In favor of a non-coercive society

[gavinfielder]

So are they able to force others to pay, or not?

No.

It's hard to isolate what we're talking about here.

Anarchism.

A democratic, majority rules system of forcing other citizens to fund something, or prevent them from some market freedom, is coercive.

Not when citizenship is always by voluntary association, including having the right (and ability, of course, and that's trickier) to leave from the association at any time.

1. government spending without taxes and in the extreme case, without revenue at all

I merely said that this is possible, given the elimination of a central monetary authority that holds monopoly power over policy.

2. coupled with worker owned cooperatives

This, too, was brought up merely as a possibility within a free market.

3. coupled with unfair government competition in the market, somehow made fair by virtue of it being majority rules?

You seem to get confused every time I mention government. Starting from this hypothetical anarchist society, "government" would be any voluntary association of people. From here, I make two successive observations:

1) Members of an organization can pool resources to create some common good.
2) The existence of this common good may preclude private competitors from offering this common good for profit.

For example, currently just about everyone in America that has internet service at home pays a private company for it. If a neighborhood pooled resources, developed their own infrastructure, and set up their own public wifi tower, there wouldn't be any market for private wifi in this neighborhood once it was built and operational, which would not only save people money, but put market pressure on internet providers to at least drastically lower costs, if not go out of business entirely. This is valid market competition between a government and a private entity.

 

[gavinfielder]

Can't say I agree with the premise in your first paragraph. You don't have to be rich to be afraid of government power, or to believe that people control their own destinies. That said, I don't disagree with the rest. We actually have a system like that. It's called a federal republic. Since we've gone and centralized all government decisions that matter the most in Washington, we've largely lost the freedom of choice in government. Sure, we still get a vote, but there's no functional competition of ideas. There's only back & forth swings of power with each side blaming the other and no real way to prove either objectively. If we pushed more policies down to state governments as it was meant to be, then we'd be able to see who does it better and have the choice to move about freely and support what suits our individual needs & desires.

Well, the first paragraph wasn't important anyway.

Absolutely. In fact one of the things I supported early on in my economic education is decentralized monetary sovereignty, so that the states weren't relegated and restricted to only the federal currency and that we'd have more economic democracy. In general, states' rights would indeed allow more market-based solutions, and yes, democracy ties into this market perfectly. You totally get what I'm talking about.

 

[Xerographica]

You are using the amount an author is cited as proof of the author's validity.

What proof do you have that Paul Samuelson is not valid? Which author has more validity than Samuelson and why?

 

[Xerographica]

1) Members of an organization can pool resources to create some common good.

Are you arguing that your non-coercive system will produce levels of public goods comparable to those produced by coercive systems?

Put differently, voters in democratic regimes are unwilling to give up the protections offered by the welfare state, even when those protections are produced inefficiently, and at very high cost. Libertarians are not going to succeed politically by telling voters that they should give up welfare-state protections. Rather, libertarians need to show how freemarket programs will produce social security at levels comparable to those provided by welfare-state systems. - Jonathan R. Macey, Problems of market liberalism: Social philosophy and policy

 

[gavinfielder]

Are you arguing that your non-coercive system will produce levels of public goods comparable to those produced by coercive systems?

Probably not, but if you'd like to be a communist now, feel free.

 

[Xerographica]

Probably not, but if you'd like to be a communist now, feel free.

If I'd like to be a communist now? Uh what? I'm a pragmatarian. Clearly people accept coercion because they want high levels of public goods. If that's how it's going to be then we might as well have the optimal provision of those public goods simply by giving people the freedom to choose where their taxes go.

 

[Federalist]

If I'd like to be a communist now? Uh what? I'm a pragmatarian. Clearly people accept coercion because they want high levels of public goods. If that's how it's going to be then we might as well have the optimal provision of those public goods simply by giving people the freedom to choose where their taxes go.

Or perhaps we could give people real freedom and not initiate aggression* in order to take their money.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

What proof do you have that Paul Samuelson is not valid? Which author has more validity than Samuelson and why?

LOl, are you serious? I never said it wasn't valid, you are claiming his theory is superior to any others based on WHO he is and not WHAT he has proved.

 

[Xerographica]

LOl, are you serious? I never said it wasn't valid, you are claiming his theory is superior to any others based on WHO he is and not WHAT he has proved.

Did you ever figure out what Samuelson's theory was? You said that it wasn't the free-rider problem...so what was it?

 

[Paschendale]

Every time someone starts whining about coercion, they're really only talking about the government's ability to coerce them into contributing to society. They conveniently ignore the coercive effects of owning resources and denying them to other people. There is no such thing as property without coercion. Owning property means having the ability to keep it away from others, with force. The least coercive system would be one of shared ownership by all, but even that would require some coercion, since there must be rules to protect common resources from squandering by a few. One where ownership of property and resources is paramount would be the most coercive.

 

[Xerographica]

Or perhaps we could give people real freedom and not initiate aggression* in order to take their money.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

You're making a moral argument...but the best defense of government aggression is a consequentialist argument.

Them: We're better off with some government aggression
You: aggression is wrong

 

[Federalist]

You're making a moral argument...but the best defense of government aggression is a consequentialist argument.

I don't agree that the ends justify the means.

 

[Federalist]

Every time someone starts whining about coercion, they're really only talking about the government's ability to coerce them into contributing to society. They conveniently ignore the coercive effects of owning resources and denying them to other people. There is no such thing as property without coercion. Owning property means having the ability to keep it away from others, with force. The least coercive system would be one of shared ownership by all, but even that would require some coercion, since there must be rules to protect common resources from squandering by a few. One where ownership of property and resources is paramount would be the most coercive.

That's why I don't think it's particularly accurate or meaningful to say that one objects to coercion. What libertarians object to is the initiation of aggression*. As you point out, it may be necessary to use coercion in response to the initiation of aggression, so one can't make the blanket statement that coercion is wrong under all circumstances.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

 

[Xerographica]

I don't agree that the ends justify the means.

So you agree that the ends are of absolutely no consequence.

 

[Federalist]

So you agree that the ends are of absolutely no consequence.

No. The ends are of consequence, but the ends don't justify the means.

 

[Paschendale]

That's why I don't think it's particularly accurate or meaningful to say that one objects to coercion. What libertarians object to is the initiation of aggression*. As you point out, it may be necessary to use coercion in response to the initiation of aggression, so one can't make the blanket statement that coercion is wrong under all circumstances.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

Which is why their philosophy is one of greed and violence. It's all about ensuring that a person keeps what they've hoarded. The rulers are just the ones who own all the resources and everyone else is basically a serf. And the purpose of their government is to make sure that the ones who own keep owning and the ones who don't can't do anything about it. It'll get you an oligarchy every time.

 

[Federalist]

Which is why their philosophy is one of greed and violence.

I see. So the people who eschew initiating aggression* are the greedy violent ones. And those who advocate forcibly taking what belongs to others are selfless peace-loving ones.


* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

 

[Mach]

Every time someone starts whining about coercion, they're really only talking about the government's ability to coerce them into contributing to society. They conveniently ignore the coercive effects of owning resources and denying them to other people. There is no such thing as property without coercion. Owning property means having the ability to keep it away from others, with force. The least coercive system would be one of shared ownership by all, but even that would require some coercion, since there must be rules to protect common resources from squandering by a few. One where ownership of property and resources is paramount would be the most coercive.

No, actually coercion/aggression initiation applies to everyone, including government, but also just as importantly, to other individuals, workers groups, anyone, everyone. Ethics are sometimes like that Paschendale, they apply to everyone, crazy idea from your perspective I realize.

Owning property means having the ability to keep it away from others, with force

That's false. The ability is a given (nature). It's the legal framework that enables legal defense of the individual, who defends their property rights. Remember when England claimed property rights over its colony? We didn't need property rights to give us the ability to tell them to **** themselves. Nor would we need such rights to tell you to go **** yourself if you try to take our belongings.

The least coercive system would be one of shared ownership by all

So I pick up a piece of driftwood and carve a masterpiece with a chipped rock I found on the beach.
And least coercive would be that everyone owns it? I can't imagine how you come to conclusions, it's just mind-boggling.

Every day I read something like this I understand why we have a massive military and intelligence agency.

 

[Mach]

Which is why their philosophy is one of greed and violence. It's all about ensuring that a person keeps what they've hoarded. The rulers are just the ones who own all the resources and everyone else is basically a serf. And the purpose of their government is to make sure that the ones who own keep owning and the ones who don't can't do anything about it. It'll get you an oligarchy every time.

All those immigrants into the U.S. just can't wait to be a part of the system that makes them lowly serfs. lol. What a departure from reality.
Who is stopping you from making the next killer app? The big bad greedy hoarders? You're too much.

 

[Paschendale]

I see. So the people who eschew initiating aggression* are the greedy violent ones. And those who advocate forcibly taking what belongs to others are selfless peace-loving ones.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

No, we're not selfless. We're not selfish, though. We're about in the middle. But in a successful system, no one really has to be selfless, because no one is being selfish, and despite some of the nonsense that some like to entertain, there really is enough to go around.

You, meanwhile, are just selectively ignoring the aggression that benefits you.

 

[Federalist]

No, we're not selfless. We're not selfish, though. We're about in the middle. But in a successful system, no one really has to be selfless, because no one is being selfish, and despite some of the nonsense that some like to entertain, there really is enough to go around.

You, meanwhile, are just selectively ignoring the aggression that benefits you.

I'm not clear on exactly what you are proposing. Are you saying that you want a society where any person can take anything they want from any other person at will?

 

[ChezC3]

There can be no competition in the market place with the government. The government will always win. That's not competition, that's called a fix.

 

[Paschendale]

I'm not clear on exactly what you are proposing. Are you saying that you want a society where any person can take anything they want from any other person at will?

No, I'm talking about one where a person has an obligation to share. Where no one is allowed excess at the cost of someone else's necessity. The point is not to make sure other people can't take what's yours. The point is to make sure that they don't need to.

 

[Federalist]

No, I'm talking about one where a person has an obligation to share. Where no one is allowed excess at the cost of someone else's necessity. The point is not to make sure other people can't take what's yours. The point is to make sure that they don't need to.

Sorry, I can't agree with the idea that it is legitimate to initiate aggression in order to force someone to share. Violence is not the answer. Initiating aggression against other people just sends the message that it is ok for them to initiate aggression against you.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Well, the first paragraph wasn't important anyway.

Absolutely. In fact one of the things I supported early on in my economic education is decentralized monetary sovereignty, so that the states weren't relegated and restricted to only the federal currency and that we'd have more economic democracy. In general, states' rights would indeed allow more market-based solutions, and yes, democracy ties into this market perfectly. You totally get what I'm talking about.

We effectively had a market for government policy, but we sure have mucked that up....