At 04:36 PM 12/21/98 -0800, Ken Hanly wrote: >This is quite a different situation than people voluntarily trading to an >equilibrium in a market. No libertarian would approve of Auschwitz. It is a clear >violation of rights. Jews didn't voluntarily work in the labor camps or go to the >gashouses as a result of some trade. The issue of voluntarism is a smokescreen to coverup the totalitarian nature of the market institution. It is totalitarian because, as you correctly point out in the remainder of your post, it makes decisions based on value, that is, accumulated wealth - hence the haves will always prevail. Voluntarism, on th eother hand stpulates the excuse "people apparently accept that state of affairs" - hence th emarket seems to be a morally good institution. The absurdity of the voluntarism requirement becomes evident that the case for "voluntary" participation can be made in virtually _any_ situation, even Auschwitz. The fact of the matter is that people (Jews & others) often _volunteered_ for the camps, duped by the Nazi deceptive advertising them as "resettlement." The victims were led to believe that they would be resettled to Eastern Europe and given a chance to work. To be certain, the Nazis fulfilled that part of their promises - they merely added an unadvertised special, the gas chamber. Moreover, Judenrat - the Nazi administration of Jewish affairs staffed by Jews - often participated in spreading that deception. They believed that if they cooperate with the nazis they will demonstrate the usefulness of at least some part of the Jewish population for the Nazi war machine and thus save them form the extermination. So the case can be made that the camps were to some degree voluntary - if only resulting from constraining of other alternatives and deceptive advertising. But that is standard business practice under capitalism, no? Heil Market! Wojtek
