• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In favor of a non-coercive society

gavinfielder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
756
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I don't think it would be wrong to say that the goal of all liberals is a non-coercive society. That's the original definition of liberalism, besides. The primary philosophical difference between liberals and libertarians, as I see it, is simply a matter of perspective. Liberals see most coercion coming from private enterprise and an overarching capitalist system, whereas libertarians see coercion coming mostly from government. A lot of liberals have the unique experience of living in poverty where most of their money is extracted through necessary expenses that many feel shouldn't be difficult to pay for, like education, healthcare, food, water, and to a lesser extent, basic utilities--liberals, and especially socialists, realize that the prime directive of the capitalist system is to take their money, though most liberals also live under a much lower (if any) tax and regulatory burden. Libertarians on the other hand simply don't have the difficulties or the perspective of the poor and are thus incapable of sympathy in that regard, while they have the unique experience of paying somewhat higher taxes, being subject to more regulations, and generally receiving less services and allowances (while still living much better, of course, but.). Even the young libertarians--just think of the stereotype: the children of middle class whites. It shouldn't be surprising that libertarians aren't capable of understanding poverty in the same way that it shouldn't be surprising that minimum wage employees aren't capable of understanding tax burden.

I think it should be fairly obvious to anyone with a brain, however, that coercion exists both in government and in the free market. Furthermore, the conditions for either being coercive are the same: a lack of information or a lack of choices. A democratic government would be less coercive if its democracy was fully utilized and voters had adequate information. It would also be less coercive if being subject to its governance were less a matter of geographical location and solely a matter of individual discretion and voluntary association.

On the other hand, to make the market economy less coercive without infringing on the rights of business owners, I think what is needed is actually for government to compete with the private market. I don't see why this can't be the case, and it makes more ethical sense than imposing regulations on private enterprise. Consider this: A political marketplace of ideas is competitive in a democracy in much the same way that businesses are competitive in a free market. A free market performs when people spend a limited amount of money on goods of their choice, determining winners and losers through profit and loss. A democracy performs when people spend a limited amount of voting power (equal to one person, in most cases) determining winners and losers through majority rule and mobilized, most often, by class action. If a government were also by voluntary association, it would look a lot like, say, a co-op. Which is obviously a decidedly liberal form of organization, and also obviously perfectly acceptable in a free market. For an example of why market competition from government might be less coercive than regulation, consider instead of a minimum wage law, simply having a massive co-op government with a job guarantee that pays better real wages than its privately-owned competitors. This is real, legitimate market competition, isn't it? If so, then by conventional wisdom, this should also bring society as a whole closer to an ideal system more quickly and efficiently, but I could just as easily see that in the end both sides might co-exist quite productively and even benefit from each other more than be a detriment.

I'm saying a few different things here, but the one that's most striking is that keeping in mind that social innovation is just as powerful as economic innovation, why not a libertarian society? The only prerequisite is a lack of monopoly leverage, both public and private (this includes monetary systems!) In this case, government would not be coercive as it must be by voluntary association, and the market would not be coercive because not only would government likely still exist, the democracy and voluntary cooperative organization of such governments can provide a balancing competition against privately-owned market entities.

Of course, it would be up to people to organize, and only if they can afford the time in their schedules. This is where I could see it going wrong with a catch-22 somehow or another. Like having school choice without public transportation. Derp. There's also the lingering problem of lacking information. Obviously neither government nor the unregulated free market do a great job of media, and that's probably the biggest issue. I would still also worry about education, healthcare, utilities, and infrastructure.
 
I generally agree with most of what you say here. My view has always been to gear towards the economics conditions of least coercion as well.
 
A democratic government would be less coercive if its democracy was fully utilized and voters had adequate information.

The government is coercive because of the free-rider problem. Read the definitive economic justification for government... The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. It was written by the Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson and has been cited over 5000 times. Haven't I shared it with you before? Did you not read it? Did you not understand it? Did you not agree with it?
 
The government is coercive because of the free-rider problem. Read the definitive economic justification for government... The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. It was written by the Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson and has been cited over 5000 times. Haven't I shared it with you before? Did you not read it? Did you not understand it? Did you not agree with it?
This is a theory filled with numerous assumptions. Yes some people get a free ride, as do people in the private sector born under rich families.
 
This is a theory filled with numerous assumptions. Yes some people get a free ride, as do people in the private sector born under rich families.

Please elaborate. Do you disagree with the theory? Do you know of better theories?
 
Did I not say that government would be less coercive if it was by voluntary association?

First off...if the government was voluntary then why would it only be "less coercive"? Wouldn't it be entirely free of coercion? Second off...you just completely ignored/disregarded the entire economic justification for government. The free-rider problem is used to justify government coercion. If you want to eliminate government coercion then you have to provide a very good argument against the free-rider problem.
 
Please elaborate. Do you disagree with the theory? Do you know of better theories?

1. I don't care if he wona a nobel prize, it i well known that the econ nobel is a farce and not endorsed by the Nobel Family.

2. The theory you claimed (free rider), was not even mentioned in the link provided.

3. I don't think you really understand what Samulelson actually professes in that link provided. He assumes perfect market conditions, perfect competition, etc... You can't assume something that doesn't actually exist and never will. IT is based on a false situation.
 
First off...if the government was voluntary then why would it only be "less coercive"? Wouldn't it be entirely free of coercion? Second off...you just completely ignored/disregarded the entire economic justification for government. The free-rider problem is used to justify government coercion. If you want to eliminate government coercion then you have to provide a very good argument against the free-rider problem.
Really? That is a solution to the free-rider problem. I thought that was obvious, but I guess I'll spell it out for you. The free-rider problem is that people get free rides on other people's taxes; by voluntary association, people don't need to pay such taxes.

There is no free ride in a co-op organization, is there?
 
1. I don't care if he wona a nobel prize, it i well known that the econ nobel is a farce and not endorsed by the Nobel Family.

Do you care that the paper has been cited over 5000 times?

2. The theory you claimed (free rider), was not even mentioned in the link provided.

Really? Are you sure?

3. I don't think you really understand what Samulelson actually professes in that link provided. He assumes perfect market conditions, perfect competition, etc... You can't assume something that doesn't actually exist and never will. IT is based on a false situation.

What did Samuelson actually profess in the link that I provided?
 
Really? That is a solution to the free-rider problem. I thought that was obvious, but I guess I'll spell it out for you. The free-rider problem is that people get free rides on other people's taxes; by voluntary association, people don't need to pay such taxes.

There is no free ride in a co-op organization, is there?

Do people have a choice whether or not they pay for social goods? If they have a choice...then there's no coercion...but then you have the free-rider problem. If they don't have a choice...then there's coercion...but no free-rider problem.
 
It's not clear to me where government gets its funding. Is government collecting taxes like they do today? Or is that entirely dissolved and it's based on voluntary donations?

In general, the notion that a government would collect taxes coercively, then turn around and compete with a private market, would be the definition of a more coercive government (all else equal).
The alternative being if government is funding voluntarily only, they will see an immediate and drastic reduction in tax revenue such that survival of the government would likely be what they focus on...not trying to compete in online sales or mobile marketing....

JP Hochbaum said:
2. The theory you claimed (free rider), was not even mentioned in the link provided.
Top right of the last page of the link appears to describe it. Not sure why we need that paper to discuss the reality of free rider though.
 
It's not clear to me where government gets its funding. Is government collecting taxes like they do today? Or is that entirely dissolved and it's based on voluntary donations?

In general, the notion that a government would collect taxes coercively, then turn around and compete with a private market, would be the definition of a more coercive government (all else equal).
The alternative being if government is funding voluntarily only, they will see an immediate and drastic reduction in tax revenue such that survival of the government would likely be what they focus on...not trying to compete in online sales or mobile marketing....


Top right of the last page of the link appears to describe it. Not sure why we need that paper to discuss the reality of free rider though.
The government isn't funded by taxes. I've explained it enough times on this forum how a monetarily sovereign government works, you should understand this by now :).

Sans tax collections the government would still be big. It's a dead theory.
 
The government isn't funded by taxes. I've explained it enough times on this forum how a monetarily sovereign government works, you should understand this by now :).
Sans tax collections the government would still be big. It's a dead theory.
No one doubts you have beat MMT like a dead horse on these forums.

In any case, the question stands to gavin specifically as I wrote it. Will government be taxing people or not.

If he wants to take it to the MMT route and claim that government has the authority to spend without taxation, that's fine too, but he'd be complicating his hypothetical with another fairy tale hypothetical. That's his call not yours. And, just so you know JP, it would not change the ethics of the argument, so your love of MMT is *irrelevant* to the discussion. Notice if government doesn't need to tax to spend (per your fantasy), and it competes with private industry which MUST be profitable and collect revenue in (debt included) equal to expenses long-term, then it would still be a strictly unfair advantage and would not in any way shape or form be considered "non-coercive competition". It would be the very definition of unfair advantage, market distortion, anti-competitive, and strongly (although indirectly) coercive.
 
No one doubts you have beat MMT like a dead horse on these forums.

In any case, the question stands to gavin specifically as I wrote it. Will government be taxing people or not.

If he wants to take it to the MMT route and claim that government has the authority to spend without taxation, that's fine too, but he'd be complicating his hypothetical with another fairy tale hypothetical. That's his call not yours. And, just so you know JP, it would not change the ethics of the argument, so your love of MMT is *irrelevant* to the discussion. Notice if government doesn't need to tax to spend (per your fantasy), and it competes with private industry which MUST be profitable and collect revenue in (debt included) equal to expenses long-term, then it would still be a strictly unfair advantage and would not in any way shape or form be considered "non-coercive competition". It would be the very definition of unfair advantage, market distortion, anti-competitive, and strongly (although indirectly) coercive.

There is nothing fairy tail about MMT. All MMT is, is a description on how things work, there is no theory involved in it. And I didn't bring up MMT you did. I just mentioned that the government is monetarily sovereign and doesn't need tax revenues to spend, these are indisputable facts.

I deal with facts you deal with moralistic theories.
 
There is nothing fairy tail about MMT. All MMT is, is a description on how things work, there is no theory involved in it. And I didn't bring up MMT you did. I just mentioned that the government is monetarily sovereign and doesn't need tax revenues to spend, these are indisputable facts. I deal with facts you deal with moralistic theories.

I think we covered this already, and at this point it's off-topic, unless gavin's entire idea rests on both changing how our government currently, factually, in ****ing REALITY, taxes us.
Additionally, I informed you it was also irrelevant to the reasoning of my argument and demonstrated why, but you're still pushing MMT in a thread that appears to be not about MMT.
 
Top right of the last page of the link appears to describe it. Not sure why we need that paper to discuss the reality of free rider though.

Why do we have a government? There are a lot of reasons...and some are better than others. If you want to know and understand the very best argument for government by far...given that Samuelson's paper has been cited over 5,000 times...then that's the paper that you have to thoroughly read and understand. That's the very best economic argument that liberals have to offer. Attacking anything else is the equivalent of attacking a strawman argument. Why waste your limited time/money/energy tilting at windmills? Why not strike the root? Mostly because it's a solid argument...except for one "minor" detail...

Essential though the efficiency model of public goods [Samuelson's theory] is as a theoretical construct, standing by itself it has little practical use. The omniscient referee does not exist and the problem of preference revelation must be addressed. The Wicksellian perspective is thus needed. - Richard A. Musgrave, The Nature of the Fiscal State

Samuelson: When it comes to public goods people have an incentive to give false signals
Musgrave: True, but this doesn't mean that the government can divine the true signals

Therefore? Tax choice. If people have to pay taxes anyways, then there's a strong incentive to give true signals. If the cost is a foregone conclusion...then you might as well spend your tax dollars on the public goods that you value most.
 
I think we covered this already, and at this point it's off-topic, unless gavin's entire idea rests on both changing how our government currently, factually, in ****ing REALITY, taxes us.
Additionally, I informed you it was also irrelevant to the reasoning of my argument and demonstrated why, but you're still pushing MMT in a thread that appears to be not about MMT.

I am not pushing MMT, I never mentioned MMT, you did.
 
No one doubts you have beat MMT like a dead horse on these forums.

In any case, the question stands to gavin specifically as I wrote it. Will government be taxing people or not.

If he wants to take it to the MMT route and claim that government has the authority to spend without taxation, that's fine too, but he'd be complicating his hypothetical with another fairy tale hypothetical. That's his call not yours. And, just so you know JP, it would not change the ethics of the argument, so your love of MMT is *irrelevant* to the discussion. Notice if government doesn't need to tax to spend (per your fantasy), and it competes with private industry which MUST be profitable and collect revenue in (debt included) equal to expenses long-term, then it would still be a strictly unfair advantage and would not in any way shape or form be considered "non-coercive competition". It would be the very definition of unfair advantage, market distortion, anti-competitive, and strongly (although indirectly) coercive.
We're currently awash in monopoly control over monetary systems. I propose removing this as well, so that any currency system may be created by any market entity. Will a government be revenue constrained? Sure, if it wants to be. If it can find a better way to do it and people like it, that's all well and good too. It's obviously impossible to be unconstrained in real wealth, so any public organization that aims to provide some good or service would likely need some way of ensuring they have the resources to do so. But by creating a market for economic and monetary policy rather than relegating it to monopoly control as our central banks have now, there could be any number of different economic systems in play that don't necessarily mean taxes. The most obvious example is a worker-owned business that provides some services for its employee-owners--such services are obviously funded by the business' profits, not by fees paid by those using the services. A less obvious example is the utilization of coin seigniorage to fund services off the marginal profits made between the manufacturing cost of a currency and its nominal market value.

With a large enough market penetration, it would be possible for a currency sovereign to fund any number of services (goods, too, hell) without levying taxes to pay for them or even without being revenue constrained at all. Technically, the US is capable of this. China is capable of this both technically and legally. Obviously in this case, there wouldn't be fair competition between such an organization and any entity that utilizes its currency, but the other thing I'm pointing out is that through democratic government, it's competitive advantage may be eliminated (as in its "citizens" deciding it should not compete with XYZ industry)--or used as market leverage (as in people wanting free wifi or something)--to ensure a result desired by its voluntary associates.

I don't see anything inherently coercive in any of that.
 
Last edited:
I don't consider it accurate to say that libertarians are opposed to coercion. They oppose the initiation of aggression*. There's a difference.

For example, if one were attacked by a gang of robbers, a libertarian would consider it acceptable to use coercion to hold them at gunpoint until the police arrived.

Or if a judge were to rule that Smith had committed a tort against Jones, a libertarian would consider it acceptable to use coercion against Smith to collect Jones' judgement.

I may be splitting hairs here, but I think a libertarian would consider some forms of coercion justifiable, but would always be opposed to the initiation of aggression.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
 
I don't think it would be wrong to say that the goal of all liberals is a non-coercive society. That's the original definition of liberalism, besides. The primary philosophical difference between liberals and libertarians, as I see it, is simply a matter of perspective. Liberals see most coercion coming from private enterprise and an overarching capitalist system, whereas libertarians see coercion coming mostly from government. A lot of liberals have the unique experience of living in poverty where most of their money is extracted through necessary expenses that many feel shouldn't be difficult to pay for, like education, healthcare, food, water, and to a lesser extent, basic utilities--liberals, and especially socialists, realize that the prime directive of the capitalist system is to take their money, though most liberals also live under a much lower (if any) tax and regulatory burden. Libertarians on the other hand simply don't have the difficulties or the perspective of the poor and are thus incapable of sympathy in that regard, while they have the unique experience of paying somewhat higher taxes, being subject to more regulations, and generally receiving less services and allowances (while still living much better, of course, but.). Even the young libertarians--just think of the stereotype: the children of middle class whites. It shouldn't be surprising that libertarians aren't capable of understanding poverty in the same way that it shouldn't be surprising that minimum wage employees aren't capable of understanding tax burden.

I think it should be fairly obvious to anyone with a brain, however, that coercion exists both in government and in the free market. Furthermore, the conditions for either being coercive are the same: a lack of information or a lack of choices. A democratic government would be less coercive if its democracy was fully utilized and voters had adequate information. It would also be less coercive if being subject to its governance were less a matter of geographical location and solely a matter of individual discretion and voluntary association.

On the other hand, to make the market economy less coercive without infringing on the rights of business owners, I think what is needed is actually for government to compete with the private market. I don't see why this can't be the case, and it makes more ethical sense than imposing regulations on private enterprise. Consider this: A political marketplace of ideas is competitive in a democracy in much the same way that businesses are competitive in a free market. A free market performs when people spend a limited amount of money on goods of their choice, determining winners and losers through profit and loss. A democracy performs when people spend a limited amount of voting power (equal to one person, in most cases) determining winners and losers through majority rule and mobilized, most often, by class action. If a government were also by voluntary association, it would look a lot like, say, a co-op. Which is obviously a decidedly liberal form of organization, and also obviously perfectly acceptable in a free market. For an example of why market competition from government might be less coercive than regulation, consider instead of a minimum wage law, simply having a massive co-op government with a job guarantee that pays better real wages than its privately-owned competitors. This is real, legitimate market competition, isn't it? If so, then by conventional wisdom, this should also bring society as a whole closer to an ideal system more quickly and efficiently, but I could just as easily see that in the end both sides might co-exist quite productively and even benefit from each other more than be a detriment.

I'm saying a few different things here, but the one that's most striking is that keeping in mind that social innovation is just as powerful as economic innovation, why not a libertarian society? The only prerequisite is a lack of monopoly leverage, both public and private (this includes monetary systems!) In this case, government would not be coercive as it must be by voluntary association, and the market would not be coercive because not only would government likely still exist, the democracy and voluntary cooperative organization of such governments can provide a balancing competition against privately-owned market entities.

Of course, it would be up to people to organize, and only if they can afford the time in their schedules. This is where I could see it going wrong with a catch-22 somehow or another. Like having school choice without public transportation. Derp. There's also the lingering problem of lacking information. Obviously neither government nor the unregulated free market do a great job of media, and that's probably the biggest issue. I would still also worry about education, healthcare, utilities, and infrastructure.

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.
 
It's obviously impossible to be unconstrained in real wealth, so any public organization that aims to provide some good or service would likely need some way of ensuring they have the resources to do so.
So are they able to force others to pay, or not?

The most obvious example is a worker-owned business that provides some services for its employee-owners--such services are obviously funded by the business' profits, not by fees paid by those using the services.
It's hard to isolate what we're talking about here. First you talk of wanting to entirely change the monetary system in the U.S. That's a lot of change right off, it could be debated in its own right for eternity.
Adding to that, this idea of public created, worker-owned business? They are providing services to themselves? And how did the public fund the initial investment/creation if this co-op? See above..through donations or coercion? And why not just use the current private system where people essentially vote with their dollars? It avoids the coercion of the majority rules and lets individuals choose. You'd be increasing coercion if you forced majority rules on the economy in any significant way. It's also largely self-guided, and self-funded. You just let people do what they want, you know...non-coercion.

Obviously in this case, there wouldn't be fair competition between such an organization and any entity that utilizes its currency
Correct. You would be forcing rules on players, that you do not force on the rule makers, who also have decided to play the game. That's a hallmark of those in power, make rules that apply to everyone else, other than themselves of course...

, but the other thing I'm pointing out is that through democratic government, it's competitive advantage may be eliminated (as in its "citizens" deciding it should not compete with XYZ industry)--or used as market leverage (as in people wanting free wifi or something)--to ensure a result desired by its voluntary associates.
A democratic, majority rules system of forcing other citizens to fund something, or prevent them from some market freedom, is coercive. So you're back to a more coercive system. Our private markets are less coercive, remember we're starting with the freedom to enter a market and compete with other free market players, the game is wide open. If you have government choosing, how is that less coercive?

I apologize if I don't get the general thrust of the argument, it started with libertarian/non-coercion as the subject, then proceeded to discuss major things like:
1. government spending without taxes and in the extreme case, without revenue at all
2. coupled with worker owned cooperatives
3. coupled with unfair government competition in the market, somehow made fair by virtue of it being majority rules?

Any one of those I haven't seen any compelling arguments for, all three at once...ambitious!

I do kind of like the ideas (I may have wrongly picked up) that government may not react efficiently/effectively to democratic desires. But that's largely a government structure issue, and you'd have to wrest that power from the current system stake holders to ever make that change...tough nut to crack. The simple answer is remove from government power in areas where it isn't necessary that they have such power, and let private markets handle it. That's easier and we have more experience and evidence to back up it working, and it's arguably strictly less coercive.
 
Back
Top Bottom