The response to this is that the underlying immorality is still there. I don't believe in saying “workers shouldn't want to work for this or that”, I all I can do is observe the voluntary behavior of what workers decide to do and conclude that was their best option among their alternatives.
And I think that's the important distinction between the ideologies, that capitalists believe in revealed preferences. It isn’t whether I think the person should engage in the trade or not engage in the trade, all I can do is conclude that they wanted the decision that they chose. I'm not interested in saying what laborers should do. Beyond that, the fact that laborers are voluntarily engaging in these transactions means that that's what they, among all opportunity costs, decided to be their best option. it's not somebody's fault if you don't get food and die, that's just the state of nature. That's not exploitative because the opportunity costs aren't the result of some third party oppressing you. If I don’t work for them, they can find another worker. Because “Capitalists” have much more leverage than me. What the argument should have been is “if I exist in a society and I can go out to ten firms and work to say that this is a voluntary transaction is ridiculous because if I don't work, I'm going to die.” That, for these reasons, the transaction can never be voluntary. The broader argument that should be made here is how voluntary is a laborer when engaging in transactions with an individual in contract. Let us Steelman this vulgar absurdity in order to actually engage in debate with this post. It is clear that Vaush has no argument in the real world. If it must be outlined, and I think this is obvious by now, the argument implies: the man can not fish, can not find fruit, can not find flora, essentially no other source of food, he can not negotiate, he can not leave the island, etc. But the reality is, you will not get one because the argument has absolutely no ground to rest on. I apologize to the socialists who want an actual answer to the question.
At its basis, the argument is inductive and attempting to justify an “exploitation” that does not actually exist. Vaush applies an absurd amount of specificity to create an illogical and altogether impossible situation. That being said, Vaush is utilizing a the ( \_analogy) in this argument. Now, it must be commented on-the extremely bad faithed and fallacious tactics Vaush uses to gain optics on each of his debates. Okay, totally valid, you can make that choice, but don't you think the initial setup, the-the-the circumstances into which both of these actors have been placed involves just maybe a smidge of inherent exploitation?” Now in this situation you can engage in a voluntary trade to wrap your mouth around that meaty schlong and get that bread. Someone already crashed, already lives there, they say they'll give you those coconuts if you suck their dick.
It's your only source of sustainable living. you find yourself an island with two trees. “Okay you get marooned in a tiny island after your ship crashes in the middle of the Pacific. Vaush describes his analogy as the “simplest possible argument”. Prior to becoming the ( ) he is today, Vaush, also known as Irishladdie, developed an attempt at a catchall against John Locke’s ( ) and ( ) by Murray Rothbard.