I think the fundamental issue is the system they end up justifying. A right (a justification of violence) to a continuous increase ends up justifying an exploitative and aggressive system-- as in, at some point (out of several points in regards to rent) if the tenant is unable to pay, the landlord is justified in using violence to extract it out of him.
You're not justified in using violence to extract a one-time gift out of the guy, though. You don't have a right to one-time chunks.
I'm not saying it's wrong because it's not voluntary-- that was mostly to explain to the 'voluntaryists' how rent would justify an aggressive situation even though it starts out voluntary, which ends up blurring the line between 'voluntary' and 'aggressive.'
I don't know. I'll leave that up to the context and society around that case to decide-- it's entirely a social construct.
Francois Tremblay wrote:Because it is based on the premise that capital is an agent of production and as such deserves a part of the production- which therefore goes to its owner. This is of course false: capital in itself cannot produce anything, and it is not an agent in any sense of the word.
Francois Tremblay wrote:... any other kind of exploitative
Francois Tremblay wrote:If you hate equality and freedom, sure.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests