Bargaining Advantages and Coercion in the Market

J. Mcgregor
{"title":"Bargaining Advantages and Coercion in the Market","authors":"J. Mcgregor","doi":"10.5840/PRA1988/1989147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Does the \"free market\" foster more freedom for individuals generally and less coercion? Libertarians and other market advocates argue that the unfettered market maximizes freedom and hence has less coercion than any feasible alternative. Welfare liberals, Socialist, and Marxists, in different ways, argue against the claim that the unrestricted market maximizes freedom generally. Both supporters and critics agree that coercion undermines freedom and that that is what is ultimately prima facie wrong with it. Further, they agree that the extent to which an economic system includes coercion provides a serious strike against it. The problem is that there is little consensus on the necessary conditions for coercion. In this paper I will be concerned with the nature of coercive relationships in the market. Market interactions have a particular character and occur within a specific institutional framework. Other accounts of coercion have failed to capture the unique character of coercion in the market because they have failed to take into account certain nontrivial facts about the market which are essential to the analysis of coercive market relations. l.tJloes the \"free market\" foster more freedom for individuals generally and less coercion? Libertarians and other market advocates argue that the unfettered market maximizes freedom and hence has less coercion than any feasible alternative. Welfare liberals, Socialist, and Marxists, in different ways, argue against the claim that the unrestricted market maximizes freedom generally. Both supporters and critics agree that coercion undermines freedom and that that is what is ultimately prima facie wrong with it. Further, they agree that the extent to which an economic system includes coercion provides a serious strike against it. The problem is that there is little consensus on the necessary conditions for coercion. In this paper I will be concerned with the nature of coercive relationships in the market. Market interactions have a particular character and occur within a specific institutional framework. Other accounts of coercion have failed to capture the unique character of coercion in the mar-","PeriodicalId":82315,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy research archives (Bowling Green, Ohio : 1982)","volume":"14 1","pages":"23-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1988-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/PRA1988/1989147","citationCount":"32","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy research archives (Bowling Green, Ohio : 1982)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/PRA1988/1989147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

Abstract

Does the "free market" foster more freedom for individuals generally and less coercion? Libertarians and other market advocates argue that the unfettered market maximizes freedom and hence has less coercion than any feasible alternative. Welfare liberals, Socialist, and Marxists, in different ways, argue against the claim that the unrestricted market maximizes freedom generally. Both supporters and critics agree that coercion undermines freedom and that that is what is ultimately prima facie wrong with it. Further, they agree that the extent to which an economic system includes coercion provides a serious strike against it. The problem is that there is little consensus on the necessary conditions for coercion. In this paper I will be concerned with the nature of coercive relationships in the market. Market interactions have a particular character and occur within a specific institutional framework. Other accounts of coercion have failed to capture the unique character of coercion in the market because they have failed to take into account certain nontrivial facts about the market which are essential to the analysis of coercive market relations. l.tJloes the "free market" foster more freedom for individuals generally and less coercion? Libertarians and other market advocates argue that the unfettered market maximizes freedom and hence has less coercion than any feasible alternative. Welfare liberals, Socialist, and Marxists, in different ways, argue against the claim that the unrestricted market maximizes freedom generally. Both supporters and critics agree that coercion undermines freedom and that that is what is ultimately prima facie wrong with it. Further, they agree that the extent to which an economic system includes coercion provides a serious strike against it. The problem is that there is little consensus on the necessary conditions for coercion. In this paper I will be concerned with the nature of coercive relationships in the market. Market interactions have a particular character and occur within a specific institutional framework. Other accounts of coercion have failed to capture the unique character of coercion in the mar-
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
市场中的议价优势与强制
“自由市场”是否为个人提供了更多的自由,减少了强制?自由意志主义者和其他市场倡导者认为,不受约束的市场使自由最大化,因此比任何可行的替代方案都具有更少的强制性。福利自由主义者、社会主义者和马克思主义者以不同的方式反对不受限制的市场总体上使自由最大化的说法。支持者和批评者都认为,强制会破坏自由,而这正是它最终的表面错误之处。此外,他们一致认为,一个经济体系包含强制的程度会对其构成严重打击。问题在于,对强制的必要条件几乎没有达成共识。在本文中,我将关注市场中强制关系的性质。市场相互作用具有特定的特征,并在特定的制度框架内发生。其他关于强制的解释未能捕捉到市场中强制的独特特征,因为它们未能考虑到市场中某些重要的事实,而这些事实对于分析强制性市场关系至关重要。“自由市场”是否能给个人带来更多的自由,减少强制?自由意志主义者和其他市场倡导者认为,不受约束的市场使自由最大化,因此比任何可行的替代方案都具有更少的强制性。福利自由主义者、社会主义者和马克思主义者以不同的方式反对不受限制的市场总体上使自由最大化的说法。支持者和批评者都认为,强制会破坏自由,而这正是它最终的表面错误之处。此外,他们一致认为,一个经济体系包含强制的程度会对其构成严重打击。问题在于,对强制的必要条件几乎没有达成共识。在本文中,我将关注市场中强制关系的性质。市场相互作用具有特定的特征,并在特定的制度框架内发生。其他关于胁迫的说法未能捕捉到胁迫的独特特征
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Selective Conscientious Objection Medieval Arabic Poetics: Poetic Syllogism and Community in Avicenna’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Poetics Reichenbach and Smart on Temporal Discourse Ockham’s Razor and the Identity of Indiscernables A Critique of Kant’s Defense of Theistic Faith
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1