Most Libertarians would consider ‘coercion’ to be physical force and fraud, including extortion, false advertising, hidden defects in products, libel, slander, etc.
Defining ‘coercion’ as, “I want what you have, and you won’t give it to me!” is not just bizarre, but offensive to Libertarians. It presupposes that the freedom of one person depends on expropriating property, and therefore the freedom, of another.
The claim that rich people are ‘more free’ than the poor may give you the rationale you’re looking for to support redistributionist government. But it isn’t libertarianism. It’s the antithesis of Libertarianism. You can’t just redefine words to make them fit your own personal definition.
Cite, please? I have a strong libertarian streak, both in matters of individual consicence and in matters of economic commerce. I seriously doubt I have “slammed libertarians on this board,” other than to the extent I have slammed individual libertarians for individual statements.
Huh? I gave an example of people being coerced into entering agreements without having a gun pointed to their head, but being coerced nonetheless, in order to show that yes, other types of coercion besides “physical” exist. I’m not “applying libertarian principles”. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
We’re talking about definitions of words. How did you get off on a tangent about the USSR?
Who are you talking to? I certainly never said such a thing. Did someone else say that?
Again; don’t know who you’re talking to. If you’re talking to me, I’m not a Libertarian. Of course, I don’t support “redistributionist government” either, and I don’t see what the acknowledgment that wealthy people have more freedom (a simple fact) has to do with that. If you think a minimum wage, or laws requiring people to be paid for each hour worked constitutes “redistributionist government”, I disagree.
Some of you libertarians seem to have a tendency to read A LOT into what people say, whether they actually said it or not.
Because the people in both those societies (peasants in 16th century England and “citizens” of the USSR) were in fact coerced. They had the entire political system (you know, the guys with the guns) rigged against them. They were not participants in the political process.
Now, you might argue the peasants in England did have some rights, which would be true. But were they actually “free”? No. Just like women in the US in the 19th century couldn’t be called free either. Same for Blacks in the Jim Crow South.
I was addressing the argument that you can be a ‘left libertarian’ because wealth is freedom, and therefore redistributing wealth increases freedom.
Actually, I wasn’t talking to you. I was amplifying my comments to Gaudere.
Of course it is. It’s using force to prevent people from negotiating an arrangement they would otherwise choose to do, in order to increase the wealth of the poorer party at the expense of others. The government should simply have no right to step between two citizens and stop them from engaging in a voluntary transaction. That’s the Libertarian position.
Again, who made such an argument? I didn’t see any such argument. Maybe I missed it. Did Gaudere say that? It’s a good idea to quote that to which you are responding, to avoid confusion.
Not really.
Well that’s your position. It’s a bit radical, IMO. The government has every right to protect its citizens. In fact, that is the main function of government. Your “voluntary transaction” language is a red herring. It’s not voluntary if one party agreed under duress - capiche? I can certainly conceive of a libertarian holding a less radical position than yours.
Exactly our point. You seemed to only want to acknowledge one type of coercion, i.e. physical. There are in fact other kinds. Peasants who entered into contracts under which they were bound to work for a person either for a fixed period of time, or until a debt was paid off (which often couldn’t be done) did not do so because they literally had a gun pointed to their head. They did so because their options were extremely limited. They did chose to enter the agreement, but when your choice is working or starving, it’s not really a choice, is it? THAT’S what I’m trying to get you to understand.
Of course, you seem unwilling to acknowledge that there ARE people living in inner cities in America today whose options are limited. You seem to believe that everyone just has the option to walk down the street and get a great new job if they aren’t being treated fairly. We’ll just have to disagree on that, I guess.
And you consider those two quotes the equivalent of saying, “wealth is freedom, and therefore redistributing wealth increases freedom.”??? The wealthy are more free than the destitute, obviously. Surely you see the difference between that and saying “wealth EQUALS freedom”, don’t you?
I’d thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.
Minimum wage is NOT wealth redistribution. That sounds like right-wing rhetoric to me.
But they DID have a gun pointed at their heads, and that is the reason they had such limitted options. That “gun” is exclusion from the political process. That’s what I’m trying to get you to understand. Anyone living in an oppressive political situation cannot be said to be making free choices-- ie, choices w/o coercion.
Are you deliberately mistating my position, or have you just forgotten the flow of this debate we’re having. Let me remind you:
Your post #340 even quoted that from me. So clearly, I have acknowedge that greater wealth = greater opportunity. I just don’t agree that opportunity = freedom, in the political sphere.
But keep in mind that I have acknowledged that the word “coercion” is often used to mean non-physical coercion. What I don’t accept, is that non-physical coercion is something of consequence in the political realm.
I still want to know why working or starving is not a choice. What does the socialist advocate? Bank robbery? I mean, that’s work too, isn’t it? Unethical to be sure, but still no small effort is required.
Let me add, that I don’t expect you to accept that statement. This whole issue got brought up because **Gadarene **wanted to call herself (I assume it’s she) a libertarian even though her definition of coercion included non-physical coercion. I think that is a contradiction. It makes no sense to call your political philosophy “libertarian” if you go by a definition of coercion that includes “work longer hours or I’ll fire you”.
But you don’t call yourself a libertarian, so I really have no beef with you using that term however you want. Just keep in mind that when a libertarian uses it, he means it the way I do. And you can’t “invalidate” libertarianism by simply offering a different definition.
I understand it; it just has nothing to do with what we were discussing.
No, wasn’t trying to. I thought you had made the point that in my example, saying “work overtime for no pay or you’re fired” didn’t constitute coercion, because the employee was free to quit and get another job. If that wasn’t your position, I apologize.
Sorry, I really don’t understand what your point is.
Typically, libertarian philosophy does include initial deception (or fraud) as a form of coercion. The reason initial force is unethical is because it robs you of volition — the freedom to give or withhold consent. Any initial force of any kind that does that is coercive, including deception. No other initial force is. Thus, economic advantage is not coercive so long as the advantage was acquired peacefully and honestly.
Yes, a literal gun. What do you think kept 16th century peasants out of the political process-- fear of name calling? Think of the Jim Crow South. Blacks technically were allowed to vote, but they knew if they did so, they’d face violence-- state santioned violence. They didn’t stay out of polling boths by choice, they were COERCED to not vote.
