Little too strong, there, Grumman. Let’s contain that a bit next time.
I’ve always thought that using the term ‘coercion’ ceded the point from the get-go. Emotionally, coercion contains a highly negative connotation that makes it seem wrong straight off and damages the ability of debate to get to the point.
I’ve seen it more as ‘societal norms’. The be a member of society - which most of us would concede is something we want - one must agree to certain societal norms. I will not murder, I will not steal and so forth. The act of joining the society - even for limited times - means that one agrees to abide by them. Different societies will have different norms, God knows. I’ve travelled through the middle east and Latin America and behavior patterns are very different than in my suburbanized upbringing.
But it places the onus elsewhere. Assuming that any societies expectations of an individuals behavior is coercion is approaching it from the wrong side. Instead, the person agrees - by virtue of wanting to participate in society’s advantages - to certain societal norms.
Where those norms are is a matter of huge debate, certainly, but that they exist should not be.
As it happens, I agree with Little Nemo, which doesn’t happen too often. Many libertarians often try to insist that our philosophy is always opposed to unprovoked coercion, but it isn’t true.
I follow John Locke’s philosophy on coercion, which is this. The government exists to prevent murder, rape, robbery, and other violent crimes, using force to stop these crimes and punish those responsible. And why is it right for the government to do this? Morality. Those who commit murder, rape, robbery, and other violent crimes are morally inferior, as compared to those who don’t commit such violent crimes. Locke refers to violent criminals using epithets such as “noxious beasts”. Morality demands that the peaceful, morally superior ones be protected against the murderers, rapists, and other inferior violent criminals.
However, it is certainly not true that a libertarian government would only act to stop violence and coercion. For example, a government must prevent burglarizing empty buildings, forgery, fraud, counterfeiting, and other non-violent activities as well. What’s the basis of this? Still morality. Those who would make money through burglary, fraud, counterfeiting, or so forth are inferior to those who would actually do productive work that leads to benefits for others.
Libertarianism is not in any sense moral relativism. It is based on a strong and clear moral vision. It’s very unlike our current government, which has no clear moral principles.
But can we agree that coercion is something directed against people? You can’t say that somebody is coercing society in general? Because I’m trying to establish a point and I want to make sure we agree on the terms.
True, it has a negative connotation but I can accept that. Because it really is true. At its base, the rule of law does say that society may use force against the people who break the law. (On a personal level, this is not an abstract issue for me. I have personally used physical force on numerous occasions to enforce the law. And I’m willing to acknowledge that I’ve done so and defend the rightness of my actions.)
I agree with the practical aspects of what you’re saying but I don’t think I agree with the philosophical premises you base them on.
You’re apparently saying there is a clear distinction between libertarianism and the representative government we now have. But I’m not seeing what that distinction is.
The crimes you say would be crimes in a libertarian society are also crimes in the representative society so apparently it’s not a difference in practice. And this is supported by your saying that it’s a difference in morality. Can you then explain what is the moral principle that a libertarian society has that our society lacks? And how is the superior morality of this system established?
Don’t feel the need to admonish him on my behalf. I’d prefer to take him on in a debate rather than have him scared off. Assuming Grumman comes back, I plan on showing him that I do indeed know what I’m talking about and can demonstrate the contradiction in his beliefs using his own statements as evidence.
You were pointing out that libertarians supported the existence of a government empowered to enforce rules (against actively causing harm to other people), and acting like that was some kind of a gotcha.
A great deal is criminalized in modern, western countries that would not be criminalized in a society governed on libertarian grounds. The present-day American government uses force to punish people for everything from buying marijuana to not buying health insurance, from producing toilets that flush the wrong amount of water to producing gasoline with the wrong amount of corn ethanol. The government now sticks its fingers into everything from the curriculum children learn in school to the price of raisins and soybeans. It takes our money by force and gives that money to everyone from major banks to foreign governments. Back when the United States was founded, the government did none of these things.
The moral principles that justify libertarian government are clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and other documents. They say that the government must protect people’s life, liberty, property and so forth against murderers, rapists, thieves, and the like, as I said in my first post. They also say that there’s a constant threat of government itself becoming a threat to life, liberty and property. And they say that when this happens, it’s morally right to overthrow the government.
I’m gonna have to weasel out. I honestly don’t know. I only piped up to note that groups of people can be coerced; it isn’t only applicable to single individuals. When the police bust up a peaceful protest – or a riot! – they are coercing a group.
But where does this stop? Can the entire society be under coercion? Uh… I honestly don’t know. My “gut feeling” is, yes, an entire society can be coerced, but I can’t defend this idea properly.
Wanna live without coercion? Go find an island somewhere.
The government did these things because the people told them to. Which I think is the strongest moral principle there is. It’s government based on the first three words of the Constitution: “We the People” form the basis for legitimate government.
Variations of your system have been tried repeatedly. A elite group holds the power. They don’t let the people rule but they justify their rule by claiming they’re governing on behalf of the people. I don’t find that is as legitimate or as moral as letting the people rule themselves.
Getting back to the question, do you agree that coercion is defined as a use of force against another person?
If you go about believing that you are justified in your judgement of others, you’re going to be perceived as a threat and those you threaten are going to be a threat right back - just as if you went about believing 2 + 2 is 5 and calling yourself right - 4 would be right there, smacking you around, until you stopped.
Nobody gets to define your “morality” and you don’t get to define anyone else’s and everybody *knows *that. Nobody criticizes or shows their disapproval of others and walks away whistling. You live in a catty, predatory society where nearly everyone is both criticizing and guarded against it.
You don’t get to go about slamming others *and * have peace. Just as you don’t get to participate in this society’s petty criticism of one another *and *live a happy, secure and carefree life.
Who is the moral one when those you threaten, threaten you? You’re not qualified to judge any other. And you *know *that. You *know *the feeling of adrenaline when someone does it to you and you *know *that it’s no different when you do it to others. 2 + 2 is never going to be 5, regardless of how many people agree with you. Reality isn’t elected democratically and the reality is that you don’t get to define “good” ***or ***“bad” for anyone else.
When one who is criticized their whole life, from every quarter, gets to that “last straw”, it doesn’t matter who they kill. It is society they are lashing out at and all kills will feel justified. That’s how you *get *serial killers - by creating them. Of course, chances are it is going to be others, not you, who will pay for that privilege - so perhaps that makes it more palatable? Your chances of being killed by a serial killer are pretty slim.
I suppose it’s possible that the fact you’re not all killing each other in your beds is what makes you think it’s OK or ineffectual or “harmless” to continue as you are - slamming one another at the drop of a hat.
Society isn’t going to step off that train, en masse. If it is to happen, it will have to be done individually - but everyone seems to be waiting for everyone else to “be the bigger man” and step off, first - that *is, *after all, the creed of the “follower”, isn’t it?
There’s nothing wrong with any of this. It can’t get you what you claim to want, but there’s nothing wrong with that either. The only hiccup in getting the “peace” you claim to want is that everyone keeps asking for the answer, which is perfect and the only way answers can come, but when the answer *does *come, most recoil and spit on it because the answer isn’t “you’re right”. You have to decide - do you want the correct answer or do you want an “answer” that validates what you already believe the answer to be?
“Coercion” has a definition. Be it the actual “enforcement” or just the threat of enforcement - if one complies with your wishes for the purpose of avoiding that with which you’ve threatened them, then they’ve been coerced. Like it or not.
Be it prison or a monetary fine or a spanking or simple social disapproval - if someone alters their behavior for the purpose of avoiding it, then they’ve been literally and thoroughly coerced.
First, there’s little evidence that the people told the government to do the things I listed. Polls show that the majority think pot should be legal, are opposed to the ACA, and so forth. The government does not appear to care. I certainly don’t recall ever seeing mobs beating down the doors and demanding corn ethanol in gasoline or government manipulation of raisin prices.
Second, the Constitution is not based on the moral principle that “We the People” always get what they want. “We the People” established the Constitution, but the Constitution put legal limits on what elected leaders could do. Section 8 of Article 1 lists certain things that Congress can do and implies that Congress can’t do anything else. Section 9 prohibits Congress from doing many things. Amendments have expanded the list of prohibitions.
What is “my system”?
See, I’d argue that morality is all about coercion. Ultimately, no one just defines what is right for them, but what is right for others as well. Attempts to make morality more individual still ultimately boil down to telling others what to do: “You are not allowed to judge me for my morality.”
If you believe that something is genuinely wrong, there’s some bad thing that will happen if the wrong thing is done. Therefore you at least believe that other people shouldn’t do that wrong thing–even if you believe it’s wrong to force them. You still think it’s right to force people not to force people. There’s always at least some coercion.
That’s true…even the simple act of making a logical statement on a disputed topic can, indeed, be perceived as coercion by one who fears being perceived as “illogical”. Coercion requires fear of a consequence to work. What you say is very true…and the *intention *of speech is irrelevant, due to one being no more capable of deciding what is and isn’t feared by any other than one is capable of dictating what is and isn’t defined as “good” or “bad”, by any other…very true…and very interesting.
I disagree. These laws were passed because that’s what people wanted. Elections are a more accurate reflection of what the people want than polls are. People often say they want something in the abstract but then reject it when faced with the real costs.
So this is my problem with your system. It rejects what the majority of people want. Does the majority want marijuana to be legal? Does the majority want marijuana to be illegal? The libertarian answer is that it doesn’t matter. Marijuana should be legalized because libertarianism says it should be.
Libertarians will defend this by arguing that they’re acting with the best of intentions. They’re freeing the people from legal restrictions - even in cases where the people wanted those legal restrictions. So libertarians are saying their judgement of what’s best for the people is better than the people’s judgement of what’s best for themselves. The communists said the same thing when they set up the Soviet Union - and that didn’t work out so well.
You’ll get no argument from me on this point. I fully agree with you on this.
But Grumman appears to have decided he doesn’t want to answer this question. So I guess I’ll have to move on without him.
So here’s my hypothetical: It’s a libertarian society. Unprovoked coercion is banned. You’re not allowed to use force and the government is not allowed to use force except against a person who is already using force or is threatening to use force. (“The foundation of libertarianism is that unprovoked use of coercion is illegitimate (which separates libertarianism from most forms of government), but that coercion may be used defensively in response to unprovoked use of coercion (which separates libertarianism from anarchism). That is not a contradiction - it is self-consistent for the exact same reason the concept of self-defense is self-consistent.”)
So you own some land and there are apple trees on your land. I’m walking by and I see those apples and I decide I want some apples. So I go onto your land and start picking apples off your tree. You come out and tell me you own the land, the trees, and the apples and I’m stealing your property.
I explain that I’m a collectivist and I don’t believe in private property. I believe that all property is collectively owned by everyone and anyone can use something they find as long as nobody else was using it. The apples were there on the tree so I am free to pick them.
So what do you do? Keep in mind I’m not threatening you in any way or doing anything violent. I’m making no attempt to coerce you in any way because I have no interest in what you’re doing - I’m just here to pick apples.
Do you try to stop me from taking your apples? If so, then you just initiated the violence in what had been a non-violent situation. Do you call the local sheriff and have me arrested for theft? Keep in mind that you may subscribe to the idea of private ownership of property but I don’t.
So what happened here? The libertarians decided that private property exists - that’s a rule they created. And they enforce this rule - with coercion if necessary - even against the people who don’t agree with their rules.
Now go back to the statement I made that Grumman disagree with: “The contradiction in libertarianism is they believe in coercion every bit as much as the people they denounce. They just want to use coercion to enforce a different set of rules. Disagree with the majority in a libertarian society and you’re in just as much trouble as you are in any other society.”