Is the state coercive?

Economics Political Theory
, ,
1

This is my first time posting on the forum. In all seriousness, I have been plagued in recent weeks with the title of this post.

Let’s suppose that a young man living with his parents in the apartment in which he was raised has just turned 18. His parents move out and leave him to pay for the rent, utilities, etc., which are the conditions of his continuing to live there. The rent is $500 per week (or if it helps illustrate the point, say, 20% of his income), and all residents must show up once a week at the YMCA pool to compete with the tenants of other apartment buildings in water polo, and no tenant may cook for his or herself, meaning all food is supplied by the landlord, and outside food is illegal.

Now, is this 18-year-old being subjected to involuntary servitude by his landlord? Is this theft, kidnaping, or slavery?

I would imagine not, on the grounds that he may leave to find another place to live if he finds these conditions objectionable, and prefers not to be forced to comply with them. His landlord has placed no restrictions on moving into a different apartment building if he so chooses. If he tries to stay and not meet the conditions established by the landlord, the landlord will kick the young man out, or punish him in a cage in the apartment’s basement.

So how is it that the “If you don’t like it, you can move” argument is sound for the case of the young man in the apartment, but not for the people living under a state?

There are, of course, many barriers to moving that prevent us from leaving the jurisdiction of a state if we object to taxation, conscription, forced testimonies, etc. We could feel an emotional connection to our homeland, or to our neighbors and friends, just as could the young man in the apartment in which he was raised.

Additionally, there can be significant economic barriers to moving – both out of the jurisdiction of a state and out of an apartment building – in time and money.

Why do we call the exchanges between the landlord and the young man voluntary, but those between the state and citizens coercion?

Is it that there are other apartments in the world where the young man could chose to live, and no totally free society to which we can escape? Suppose there were one free society on Earth – say, somewhere on territory formerly belonging to the Canadian government. Does that make the things all states do voluntary, since we could move to the free society, just as the young man could move to another apartment?

What if the only other apartment building is in Siberia? Surely we could not expect this young man to move all the way over there just to escape living in this strange apartment building. Further, what if there were no other apartment buildings on Earth? Would this landlord then be considered a criminal, as many consider the state to be?

One final question I have on the subject is in response to Tom Woods’s YouTube video, “When Did I Sign This ‘Social Contract’?” In it, he says that a homeowner may insist that all guests in his or her house wear a funny hat, but that homeowner does not have the right to force others to do the same in their houses.

Applying this to the state, does this mean that immigrants are not being coerced by their new government? If they know that State A will conscript them into the military, and upon being granted citizenship, they register for the Selective Service, can this still be called coercion?

Is it required to be of sound body and mind to contract?
2

If the man leaves the landlords house, he can legitimately leave as the land lords property is the land lords property (because the land lords property is legitimate, the land lord voluntarily made a trade deal with another person to buy the property in order to rent it out to other people).

Does the state hold legitimate property? No. It must buy it from others. Where does the state get its money? Through taxes, which is coerced from people. Ergo- State property is illegitimate, and all property that “belongs” to the state is illegitimate, as the ultimate source of state property comes from coercion of the citizen.

3

so what about states formed by cooperation of landlords, all the money from the state came from the rent the landlords recieved by the property the landlords owned? this corporation formed by the landlords funtions as a state and charges fees and rent rather than “taxes”.

4

So how is it that the “If you don’t like it, you can move” argument is sound for the case of the young man in the apartment, but not for the people living under a state?

Is this Eric?

Anyway, the point is that the landlord has legitimate ownership over the property. The state does not.

5

Why on earth would all the landlords choose to form a state just so it can tax their rental receipts?

Consider a slightly reworded version of your idea - states formed by the “working class”, all of the money from the state came from the wages the workers received by selling their labor. This corporation formed by the workers fucntions as a state and charges wages and salary rather than “taxes.”

6

Is it the basis for your claim that the state does not have legitimate ownership over the property that public property was bought coersively-obtained resources, as was suggested by Kelvin?

If so, how do you respond to the question posed in the comment above yours about a state formed and funded by a group of landlords?

Also, how could it be said that an immigrant (let’s say, from Bul…Balvaria; yeah, Balvaria) who, before being granted citizenship, registered with the Selective Service, knowing that he or she would not have to register with the American Selective Service if they remained living in their country of origin, is being conscripted against his or her will? The same is the case for being subject to the collection services of the IRS and other actions taken by the American government that libertarians consider to be done against the will of the citizens?

7

This was directed at “Wheylous,” and I meant Bavaria; Balvaria doesn’t exist.

8

Another thought: could it be that the case of the young man in the apartment who reluctantly accepts the terms of living in the apartment is an acceptable libertarian example of an implicit consent?

9

why would landlords not want to cooperate and provide more services together than they could on their own? we have community organizations and social clubs, would those go away? land owners have the choice to collectivise land, do they not? they can create intentional communities. maybe you just don’t call it a “state”, but owners can sell on conditions they want and only sell the rights they want and keep other rights reserved when they sell or rent or lease ect.

10

I came here to say this. /concur

The state does not legitimately or justly own any of the land it claims jurisdiction over. Either it has claimed that land by fiat declaration, or by theft and conquest, or by paying for land with money stolen from its own citizens. Any way you look at it, its ownership claim is unjust.

If in fact the state did limit itself to land it solely owned, that would be a vast improvement.

I suggest OP read Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. Which is available in digital edition free by clicking right here. You can begin reading in mere moments.

11

Welcome to the forum, QuisCustodiet.

First I’d like to ask you what your definition of “coercion” is. My own definition of it is “the use or threat of force”, but your definition may be different.

Given this definition, the state is clearly coercive. But it’s hardly the only thing that is. As I see it, coercion per se isn’t the problem. I don’t think all coercion is created equal. Some coercion I’m willing to accept (i.e. not resist against), while other coerion I’m not. More specifically, I’m willing to accept non-aggressive coercion while I’m not willing to accept aggressive coercion. By “aggressive coercion”, I mean coercion that has not been undertaken in response to previous coercion. I think a synonymous term here is “non-reciprocal coercion”.

With all that said, to me the question is whether the state’s coercion is reciprocal, and thus legitimate (IMO), or non-reciprocal, and thus illegitimate. The “love it or leave it” argument only makes sense if the state is considered to be the landlord. If that’s the case, then everyone who thinks he’s a landlord isn’t really one - not in the sense of sovereign ownership, as the state says that it’s the sovereign owner of the landlord’s land. As libertarians (including anarcho-capitalists) see it, “non-sovereign ownership” is a contradictory term. Hence, if we’re consistent, we see that the state sees itself as owning all the land which “its” people believe they own.

However, I don’t think the state’s control over any land is legitimate, and therefore doesn’t constitute ownership in my opinion. In other words, the state has acquired control over land through aggressive/non-reciprocal coercion, which I think is illegitimate. To use your apartment example, it would be like a gang invading the apartment complex, forcing the owner(s) away from it at gunpoint, and then setting up their own terms of residence for people living there that they can simply take or leave.

12

"First I’d like to ask you what your definition of ‘coercion’ is. My own definition of it is “the use or threat of force”, but your definition may be different.

Given this definition, the state is clearly coercive."

I would only amend your definition of coercion to include the word aggressive before the word force.

I understand the argument about legitimate ownership, and that the state does not legitimately own anything, and therefore may not set conditions of living somewhere as the landlord is free to do. However, does that mean that any action it takes is coercive?

Let’s say a man spends half of his workday pickpocketing people; the other half he spends selling bananas at a fruit stand. The fruit stand was bought with money he got from pickpocketing people. Does this mean that if I buy bananas from the fruit stand that I am being coerced?

Also, I should have worded my original post differently. My question was more about the will of the 18-year-old tenant. Are the conditions of his living there being imposed against his will? Could it really be that because the landlord owns legitimate property and the state does not, that the landlord is not doing anything against the tenants will (including threatening that if the tenant remains there and doesn’t follow the rules, he’ll be put in a cage in the basement) but the state is doing something against his will?

13

@QuisCustodiet

I see that the discussion has progressed, but I still want to reply to your OP. Many libertarians define the state as the territorial monopoly on (lawful) coercion. In other words, if you use coercion, if the state doesn’t like it, then your use of coercion is illicit. So, by that definition, the state is necessarily coercive. If you want to define the state as just a regular government - an entity that governs - then no, the state is not necessarily coercive (or at least not necessarily aggressive). However, I do not find that definition to be useful, as there is a distinction between the American State and the governing body of the local chess club. Sure, the chess club might coerce people into leaving if they don’t follow the rules, but this is not (necessarily) aggressive coercion the way the state is aggressive. Most, if not all, aspects of the state would be found in a free market (law, charity, etc.), but the state is unique in that it forces you to use either its services or buy a service you don’t want, and it also forces you to pay for other people’s services. The local chess club does not force you to do anything unless you want to be a member of the chess club. But you have no choice when it comes to being a “member” of the state.

14

I had a feeling you would say that, but I wasn’t sure. I’m happy to go along with that definition, if that would make things easier for you.

That’s a good point. I didn’t mean to imply that I thought every single thing the state ever does as being what you call “coercive”. In your example, I don’t think you’re being coerced (again using your definition) if you buy bananas from the fruit stand. But I do think your possession of the bananas is ultimately illegitimate (at least prima facie), because the person who sold them to you came to possess them illegitimately beforehand. Does that make sense?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I think it really depends on what you mean by “against his will”. Many times that phrase is used to refer to things that people would prefer if all other things were equal or somesuch. For example, maybe I would prefer it if my landlord didn’t require me to go to the YMCA once a week as a condition of renting an apartment of his. In that sense, the landlord’s requirement is contrary to what I’d prefer.

I think maybe a better way of looking at it is in terms of rights. From that perspective, I don’t think I have any right to be on the landlord’s property unless he expressly gives me that right. If my right to be on his property is contingent on me doing certain things, that’s up to him. All other things being equal, I don’t think I’d have any right to be there. In the case of the government, there’s been no express assignment of rights. Even the so-called “rule of law” is a sham, because it amounts to this: “You can stay on my property as long as you abide by the terms I set, but I’m allowed to change those terms anytime I want and in any way I want, and I’m allowed to do so without making sure you know about it beforehand.” The only way for that to make sense is for it to mean that you agree up front to anything and everything that he ever says.

I think it’s actually even worse than that with the state, because with the state we’re not just talking about being allowed to stay on property. We’re also talking about being not allowed to leave the property (i.e. being imprisoned), as well as our possessions and/or ourselves being damaged and/or destroyed. So essentially, I think the state considers itself to own us as well as the land we live on.

15

Wow. I really appreciate your response. This is tremendously helpful.

I’m convinced that the state does not have the right to require positive action of anyone (whereas legitimate private property owners do), but I’m not quite there on the question of whether such positive requirements of the state are examples aggressive force.

Remember: in the scenario, the landlord will put any tenant in a cage in the basement for failing to comply with the rules. By virtue of the legitimacy of the landlord’s property, putting tenants in cages is not aggressive force?

Do you have any ideas about those who knowingly move to the jurisdiction of a new state, specifically on the question of aggression? Would taxation, conscription, etc. really be aggressive force if only non-US-born individuals were subjected to them? I accept that the state has no right to require any action from anybody, but is it accurate to say immigrants are being aggressed against (or enslaved) by this new state to which they moved?

Again, I can’t even express how constructive this has been. I love this forum already.

16

You have to understand that democracy itself is innately coercive. It is a mechanism for legitimizing aggressive coercion, for what it does is say that it’s okay to force the minority to follow the majority’s decision, which is prima facie coercion.

Beyond this, the state finances all of its activities with money that it did not earn, but with money which it took via coercion from citizens. Therefore, everything it does is tainted by the means by which it obtained funds to do it. Anything done with stolen funds is unethical.

Thirdly, anything that government does that isn’t an exercise of power, and therefore coercion, can be done better and cheaper and more responsibly by the market, which is the domain of non-coercive action generally. Government reserves the use of coercion to itself. That’s what it means to be government–to use coercion for this or that.

We’ve put up with it because they’ve conditioned people to believe there is no other way, and because people are comfortable with the social systems they’re born into, accepting them a priori virtually.

No, but you would be buying goods for which he does not justly own title to, for he bought them with stolen money. Ultimately, if his theft is discovered, what he sold you should be taken away also from you, in order to make restitution to his victim, and your recourse is suit against him for fraud, for selling you things he did not legitimately own.

17

If a landlord were to forc tenants into the cage, then that would be aggression, as it is against their will and violates their property right in themselves which precludes people simply locking others up, that would be false-imprisonment.

However, the landlord, by right of property and contract, could require that a violator of the usage agreement submit himself voluntarily to being caged for a term, or else breach the contract and be escorted off the premises.

Thus, if the landlord caged anyone, it would be the tenants voluntarily submitting to be caged because they would like to continue living at the landlord’s property. However, they’d be free to, at any time, decide they want to leave and break the contract with the landlord, and leave the property.

That would be the only way that he could do it. Because violating an agreement is not on par with violating another’s rights. Agreements do not create new rights between people. The tenant has a license to use property owned by the landlord, and the only remedy for breaking their contract is escorting the tenant off the property.

Knowingly moving into a so-called jurisdiction does not autmatically make you subject to it. In a free society, since all land and area would be privately owned, moving anywhere would involve agreeing to certain obligations while in that space with the recourse being escorted off and disinvited thereafter.

Any entity, much less the state, does not have the right to aggress. Ever. And it is the goal of libertarianism to advocate and create a society where aggression is entirely absent from human relations. This is the meaning of our adherence to the non-aggression principle (NAP).

Yes. Because if we recast your question thus: is ethnicity or national origin ever a consideration as to whether stealing money from someone is theft?

The answer must be no. Steal from any person, regardless of nationality, and it is theft, plain and simple.

Same for conscription, which is akin to slavery, kidnapping even. Nationality or national origin plays no part whatsoever in that determination. One need only be human.

Yes, if they’re being taxed, conscripted, or in any way forced against their will–which is inherent in any democracy. Listen, in a society where there is no aggression, the state nor anyone else could not even force any laws on you. That’s why democracy is inherently aggressive, for the majority force laws on the minority. In a free society, you would choose what laws you live by and group together with those who choose similarly.

By doing that, you obsolete any need for democracy, taxation, or politicians.

Welcome :slight_smile:

Now go read For a New Liberty by Rothbard, available free in the literature section.

18

“Yes. Because if we recast your question thus: is ethnicity or national origin ever a consideration as to whether stealing money from someone is theft?”

No, you’ve misunderstood my question. The question was whether or not those state actions constitute aggressive force since a foreigner who becomes a citizen of a new state that does them. The new state to which this person moves would not have the power to tax or conscript them if this person did not move into the new state’s jurisdiction. So if I move to Canada, where I know part of my income will be taken by the state, and this will be enforced upon me if I become a citizen, am I really being aggressed against? If not, then a state that only subjects immigrants to the actions which libertarians consider to be “involuntary” is not involuntary.

“The answer must be no. Steal from any person, regardless of nationality, and it is theft, plain and simple.”

The very question being posed is whether or not this is considered “stealing.”

19

So, does the foreigner’s willingly entering a country legitimate aggression against them? Of course not. The answer is, does the state own the territory the foreigner enters? It does not legitimately own it. It’s jurisdiction is a farce. The foreigner is not responsible for that which he did not bring about, and still has inviolate human rights, despite choosing to enter an area under the claim of an illegitimate jurisdictional power.

So, I have to say that no, their action in choosing to enter a place does not legitimate violence against them. Anymore than if you entered the residence of someone who claims he will let you in but reserves the right to murder you at any time if you enter–if he actually does murder you, you cannot be said to have consented to your own murder. It is not a suicide. It is an aggression regardless of circumstances for someone to kill you against your will, claim of jursidction or not. And the same holds for theft and any other situation you want to raise, conscription, etc.

20

“So, does the foreigner’s willingly entering a country legitimate aggression against them?”

No, I don’t know if it is aggression. That’s what I’m trying to understand.