because an action is deliberate doesn't mean it was malicious. This allows for people with good intentions (like you and me) to unwittingly place others into harmful positions under the mistaken belief that the transaction is beneficial. This is the context in which I place wage-labor. It might seem strange, because people think of coercion occurring under malicious pretenses. When it comes to impersonal systems, we examine the system's structure itself, and not individual intentions, which drive the coercive nature of wage-labor. (Capitalism is an impersonal economic system). It's a fact that the laborer has to compromise, even if the relation is masked to seem beneficial. This is because the material reality between the two parties is significantly different: one controls the means of production, and the other does not.
Means
The 'means' denotes the deliberately constructed methods (e.g. privatized means of production) or natural circumstances (e.g. scarcity of resources) that determine how the Compromised Position arose. Coercion can manifest through non-violent means. Blackmail would be an example of non-violent coercion. The perpetrator threatens to release embarrassing photos or correspondence to force the victim into a compromised position to the other party's benefit. He may promise not to release the photos in exchange for the victim's money. The means may be completely non-malicious and non-violent, but still coercive. Agreeing to wage-labor is a means to participate in capitalism, but remains coercive because the worker is deliberately placed into a compromised position for the capitalist's material benefit.
In Conclusion...
In summary, Consensualism is a patched, updated version of Voluntarism. It doesn't tailor facts (e.g. people have to consign to wage-labor to earn a living ...because of the manufactured dependence on capitalism) to conform to capitalist assumptions about human behavior (i.e. they want to work because people are inherently selfish ...because no other option exists). Historically, Voluntarism existed before capitalism's rise, but 'anarcho'-capitalists have co-opted it, since it so nicely compliments their skewed world-view. The strike-through denotes the capitalist assumptions, bold commentary is the reality. You can see that the capitalist world view is neatly contradicted by the latter!
