Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming
If you are talking about distributing resources in a just society, you are talking about basic things like food, water, shelter, and medicine - things all people need to survive. The analogy to sex is facile because sex is not a basic need in the same way. Sure, people want sex, and they might feel they need it, but it is not a survival need in the same sense. Even the 'need' to reproduce is not a survival need in the same way food or water is; not reproducing is not a threat to an organism's immediate survival. The analogy of compelled distribution of sex is closer in comparison to the forced distribution of ipods or Internet access. We are no longer talking about basic survival needs. Any analogy to a resource that is not a basic survival need is non sequitur.
I have listened to many of Mr. Molyneux's podcasts. I agree with his anarchist views, and he speaks eloquently on this. However, I think his defense of free market capitalism is much more ham-fisted. When faced with a challenge to the moral innocence of the market system, he tends to avoid the question. To do so, he often cites his belief that in the absence of the state, all would be rosy - although no proof is ever provided for this claim, only pure speculation and blind faith.For instance. the first question was if a person could be compelled by circumstance to act in a negative or self-destructive way even though there was no direct compulsion (such as a gun). The example given was about a woman forced into prostitution or selling organs because she had no other alternative to providing for her family. After 7 or 8 minutes of extended throat clearing, Mr. Molyneux concluded that "there are always other alternatives, right?" But, that was not the question. He changed the question by eliminating a premise in order to avoid dealing with the reality the woman believed she faced. No, sometime there are no alternatives, at least in the short term. Yes, she could go out on the street begging for charity. Is that less morally repugnant? Would it be effective? Perhaps she could get a job, or perhaps not! The truth is, circumstances often do FORCE people to act in ways they find odious and repugnant. Often, this is purely the result of market forces that have little or no direct connection to the state coersion.
there is no such thing as a free market - purposeful DICKHEADS...better yet- SHOW US ONE!!!!!