Re: Sweatshops in a realistic light.

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.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then. OK.

Oh, that's right! As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary. I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary. If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary. You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time. If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed. They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops. They can skip the work and starve to death. That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

If we're using your standard than you're 100%.

I do understand what coercion is, I just refuse to let you use the word arbitrarily. Arguing a societal system is all about consistency. It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test. Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

That sure is some strange logic.

The world is complex, therefore there must be thugs who extort people for their money and control what they can/cannot do.

You do realize that in a libertarian system, each individual would have his own standards and therefore it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference whether a person had a differing opinion or not, right? Seems like the real world is too complex for your arbitrary standards.