Quote from: AyeYo on June 30, 2011, 12:16:00 AM

Quote from: michaelmclees on June 29, 2011, 11:24:01 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on June 29, 2011, 10:42:15 PM

Quote from: michaelmclees on June 29, 2011, 10:34:03 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on June 29, 2011, 10:18:14 PM

Quote from: bittersweet on June 29, 2011, 09:47:18 PM

Taxes and laws are oppression, not job offers on a free market.

So if I give you a choice between death by gunshot or death by hanging... that's not oppression, right? As long as you've got a choice, it's not oppression, right?

That is only an analogy if the employer in the first statement is offering a job and then banning the potential employee from doing anything else. Criminal A, in offering a choice between a gunshot or hanging to Victim B, is kind of like a Government A that offering choices to Employer B, either employ people at a particular wage Government A approves of or don't employ anyone at all.

In both cases, the A's oppression stems from the forceful limiting of B's liberty.

Which is exactly how it works in the real world with sweatshops. The native people have had their lands removed from their ownership, therefore they have the option to do the only job available (work in a sweatshop) or die by starvation.

Do you get it now?

Then the oppression comes from the land theft, if that's what happened, not the employer. You don't punish a doctor for dealing with your stab wound which was left by a mugger, do you?

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then? There is something you're not telling me.