Why is coercion bad?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
1

So I’m reading Ethics of Liberty, and Rothbard makes a distinction between freedom of choice and power or abundance of choice. If man is stranded on a deserted island, he has a completely unrestricted freedom of choice. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have much of an abundance of choice: he can either gather the material resources he needs to survive, or he can starve.

Rothbard later goes on to say that coercion is bad because it restricts your freedom of choice. But I don’t see how this is true. Suppose I put a gun to Jim’s head and demand he fork over his wallet. He certainly does have freedom of choice: he can give up the goods, or get shot in the face. All I’ve done is restrict his abundance of choice.

Am I missing something here? Why exactly is coercion bad?

2

Well, Rothbard thought that coercion/aggression was bad for ethical reasons. For, ultimately, rejection of aggression does amount to an ethical decision. That’s why he ends Power and Market as follows:

At this point, the praxeologist as such retires from the scene; the citizen—the ethicist—must now choose according to the set of values or ethical principles he holds dear.

He’s leaving your decision about ethics up to you.

3

Perhaps it is bad because you have denied him his freedom to choose from the abundance of choices he once had before you applied your act of coercion?

4

Coercion is bad because it involves the threat of aggressive violence. It is a moral judgment derived from NAP. You are correct that people can still choose to defy the aggressor. Some people consider this the superior option.

5

It’s not bad. This is why Rothbard’s system, just as all systems of non-individualist and objective moralities, falls flat on its face

6

I think by “unrestricted freedom of choice” Rothbard meant that no one could interfere with the stranded man’s choice of actions. However, by threatening to shoot your buddy Jim unless he gives you his wallet, you are very much interfering with his choice of actions.

I’m sure that, before you came along with the extortion offer, Jim had not considered “giving Tunk my wallet” and “getting shot in the face” among his preferred courses of action that day.

7

You’re an amoralist Neo. If I did not believe in morals, I would be a statist, as that could easily maximize my personal benefits. I would want to become a member of the State elite, if I wanted to simply do what was best for me.

8

“You’re an amoralist Neo.”

Very close but not quite

“If I did not believe in morals, I would be a statist, as that could easily maximize my personal benefits. I would want to become a member of the State elite, if I wanted to simply do what was best for me”

Then that’s a case where you might want to ask yourself what kind of person you are, not who I am. From what you have said you might want to ask yourself if you do not want to question your ultimate aims.

However, the point is that you have not defended the thesis of why coersion is bad.

9

Then that’s a case where you might want to ask yourself what kind of person you are, not who I am.

If you are implying that it would be bad for me to be a statist, then you are implying morality. If you think it is OK for me to be a statist, then you are being consistent with your amoral beliefs.

You know what, I’m going to murder someone right now. brb.

However, the point is that you have not defended the thesis of why coersion is bad.

It just is. Axiomatic.

10

“If you are implying that it would be bad for me to be a statist, then you are implying morality. If you think it is OK for me to be a statist, then you are being consistent with your amoral beliefs.”

The word “OK” is a little up to interpretation here. So I looked up the word and most of the definitions revolved around something being acceptable. No, I do not think it is acceptable that you kill someone. There need be no moral standard to declare whether an action is acceptable.

“You know what, I’m going to murder someone right now. brb.”

I don’t know what exactly you’re going for but that doesn’t seem to be a very mature acting style

“It just is. Axiomatic.”

That’s not an argument. Why is it axiomatic? According to that logic I could simply claim that subjectivism is axiomatic and it could be fine. Indeed I would argue that praxeology itself implies that morality is subjective. Mises seemed to be much more accepting of this conclusion than Rothbard was for fairly obvious reasons.

11

No, I do not think it is acceptable that you kill someone.

Oh, so you think it is wrong for me to kill someone? I personally think it will maximize my utility, so…

I don’t know what exactly you’re going for but that doesn’t seem to be a very mature acting style

It is not very mature to not accept that morality is absolute.

Morality is subjective.

Because I am sure you have researched the definitions of “objective” and “subjective” in the OED and really know what they mean? I can explain this to you if you want. In short, “objectivity” does not imply “universality”: saying that morality is objective is not saying that there is one true morality (which I also believe). I think Rothbardian ethics are both objective and universally true, but the two words I have used mean very different things.

12

“Oh, so you think it is wrong for me to kill someone?”

I personally believe that it is wrong, yes. In MY MIND, it is wrong, I disagree with it, I would probably kill you to prevent murder, but that does not make it wrong. You are still not addressing the actual issue, whether I believe something is wrong or not, whether I want something or not does not mean that it is the case. I WANT objective moraltiy to exist but it doesn’t. I was in the same situation you are, I haven’t fought so hard to defend a false concept since I lost my faith (not a jab at believers). There’s a reason why you have to rely upon words like “axiomatic” and state that “it just is” because there is no way to define morality without reference to subjective values.

The fact is that if killing someone maximizes your utility, then by your judgement, you should do it.

“It is not very mature to not accept that morality is absolute”

Why not? By everything that you’ve actually put forth for an argument in favor of objective morality I could just as easily argue that it’s not matue that god created the world. Indeed absolute morality is quite a childish concept. Imagine if someone told you that there were rules that you must follow and cannot break under any situation which you cannot choose what rules these are and that besides these rules you could do anything that you wanted but the reason that these things existed was axiomatic and not based upon actual human preference. You might consider that a little childish.

Objective morality is a concept that only makes sense if you’re born into a society where it is a presuppositon

“Because I am sure you have researched the definitions of “objective” and “subjective” in the OED and really know what they mean?”

It’s been a while but yes I have. It was very important to me when I was attempting to justify my moralism.

“I can explain this to you if you want. In short, “objectivity” does not imply “universality”: saying that morality is objective is not saying that there is one true morality (which I also believe).”

Correct, although they are used in conjunction with one another so often that most people (including myself) find it conveniant to shove them in the same boat. I would also like to throw out there that I believe both are equally fallacious concepts.

“I think Rothbardian ethics are both objective and universally true.”

Why? Can you give me an actual reason why?

I’m not trying to be impolite, but I would like an actual reason as to why you believe any one of these things.

13

There’s a reason why you have to rely upon words like “axiomatic” and state that “it just is” because there is no way to define morality without reference to subjective values.

Why would aggression be wrong if not for the fact that aggression is wrong? The “axiomatic” and “it just is” are merely my semantics for expressing the truth that A=A.

To me it just seems like you are anti-simplicity.

Imagine if someone told you that there were rules that you must follow and cannot break under any situation which you cannot choose what rules these are and that besides these rules you could do anything that you wanted but the reason that these things existed was axiomatic and not based upon actual human preference. You might consider that a little childish.

No, I’d instantly accept those rules if they were Non-Aggression, and as a principled man, I would instantly reject any “rules” that were Aggressive.

Correct, although they are used in conjunction with one another so often that most people (including myself) find it conveniant to shove them in the same boat.

Why would you do that when discussing with someone who actually understands the difference between the two?

Why? Can you give me an actual reason why?

Objective Morality: A Syllogism

As objects of perception, all abstract theories are objective.
Morals are abstract theories.
Therefore, morality is objective.

Universal Morality: An Axiom

Every man has a right to his own, from which is derived that no man may aggress upon another or his property.

14

Rothbard later goes on to say that coercion is bad because it restricts your freedom of choice. But I don’t see how this is true. Suppose I put a gun to Jim’s head and demand he fork over his wallet. He certainly does have freedom of choice: he can give up the goods, or get shot in the face. All I’ve done is restrict his abundance of choice.

On a whole, he doesn’t have much freedom of anything now does he?

Let’s put yourself in the scenario. I have a gun to your head and tell you to hand over everything you currently have on your, or you’re dead. Being dead isn’t much of a choice, it’s the end of your life, that leaves you with only one default choice, hand over whatever you have. This will happen over and over again til you choose death if the cycle repeats uninterrupted.

If I did not believe in morals, I would be a statist, as that could easily maximize my personal benefits.

If you didn’t believe in morals you’d be a nihilist, maximizing your “uneasiness” or own prefered goals or “happiness” or stimulation of what you desire, being a Statist is only second to what you are trying to achieve.

It is not very mature to not accept that morality is absolute.

Why?

I think Rothbardian ethics are both objective and universally true, but the two words I have used mean very different things.

Why?

Both of those statements are subjective on behalf that it’s your belief, therfore not objectively or universally true. Why are they not? Because have people here now disagreeing with their own views and sets of morality that cannot be proven as hard factual evidence.

15

Objective Morality: A Syllogism

As objects of perception, all abstract theories are objective.*
Morals are abstract theories.
Therefore, morality is objective.

Universal Morality: An Axiom

Every man has a right to his own, from which is derived that no man may aggress upon another or his property.***

*My initial response is, “LOLWUT?”. Do we have to define objective and subjective now?

***Does every man agree with above statement in all circumstances? I come across people every day who say and believes things that counter that statement.

16

*My initial response is, “LOLWUT?”. Do we have to define objective and subjective now?

I am defining objective as by the Oxford English Dictionary.

Opposed to subjective in the modern sense: That is or belongs to what is presented to consciousness, as opposed to the consciousness itself; that is the object of perception or thought, as distinct from the perceiving or thinking subject; hence, that is, or has the character of being, a ‘thing’ external to the mind; real.

There you go.

I come across people every day who say and believes things that counter that statement.

They’re wrong. Simply because morality is universal does not mean that people cannot physically violate it. People can aggress, but aggressing is universally immoral.

Simply because A=A does not mean that people cannot physically claim that A=B. (If A=B, then B=A, and hence it is stil true that A=A).

17

^Please see the edit to the above post. =)

18

How we perceive things is subjective, whether or not whatever is external is objective, because it’s all about the individual’s relation and perception of said “thing” in question.

Still, I’m not proven otherwise. Answer the two “Why?” questions and provide a response as why someone is wrong for not agreeing with Rothbard’s view of aggression.

19

There are people who believe the needs of the many outweigh the few, regardless if they fall into the majority or minority if the proposed action is beneficial to the group as a whole. Therfore, they believe what we call aggression is “good” because the majority benefits regardless if the minority does not want to involve itself in it and is forced by law to do so.

20

Answer the two “Why?” questions and provide a response as why someone is wrong for not agreeing with Rothbard’s view of aggression.

I gave you a syllogism and an axiom as proof. =)

To simplify things further, the syllogism boils down to “abstract theories external to the Mind exist,” and the axiom boils down to A=A.