1 Reply by Justinian I (edited by Justinian I 05-Dec-2012 21:28:39)

  • Posts: 3,373

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

Kemp/anyone else who wants to answer it.

Do Libertarians think of consent as "yes means yes" or "yes but maybe no?" By that I mean, could a person articulate consent but only because they feel there will be severe consequences to saying "no?" For clarification, I believe Libertarians would agree that someone could be under duress because of a knife, but what about those dealing with social norms and unequal power relations? If so:

1. Is it ever relevant?
2. Do those with power have a moral obligation to defuse their implicit coercive power for the weaker party?
3. Should the state protect weaker parties from such coercion?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

I don't mind using bayonets to back my will, so I guess I can't answer

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

3 Reply by Justinian I (edited by Justinian I 05-Dec-2012 22:47:58)

  • Posts: 3,373

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

Yell,

My guess is that you would use weapons to resist a person intending to cause you great bodily harm. I don't think a reasonable person would question that deadly force is acceptable in such circumstances.

But that isn't my point. What if an employer asks his employees to donate their time to repair his house and they consent? This immediately raises the question if such consent is meaningless or not. Some employees may fear getting fired, so they consent to avoid a severe outcome. So my questions for the Libertarian are: Is that a violation of a person's free will? Should the government prevent such coercion like they do with explicit force? Should the employer genuinely inform his employees that they won't be punished if they refuse?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

4 Reply by V. Kemp (edited by V. Kemp 06-Dec-2012 04:55:06)

  • Posts: 4,369

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

Because you're being so ridiculously vague, I'm going to go with "no."

Limited government shouldn't make any edicts regarding vague academic BS. tongue

With properly limited government, social norms are none of the government's business, and free markets handle unequal power relations just fine.

By your vague wording here, it sounds like you'd describe any/all employers as coercing their employees because of their "unequal power relations." Insofar as you've described all of capitalism and free markets as inherently coercive, because some have more/less than others, "no" to all of your inquiries. Freedom does not require government to save us from it. It serves us quite well. If productivity being rewarded is "coercion" by those who earn buying power, bring on the coercion. It benefits us all.



Regarding your response to Mr. Yell, the free market protects employees better than any government ever has/could/will. I'm sure you could think up some examples where reasonable laws wouldn't be a bad idea, but most of the time competing employers are forced to treat their employees well or lose them (along with productivity and training investment, and even brand equity in extreme cases involving publicity).

Freer markets inherently involve more opportunity than massive government debt, called "investment" by communists who don't understand that government consumes; it does not produce. Nothing is perfect, but freer markets provide for everyone better than a government with tens of trillions in debt (not officially acknowledged for propaganda purposes, but nonetheless owed) which will eventually crush our nation and its social services. We literally cannot afford all of this big government nonsense, and this fact will become undeniable in time.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

5 Reply by BeoWolfe (edited by BeoWolfe 06-Dec-2012 17:19:47)

  • Posts: 473
  • Tag points: 190

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

... I read your post Justinian and its a very odd that you apply it to the state protecting the weaker from 'evil citizens'.

1. Is it ever relevant?
Of course its relevant - but not int the way your mind thinks.  If you think about it, there is nothing Walmart or the corner gas station or Wall Street can do to force me to do anything... on the other hand Government can and frequently does!  This is why most libertarians (and why you should) like less government

2. Do those with power have a moral obligation to defuse their implicit coercive power for the weaker party?
In a free market they have to.  As Mr. Spock mentioned - If my employeer wishes to screw me over - I, as a good employee have the upper hand.  Should they treat me poorly I can take my talents to a competitor.  Like wise goes for my bank, my grocery store or my personal relationships - I can always change anything... But again there is one thing I can't opt out of - the rule of Government.  Therefore as Government grows so does their implicit coercive power.  Therefore (seeing your question is centered on libertarianism) a citizen with a moral obligation towards there country should try to limit governments power as much as possible as it is a power that can not be contented.

3. Should the state protect weaker parties from such coercion?
As mentioned - Your logic is off by 180 degrees.  If you need to be protected from those with the power to coherse and the state is the most powerful - then you need protection from the state - you don't feed it more power.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,190
  • Tag points: 1699

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

That would be a wonderful world if a person could simply "take his talent to a competitor", Beowolfe. However in the present market I really don't think someone working for McDonald's can simply tell his boss to treat him fairly or he'll be going to Burger King.

You need to realize the world, or even the US for that matter, is not entirely composed of self-made, accomplished and well established individuals wink

Libertarianism is the other side of the coin to Communism's fantasy land. It's nice to read all about their ideals though, of course.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 473
  • Tag points: 190

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

"Beowolfe. However in the present market I really don't think someone working for McDonald's can simply tell his boss to treat him fairly or he'll be going to Burger King."

Why not?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,163

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

Because ...because...
he likes big macs?
lacks intelligence?
there is no Burger King in his town?
he has a crush on girl who works there but hasn't told her yet?
the boss is his dad?
he would be taxed more on his bigger earning?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 385

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

I like Kemp's answer. I would also add that Walter Block wrote a book "Defending the Undefendable" which is an excellent treatment of victimless crimes and dubious economic practices in general. This article is an excerpt from the chapter dealing with black mailers, which I feel have a corollary along Justinian's question: http://mises.org/daily/4576

Caution Wake Turbulence

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

10 Reply by V. Kemp (edited by V. Kemp 07-Dec-2012 04:11:54)

  • Posts: 4,369

Re: Libertarianism and Social Coercion

Genesis,
"That would be a wonderful world if a person could simply "take his talent to a competitor", Beowolfe. However in the present market I really don't think someone working for McDonald's can simply tell his boss to treat him fairly or he'll be going to Burger King."

Why can't he? Government force exploding our cost of living is what's responsible for the "present market." You're calling for more government to solve the suffering of poor markets when it's the government which suppresses markets to begin with--all the while you're ignoring that all of this government very directly reduces standards of living through taxation and the inflation of our currency to finance our deficits. You think further taxation and inflation, reducing our standard of living even more, is good for our standard of living? You're going to have to explain that better for us.

"You need to realize the world, or even the US for that matter, is not entirely composed of self-made, accomplished and well established individuals "

You need to realize that most people with stuff earned it. If you think certain things should be illegal, why not advocate for that instead of vilifying hard work and productivity as if there's something inherently wrong with them?

The only fantasy about libertarianism is that human beings aren't too much of sheep to appreciate the freedom, fairness, and quality of life it offers.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

0 Dislike 0 Post Points