US Politics: midterm elections are nigh: do you know where your voting rights are?

[The Notorious]

I don't know man, swordfish has surely contributed significantly and substantively to the understanding of pedantry in these threads.

Also, I don't know why people keep engaging with someone who has such a immoral worldview like athias ... really no point to continue if the fundamental underlying philosophies are irreconcilable.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Substance? All of the substance!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP, TptwP,

Aren't we supposed to avoid personal sniping?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

More problems with voting machines

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/election-day-arrives-after-final-push-from-gillespie-warner-in-virginia-senate-race/2014/11/03/21497c8c-63cf-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html

[Commodore]

witness the power of the fully operational Ace of Spades Decision Desk

we guarantee results faster than the Associated Press or your money back

[The Notorious]

I just like to remind commodore that the current price for bitcoin is about $326.

How much did you lost, commodore?

[Weeping Sore]

A guide to voting today.

Question 1: Are you very rich?

If the answer is "yes", go to question 2

Question 2: Do you give a fuck about people who are not very rich?

If the answer is "no", vote "R"

Otherwise, vote "D"

Note: If your answer to question 1 is "no", but you think that you should vote "R" anyway because you (A) love guns (B ) hate abortions or (C ) hate gays, just vote "D" anyway, because the Ds aren't going to do shit about guns, and the Rs aren't going to do shit about abortions. It's possible Rs could push some anti-gay shit through that will get struck down by the courts, so if you're dying for that to happen, go ahead, vote "R". And don't forget to go fuck yourself after.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

WS,

There are more options than "R" and "D".

[Swordfish]

A guide to voting today.

Question 1: Are you very rich?

If the answer is "yes", go to question 2

Question 2: Do you give a fuck about people who are not very rich?

If the answer is "no", vote "R"

Otherwise, vote "D"

Note: If your answer to question 1 is "no", but you think that you should vote "R" anyway because you (A) love guns (B ) hate abortions or (C ) hate gays, just vote "D" anyway, because the Ds aren't going to do shit about guns, and the Rs aren't going to do shit about abortions. It's possible Rs could push some anti-gay shit through that will get struck down by the courts, so if you're dying for that to happen, go ahead, vote "R". And don't forget to go fuck yourself after.

*ahem* As I was saying......

[Athias]

I asked three different variations because I wanted to know when someone stops coercing and starts exploiting, in your opinion. If I create an unfair situation accidentally and then use it, am I being coercive (since I had no intent or agency to create said situation) or exploitative? What about if I simply make it more likely for an unfair situation to occur? Secondly, I disagree completely with the idea that coercion is inherently morally wrong while exploiting a situation isn't, just by the virtue of some ill-defined agency. Why is creating an unfair situation inherently wrong but using it inherently not wrong? You can't just scream "agency does it!" without being willing to investigate when it somehow suddenly switches to "coercion" instead. You're fitting things into oddly strictly-defined boxes that have little practical utility and then act confused when people accuse libertarianism of being a philosophy that only works on perfectly round humans in a vacuum. Exploiting an unfair situation is exploiting an unfair situation, regardless of who created it. The fact that you engineered an unfair situation is a separate problem.

For instance, coercing someone to abide by a voluntary contract via the threat of shunning/a negative response is the core tenet of how a libertarian society is supposed to interact, right? Same with property rights. I coerce you to respect my property rights by making you fear a response. But coercion is inherently, always, totally wrong, right?

When you're exploiting an "unfair" situation that is neither of your own creation or generation, the liability of said "situation" cannot be attributed to you. It exists independent of your exploitation. When employers seek to employ workers at a given wage that a worker may not readily accept, that employer is merely dictating the terms to which he/she will participate in a contract. That employer does not have to enter a contract with you. If the employer refuses to enter a contract because he/she deems your price too high, that employer is not responsible for you starving. That employer is entitled to him or herself. Again, no contract has to be made. Whether the employer exploits your desire to find work doesn't transfer the liability of your circumstances.

This is starkly different from someone threatening to penalize you through fine, detention, or death, to accept someone else's price. In that situation, the one who is threatening the imposition of some sanction is liable for the unfair situation.

*By the way, I'm neither a libertarian nor am I a utilitarian. So unless you have a particular argument against what I've said, your references to libertarians and their concepts of property rights are lost on me.