Where does coercion come into play in voluntary exchange?
Behind any delineation of property claims, torts and contract obligations stands force or the threat of force. The fact that I am exchanging with you, rather than just taking what I want, might simply be because of this implicit threat of coercion. There is no such thing as a ‘voluntary’ society, unless everyone is a practicing Jainist; in which case the utter inability to enforce and practice production and contracts would pretty well implode society.
You cannot own a person, for reasons I described above.
- You obviously can have a property claim on a person; 2) Most animals are also conscious, intentional beings who have to cooperate in some way if we want to use them for anything aside from food. Yet to say that we do not ‘own’ animals would be ridiculous, we obviously do exert a great deal of control over them, in addition to having a generally recognized claim over them.
In what way does all social order revolve around coercion?
Because if coercion didn’t exist there would be absolutely no strictures on potential actions and uses for various scarce factors. The willingness to use violence according to some particular plan (such as propertarianism) and to have this socially accepted is the only thing that makes your so-called ‘voluntary’ exchanges possible.
Voluntarism, like anti-authoritarianism and ‘equal rights’ is just a bunch of phoney-baloney BS that makes no logical sense and isn’t even consistent with liberal-propertarian social orders. Just accept that, yes, we want to impose our rules on other people and if they don’t like it they can leave or get shot. Stop pussy-footing around the brunt facts and trying to make yourself seem elevated to some special categorical realm.