Right, because people should be forced to read what you write, no matter how long, or well written. Great point.
An attitude like this wouldn’t cut it in a market situation where one had to create value to my satisfaction in order to capture my attention.
Good thing public school teachers work in a paradigm of aggression. Makes it easier to serve themselves, while claiming they are serving the needs of children.
That makes me wonder:
The standard “conservative” or Fox News complaint about the Wisconsin protests is that the teachers are not teaching.
I wonder how many of us in this forum think that is a bad thing.
Come on Wisconsin children, time to go on a long biking trip, reading some excellent books you always wanted to read, or just chilling with friends with some good quality music. This is your chance to raise both your intellectual standards and happiness with life. Let 'em strike!
Just replace 'em all with random people at half the cost. Just tell those striking teachers they aren’t needed any more. Oh, that would be so awesome.
Ok I see 4 different topics of concern here.
Do you have any one in particular you would like to focus on, or are you just ranting?
LadyPhoenix
Well, that’s the condensed version of the issue I tried to raise in the OP, on the advice of someone who thought the discussion had gotten off track. I have been told that my posts are too long to be worth reading, and now, I take it they are too short.
I have already described the kinds of coercion that I use in class–and in response to an allusion above by someone else–in private schools.
But, take the example of one’s five year old son who decides to go live with the pedophilic neighbor, which I offered, after Micah first raised the issue, as a way to make the issue much more concrete and succinct, since some “voluntarists” insist on making the issue one about “state vs anarchy” when the issue is “coercion vs anarchy”.
Are there any people who regard themselves as voluntarists who believe that their son should be allowed to move in with the pedophilic neighbor? As for myself, I can only imagine the amounts of coercion I would use, some aggressive (towards the pedophile) and some not (towards my child), in order to prevent that from happening. That is a very stark example, but the matter of education is a more mild form of the same conundrum.
If you can let your child move in with that neighbor, well, congratulations, you are a pure voluntarist, although I don’t think there’s much value left in that label anymore. Or, perhaps, you can bribe your child with more candy than the neighbor does, as a “free market” solution. I would hope that I could reason with my child not only once this danger arose, but I hope I could have prepared him in some fashion for those kinds of dangers before they arose. For example, I could tell him, “Don’t talk to strangers” or “Don’t take candy from strangers”, but would that be a command or advice? Supposing one day I saw him taking candy from that neighbor, am I going to risk relying on the strength of my son’s undeveloped reason? Or, will I try to think of a bribe? Or, will I give him a “reason” he will not soon forget as a way to hold the line?
That the majority of people here cannot consider this problem without conjuring up the words “market” is, I guess, not surprising, but I had thought that Misesians were voluntarists first, rather than materialists. I think that the Austrian insights into economics and value are unsurpassed, and I am all in favor of extending the economic truths as far as possible, but the market cannot deal with every facet of life.
I am fully aware that coercion is not identical to aggression. Aggression is always coercive, but coercion is not always aggressive. In fact, that is my point. In the classroom, I coerce not as an act of retributive justice, but merely as a means to force students to learn things they may or may not be interested in learning. I thought I had made that very clear in the OP.
As for,
Let it never be said that a voluntarist had a sense of humor. Since students regularly say or think things such as LS said, I thought it rather witty to point out the need for coercion in such an instance. But, since you asked, I would utilize as much non-aggressive coercion as I could muster. Surely, nobody could object?
If the students aren’t interested in learning them, I personally would consider your coercion of them to be aggressive.
I also consider enforcement of mandatory-attendance laws in general to constitute aggressive coercion.
Filc,
Bad things that could allegedly happen to children absent coercion.
That’s the issue. Obviously, aggression is bad. Ought one coerce a child into doing something for their own good?
I believe that it is both right and inevitable. Perhaps a voluntarist parent or teacher can explain how they have never used any form of coercion with their child.
BTW, my definition of coercion is this:
Persuasion (of an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
I borrowed that from Dictionary.com. Since the emphasis is on will, just as in voluntarism, which holds that one cannot force another person against his or her will, I would like someone to explain how that ideal can possibly be applied to children.
You are misrepresenting the "voluntaryist’ position, or you are taking what seems to be a very rare/unpopular position of a single person calling hismelf “voluntaryist” and saying that all voluntaryists principles are flawed as a result. This is hardly a logical progression.
Rather than “coercion vs. anarchy” the “voluntaryist” position is “aggression vs. anarchy.” You are still chasing a position which is not held by any “voluntaryist” that I’m aware of.
Let it never be said that your arrogance doesn’t blind you to the fact that humor is subjective. 
Your answer is lacking in necessary details. Coercion falls into two categories, much like violence. It is either aggressive or non-aggressive. To my knowledge, there really is no such thing as “neutral violence” or “neutral coercion.” For “coercion” or “violence” either to be called “defensive” (i.e. “non-aggressive”) it must be in direct response to an aggressive act. Please explain how LS’s refusal to read your post is “aggressive” such that you could respond with any sort of “coercion” other than the “aggressive” kind.
Autolykos,
Using your distinction, could you give an example of coercion (in the classroom) that was not aggressive? By your definition, it seems that coercion=aggression.
Who’s to say what “their own good” really is?
I think your understanding of voluntarism is flawed. If voluntarism really held that one cannot force another person against his or her will, then voluntarism would equate to pacifism - defense against a thief, for example, would be forcing him to do something (not steal) against his will. As I understand it, voluntarism has no problem with non-aggressive/defensive coercion.
Sure. One example of non-aggressive coercion in the classroom would be breaking up a fight between two students. Another example would be forcing a disruptive student out of the classroom.
Ladyphoenix,
I am not a voluntarist, so I do feel reluctant to tell you what your position is, but I am troubled by your definition because of the word “voluntarist”. The very word means “one’s free will”. A voluntarist must be against coercion, which is about breaking the will of another in some fashion.
If you are opposed to “aggression”, especially if you are puritanical about it, that would make you a “pacifist”.
I think maybe the point we are getting stuck on is the initiation of coercion. Is there no such thing as a kind of coercion that is both non-defensive and non-aggressive? I believe that in the classroom, there is such a thing, and I believe and hope that is what I practice. I issue commands: Write this, say that, sit down, stop talking, stop playing, etc. I cannot see that that is aggressive or defensive, but it is certainly coercive.
I still cannot see any flaw in my definition of voluntarism (free will) or in my definition of coercion (the violation of free will).
Even under your definitions, however, voluntarism (anti-aggression) and aggression (non-defensive coercion), would raise the same problems: can you boss around children? By your definition of voluntarism, the answer would be no. And, still I hold, until I can be convinced otherwise, that in the real world, bossing kids around is both necessary and inevitable, and so, voluntarism is invalid.
Of one thing I am certain, though. You cannot convince me that voluntarists have a sense of humor. 
Autolykos,
So, voluntarism accepts coercion that is neither non-aggressive nor non-defensive? That is, benevolent coercion?
Sorry, I meant “neither aggressive nor defensive”!
I thought we already hashed this out several pages prior? Does it need to be revisited?
Correct. The NAP is against the initiation of force, not against force.
In children there have been a number(many) explanations to the unique situation between parent and child. I would suggest starting a new topic. Even if we concede that a certain level of guidance is necessary for children, that doesn’t mean children are without options when they are placed into abusive situations.
Your flaw is that you attack a political philosophy as a whole based on a defintion entirely different from the definition that philosophy is said to entail. This is the very definition of a strawman (chasing a position your opposition does not hold) and equivocation (intentionally conflating the definitions of words, and yes, I can say it is intentional because you’ve had it explained to you more than once).
What you’re describing is *actually “*pacifism.” To hold that any violation of free-will is, in all cases, immoral would necessarily include those acts of violation which were intended to defend one’s life or property from violation by others. That is what you’re suggesting in the section I have quoted above. You are arguing against radical pacifism, not the philosophy to which “voluntaryists” (at least in this thread) adhere.
Herodotus, although you addressed this post to Ladyphoenix, I hope you don’t mind me taking a stab at a response to it.
How does “voluntarist” mean “one’s free will”, etymologically speaking?
I don’t think one’s will is ever broken. Even when it appears that way, I’d say what’s really going on is that one is choosing to go along with “the breaker of his will”.
How is that necessarily the case? What definition of “aggression” are you using?
I guess I need to provide further clarification of my stance on coercion. To me, coercion is necessarily physical - it is the use or threat of physical force (violence).
Telling someone to do something isn’t coercion IMO unless there’s an explicit or implicit threat of physical force behind it. “Complete this assignment or I’ll give you an F in the class” thus isn’t coercion, because there’s no threat of physical force involved. “Complete this assignment or I’ll whip you” certainly is, however.
Likewise with parents bossing around their children - compare “Do you homework or I’ll withhold your allowance” with “Do your homework or I’ll spank you”.
As I hopefully indicated in my last post, I don’t see how there can be “neutral” coercion. But to me, the essence of coercion is physical force (violence).
Sure, we’re not Utopians.
Who has the moral authority to decide that? Do you?
You continue to conflate coercion and aggression, they are two different things. Compulsory education is aggression.