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 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.