Last night I was discussing politics again with a friend and some other people, and he was claiming that people who sign contracts, like when you get a bank account, are somehow forced into those agreements since you "have to" have a bank account. Because of this, he claims, people should not be bound by those agreements. Also, he said that the banks are somehow "stealing" from people because of the "unfair" conditions of the contract (he never addressed how free accounts are "stealing" from anyone since you don't give them any money at all). He said that since the contracts were so long and legalistic, no one really reads them before signing them and therefore there was no real obligation to meet the terms of the contract.

Now, not to be hard on my friend (many people agree with him on this subject) this struck me as somewhat childish -- if someone is too lazy or careless to fully read an agreement before signing it, I don't think they have any right to complain if the terms of the agreement are later found to be unfavorable to them. This, however, was more of a peripheral issue, with the central issue being that Joe thought that social and economic forces forced people into these agreements against their will. If we are to accept this view, then no one can really be held responsible for anything, since entering into a non-mandatory contract is about as voluntary an action as there could be.

Once we accept the idea that people can be abstractly coerced by economic forces, and that this coercion absolves them of responsibility, where do we draw the line between what is voluntary and what is coerced? Behind every decision and action taken by a person, there is surely some influencing factor that could be called "coercive" under this definition. (Like that people "have to" take crappy jobs because they would otherwise starve.) It seems to me that if someone is not directly coerced with physical force or threat of physical force, then they should be held responsible for their actions and bound by agreements into which they enter. To define things otherwise is to treat everyone as a child or victim. Also, society as a whole could not operate if people did not enter into agreements that they believed were voluntary and would be honored -- all of economics is based on this principle. If I could at any time abrogate on an agreement, claiming that some abstract force had coerced me into the agreement, there would be no way to establish even the most basic economic exchanges that provide people with basic necessities.

I think that the only reasonable way to look at economic agreements (such as employment, banking agreements, purchasing goods, etc) is that no one has a "right" to banking, employment, etc. because without bankers and employers having established their businesses, there would be no way to be employed. The employer does the employee "a favor" by hiring him, and the worker helps the employee by helping him to utilize his capital for profit. Even if this situation is seen as less than ideal, the employer had no obligation to hire the worker, and both parties accepted the terms of the agreement (good and bad) because they perceived a net gain.

To claim that voluntary employment is coercive or exploitative ignores the fact that 1) the agreement would not have been reached had both parties not perceived gain in it, and 2) the employee is privileged by the chance to work for money, just as we are privileged to have the wealth that we do. We owe this privilege to the work and vision of entrepreneurs who initiate these mutually beneficial situations.

I am yet to hear a coherent, reasonable alternative to this view which justifies the view that labor is exploitative or that employment is coercive. Since this view is the basis of all government social aid and socialist/leftist thought, it is of course critical to understanding whether or not leftism is a reasonable system.

Anyone who would be willing to present even a brief outline of the argument for these views, please email me or comment. I find it hard to believe that there does not exist a logical explanation behind these beliefs, however the arguments that I have heard were illogical and demonstrably based on false impressions and misunderstandings of economic principles.