freebroccoli:

thepeacockangel:

freebroccoli:

taxidermygirl:

freebroccoli:

Libertarianism fails to acknowledge that hunger is a gun to your head.

And who would be holding that gun?

Whoever offers starvation wages knowing there is nothing better out there, like we tried your thing it was called the 19th century, it sucked

Incorrect. You can still suffer hunger without wage-payers. Try again.

But hunger forces you to take the job, a job that may be excessively dangerous, for absurdly low pay, having basic standards prevents these abuses of the system.  Forcing a man dangling off the edge of a cliff to give you his wallet is not a free choice.

The condition of hunger itself is imposed on you by nature. Even if there was nobody else around, the need to avoid starvation or to avoid falling off the cliff is going to be present regardless of whether there’s someone around who is willing to trade with you. Being coerced by nature doesn’t grant you the right to coerce someone else.

The matter here is not that libertarianism fails to acknowledge the influence of hunger, it simply regards the matter differently because a force without moral agency like nature can’t be treated the same way as a being with agency.

You can commit evil by omission as well as comission