Quote from: mobodick on July 09, 2013, 12:10:36 AM

Quote from: FreedomEqualsRiches on July 08, 2013, 11:05:24 PM

I don't see any coercion in any of those actions. All employees were always free to leave.

Problem is it's an ecosystem supported top down by (for instance) Nike execs all the way down to the workers realistically will never be able to become a Nike exec. Nike parasites on the low position of these people and will work hard to keep the situation that way as long as possible. Nike fully knew these people were payed very very little and didn't make sure they were payed anything that we would consider reasonable. They tell excuses that these people get opportunities while they pay them salaries that would be completely unacceptable in the western world. They have the power to give those people more yet they choose to cultivate these environments of near slavery.

Quote

As far as Shell poisoning water is concerned, since when was Shell responsible for the water there?

They are always responsible, they just didn't take that responsibility and there was noone to force them to do so.
It is just an example of what big companies naturally do when left to themselfs. They don't give a shit about people or the earth or governments or whatnot if they don't have to.

Quote

The state is the entity in control of water quality there, and I'm sure that Shell didn't have the troops, not Shell, so once again, the state fails.

So the lesson here is that you need a force at least as big as the potential conglomerate you whish to run loose in your free economy to prevent things from going astray.

Quote

Microsoft coerces no-one to buy their products or work for them, same with Apple.
Microsoft included a browser in an OS, no issues there, either buy it or go with Linux of FreeBSD.

Microsoft had a near monopoly on operating systems and arranged for various vendor lock-in arrangements that basically slowly tricked society into getting hooked on microsoft products. They infiltrated some key structures and leveraged compatibility.
And coercion doesn't allways mean you push someone in a certain direction. It can also mean that you manipulate the choices people perceive to make them walk 'freely' in a direction you desire.
In that respect microsoft has been pretty abusive in the past, but more recently other companies like google and facebook really hit the nail when it comes to parasitic relations with their customers. No other companies have ever turned their customers into their product so successfully. A lot of psychology goes into those to make them seem 'non-evil' but that doesn't mean they aren't. At least their product base makes their lifes easier by providing detailed reports of their lifes. Broadcasting the message of 'we're not evil' becomes pretty simple if your receivers tell you how they want to hear it...

Quote

Have you never heard the saying "Caveat Emptor"? You and your ilk want a state to protect you from your own folly.

Caveat emptor is quite a risk when your livelyhood depends on a deal. This is not a mechanism most people would want to prevail in society. People want more security. They don't want someone to sell a huge party of poisonous wine so that 10% of the population dies while he goes of to live on an island. They also don't want to check every bottle on the market for poison. So some rules are desirable.

Quote

OK, so, can you provide any real cases where a company, not a government, oppressed anyone?

Well, if you didn't think those were examples of oppression then you sure have a shallow definition of freedom.
If i candidly pump the water from under your land and you have no idea why your crop fails and i sell the water to you on a free market, is that coercion? And can you still call such a market free? And how will you prevent such a thing without rules or laws that can be enforced with violence?

Again:

Quote

The state is the entity in control of water quality there, and I'm sure that Shell didn't have the troops, not Shell, so once again, the state fails.

So the lesson here is that you need a force at least as big as the potential conglomerate you whish to run loose in your free economy to prevent things from going astray.

So, the state failed, and you see that as a lesson that we need a bigger state.
Wow.