Skip to main content

View Diary: The Myth of the "Consensual" Marketplace (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But the only reason she has to sell herself (0+ / 0-)

    is that some circumstance has changed for the worse - a change imposed on her externally by market forces not under her control.  The fact that she is forced to relinquish something she had previously just to maintain existence is a net loss.  

    This is analogous, in middle-class terms, to having to sell your house: Of course you're better off selling your house than if you don't sell your house under the same circumstances and it's just seized, but you certainly aren't better off than before the external factor forced you to sell it.  That's why none of this is consensual.  

    It's tantamount to kidnapping someone, dropping them in the middle of a desert, and then offering to sell them water if they'll sign themselves into indentured servitude.  Yes, within the limited context of the rigged choice, you are better off agreeing than not agreeing, but you are not better off in the full context - you have been robbed, and being robbed never leaves the victim better off.  It never provides net value in return.  You start off the robbery alive with $20 in your pocket, and retain your life with an empty wallet - no gain there.  

    Business doesn't distinguish between making money and taking money.

    by Troubadour on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 04:28:26 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site