"== Pic Change? == 

 I think the splashed red bleeding-from-the-edges symbol should be used for the Anarcho-Punk page, and that the original crisp, black-on-white symbol be used for the original Anarchism page, since this is the symbol that represents Anarchism as a whole. 
 

 == Voluntary - What does it mean? == 

 ::Okay, I'm trying to understand the ancap position here. Suppose we have a capitalist with a large amount of accumulated capital. He uses the bargaining power of his capital to negotiate a contract with a starving worker for a subsistence wage. What is the ancap position here? As I understand anarchism, anarchists deplore the idea of a society where such relationships can exist. However, ancaps deplore it only if the relationship is demonstrated to be 'enforced'. Is such a relationship (the contract) voluntary or enforced, or under what circumstances? 

 ::For example, can the degree of poverty of the worker have any bearing on whether the contract is voluntary - if the worker, or say a family member, would literally starve to death if he doesn't sign the contract, can it still be seen as voluntary?  

 ::Or can the means by which the capitalist has obtained his capital have a bearing? For example, if the capitalist has obtained capital by means of a state-sanctioned monopoly is that different from when he has achieved it by eg. stumbling upon a goldmine; or eg. saving from his earnings as a self-employed artisan for fifty years? 

 ::Conversely, is the reason for the poverty of the worker an issue? Eg - he gambled and drank away all his fortune; or eg. he was born in a drought and war-ridden sub-saharan country?  

  
 Bengalski> ""Suppose we have a capitalist with a large amount of accumulated capital. He uses the bargaining power of his capital to negotiate a contract with a starving worker for a subsistence wage. What is the ancap position here? As I understand anarchism, anarchists deplore the idea of a society where such relationships can exist."" 

 Anarcho-capitalists also deplore poverty. (Generally speaking, of course, like this whole paragraph. I can't claim to speak for all anarcho-capitalists.) Whether we condemn a whole society that has such unequal bargaining positions depends on whether we see it as a result of aggression (coercion, social hierarchy, exploitation, or whatever word your jargon uses) or not. E.g. We see Latin American societies today as oppressed, due to corporatization, state mercantilism, privilege, wealth redistribution, and political law (Cf: Liberty for Latin America  How to Undo Five Hundred Years of State Oppression by Alvaro Vargas Llosa.) On the other hand, if such raw deals come about through the natural evolution of the economy (the mode of production in Marxspeak), then, as much as we deplore poverty, we would not use aggression to force a better deal. So we see the industrial revolution and its bad (by modern developed-world standards) labor conditions as just a stage people had to go through, just like once they had to hunt with spears and live in caves. 

 Bengalski> ""Can the degree of poverty of the worker have any bearing on whether the contract is voluntary - if the worker, or say a family member, would literally starve to death if he doesn't sign the contract, can it still be seen as voluntary?"" 

 For the most part, anarcho-capitalists (and libertarians in general) have a simple moral principle which takes precedence over other moral considerations in a civilized environment: the non-aggression principle (NAP). Keep in mind, socialists, that ""aggression"" is interpreted using their sticky property rules, not your usufruct or communalist rules. I'm explaining all this because ancaps and ansocs speak past each other on your question.  The word ""voluntary"" implies that there is a choice. Anarcho-capitalists point to the choice of doing nothing (accepting the status quo) or agreeing to employment. Without the employer, the worker would starve. The employer is offering an alternative. Offering an opportunity is not aggression.  So it's voluntary, even in your hard case. 

 Note how libertarians define ""voluntary"" in terms of human conduct - if there's no aggression involved, then it's voluntary.  OTOH anarcho-socialists define voluntary much more broadly - they consider not only social constraints like aggression, but also natural constraints, like the fact that if you don't eat, you die. That's reason #47 why we misunderstand each other - same word; significantly different meanings. 

 Many if not most extreme cases like that in the real world are the result of some sort of aggression, usually