Why is coercion bad?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
121

“You completely missed the point. I repeat, maximizing “pleasure” is not and cannot be the goal of a moral code, because the concept of pleasure presupposes an agent that already finds certain things pleasurable.”

By this measure ethics are, once again, utterly subjective.

“If you asked me, “How can I maximize my pleasure”, you would essentially be saying, “How can I acheive the acheivment of my aims?” Well, I would first need to know Ethics is the study, not of how to acheive your ends, but of what your ends should be”

Once again subjective and not based on external reference.

“As Henry Veatch wrote in his classic rational man the job of morality is not to make you happy but to make you unhappy, to rouse you from your complacency and awaken the thirst for self improvement.”

Why?

Morality is a subjective phenomenon because values are subjective phenomenon.

122

tunk,

OK, we’ll play it your way. Although, the trouble is with a less “bullet point’y” response is that it may seem more thoughtful and cohesive, it tends to be a method of ignoring inconvinient or difficult points raised by the previous post. (no offense)

I would argue that the classical Greek sense or “morality” is action best suited to achieve “arete”, or virtue, which is usually appealed to as some natural “end-in-itself”, without any sort of set criteria. Of course, I’m not too familiar with ancient Western philosophy, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

Morals are inherently prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Any action towards a desired end becomes a “moral” action. What if our desired ends differ? Are you saying that we all share common ends, or rather, there is only one ultimate end we all pursue? Instead, let us use some neutral, third party definition. Webster’s good enough for you?

Moral -

a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>

b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>

c : conforming to a standard of right behavior

So, unless you can first define what the “ultimate end” is, or should be, then you are just making it up.

I also consider the vague term “life” as the natural “ultimate end” rather dubiously. What do you even mean by that? Living a fascinating life for 30 years, or being in a coma for 125 years are both “life”, so you are going to have to clarify a bit.

Sorry, I gotta quote for this one,

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
The problem is ultimate justification for human ends. And if you asked me why I did what I did, and I responded, “because of habit, faith, and ignorance”, you would run into the same problem because you could simply ask me, “Why?”
[/quote]

I could simply do the same for any of your pet theories. This represents a limitation of the implementation of logical deduction whilst lacking omniscience, rather than a fault of the conclusions on deduces. See What the Tortoise said to Achilles.

On your quotes, again the problem remains,

What then, is this “ultimate end”? “Life” is an inadequate description.

You want an “ultimate end”? OK, how about Entropy? Build an ethic around that, since temperature differences are the whole reason anything does anything.

I don’t deny the possibility of proof, but I also don’t blindly believe that I have accrued enough information to state that my method of validation are themselves valid. Can you prove your proof? Again, see the link above.

Logic is fine, but it ain’t everything. It isn’t the deductive system that is lacking, it is both of our ignorance that makes argumentation even necessary. That is already conceding that we both “don’t know” something (or anything!).

Your postition begs the question as much as mine does. That is why we both choose to ignore our respective begged questions as a matter of faith.

123

@ Neodoxy - If what you mean by “subjective” is that values are agent-relative, i.e. that only if you hold a certain goal can the means for achieving that goal be perscribed for you (e.g. only if you want to win the race should you train), then yes, I certainly agree with you. This is what Kant called the “problematic hypothetical imperative”, i.e. if you want X, do Y. Certainly this is subjective.

But what if it could be demonstrated that there is one goal that everybody necessarily aims at, to which certain means can be universally prescribed? I.e. since you want X, do Y; what Kant called the “assertoric hypothetical”. This is how Aristotelian-Randian morality is constructed, not on some mystical “intrinsic” values which have never been proved to exist, but rather the agent-relativity of values.

So if it can be demonstrated that you pursue a goal of which you have simply been unaware and which you have been pursuing very badly, then you should, on this conception of morality, be convinced to change.

@ Jackson LaRose -

Well, virtue in the Aristotelian sense is associated with good functioning, pursuing the natural potential towards which you are oriented. Man’s natural end is his flourishing or happiness, according to Aristotle, and virtue is not an instrumental means to it but a constitutive or “dominant” means. In other words, buying a golf club is an instrumental means to playing golf; it is a necessary precondition for the game. But swinging the club is a constitutive means; swinging the club forms part of the very activity of golf-playing.

Similarly, virtue is not an instrumental means to man’s self-actualization, but rather constitutes part of that end-in-itself towards which we are oriented. So yes, virtue is an end-in-itself, essentially. (NOTE: I don’t necessarily agree with this analysis, I’m just providing it since you asked about it.)

Admittedly it is true that modus ponens is not an axiom that can be demonstrated, as Lewis Carrolls’ fable shows. But no one has ever claimed it was. Rather, the “if-then” relationship is something that is implicit in the very meaning of the words “if” and “then”. If you use the language and engage in argumentation, then you necessarily accept the the modus ponens principle, like it or lump it. If you don’t like it, well, then shut up and quit arguing. Quit thinking too, for that matter.

First principles are never “demonstrated” (for that would beg the question), but are merely shown in a dialectical manner to be self-affirming. (As long as they’re not self-contradictory, who cares?)

This is why logic is not something that can be argued about, but rather something that makes argumentation possible to begin with. Its existence is axiomatic for any participant in discussion and argumentation, but, yes, who gives a crap about logic outside this context? Logical arguments cannot be made in a vacuum, but only to another conscious, rational being. (Hoppe has some great writing about this in “In Defense of Extreme Rationalism”.)

Now, yes I am saying there is one ultimate end that we all pursue. I thought I made this clear. And no, life qua ultimate end is free from any problems of regression, because life qua ultimate is also a self-affirming axiom. To quote myself,

And finally, clearly, when we discuss ethics, we are discussing what it is proper for conscious beings who act purposefully and employ means to achieve desired ends to do; i.e. man. I don’t see how entropy is relevant.

124

That was not the intent of that quote. I would posit that the state is by definition a coercive institution. Clearly though, individuals can coerce other individuals, without institutionalizing it. – Jackson Larose

The state can be an instrument to limit coercion as in COnstitutional Federal REpublicanism in which coercive power is intentionally balanced, decentralized, limited and made transparent.

Indeed, Von MIses understood this when he advocated government to protect against coercive statist elements in society.

I would argue that the desired ends of those who command the state are not life, liberty, and private property. Even if I grant you that position, from a utilitarian standpoint, the threat posed by the state towards all of the purported ends it claims to strive towards are much greater than any individual.-- Jackson

Untrue, many Americans fighting overseas consciously use coercion to promote life, liberty and private property. And I disagree with your assessment that ALL government structures are destructive. I have pointed out that government can be used to intentionally limit, balance decentralize, and make transparent the elements of coercion in society. Our Constitutional Federal REpublic was designed to achieve this end and by any objective measure it has performed very well in preserving and even enhancing poltical and civil rights. Granted our founding fathers were remiss in not creating a framework that provided more lastly and sturdy economic rights – but I believe this shortcoming will be addressed in our lifetime due to circumstances beyond the statist’s control.

Life - Total deaths in American combat, total executions since 1976 vs. Rampage Killers

Liberty - Prisoners per capita vs. Kidnappings per year

Private property - Eminent Domain vs. Squatting, also some personal ones here and here – Jackson

You forget the opportunity costs of not engaging in conflict to remove statists from power. The US has never attacked a liberal democracy, hence there has been a tremendous net benefit or increase in life, liberty and private property thanks to US application of force. Take the Western Hemisphere, Europe and the Asian Pacific Rim – these regions are significantly more peaceful, prosperous, free and stable than AT ANY TIME in their tumultous pasts.

The bottom line is that the use of coercion to remove statists from power can and often does result in a net increase in societal life, liberty, stability and private property protections.

Of course, we need an Economic Bill of Rights to complement our current sturdy civil and polticial rights.

But what you must understand is that people will always act in their own self-interest and those that cannot achieve desired ends by peaceful means will use coercion. There is a greater likelihood that they will use coercion to satisfy desired ends in an anarchist society because there are no institutionalized restrictions, limits, balance, decentralization or transparency on the elements of coercion as is the case with liberal democracies.

Any decentralization is good, and I would say that “Anarchism” is just the logical conclusion of decentralization. --Jackson

Nope, within anarchist society there will be territorial monopolies of armed force or corporate military agencies that will coalesce through economies of scale and specialization of labor. Also, military force is by definition territorial or geographic so it would be virtually impossible for ‘customers’ to find a viable alternative for their own security. Within the insurance industry I can easily find a competitor anywhere in the world to satisfy my insurance needs – but finding a body guard, tank, battleship, or missile defense system 1000’s of miles from home that can protect me is problematic

In conclusion, there is no mechanism to insure decentralization of coercive power in anarchist society any more that presently exists in the global anarchic system.

If one’s true aim is to maximize “life, liberty, and private property”, then advocating an institution that must assume, by definition, that all people and materials within a deliniated geographic area are under its rightful subjegation seems counter-productive at the most fundamental level.-- Jackson’

You got it wrong. Institution would be established that limited state or government power by decentralization, balances, limits and transparency. Importantly the system would allow the citizenry the right to bear arms and free speech to further decentralize coercive power in society. A system designed to imprison statists so that the citizenry can monitor them and check their attempts at gaining power.

The true test will come when the government is forced to surrender signifcant economic power back to the people or the free market since it is apparent to all (Occupy movement notwithstanding) that government cannot effectively manage economic affairs.

As has been stated previously, the state is a means to an end. It is a tool, like a gun. It is one of the most powerful tools of control ever implemented. Private actors, without this tool at their disposal, would have a much tougher time exploiting the weak, since their power would be so greatly diminished.

I would also argue that the state does not decentralize power, it concentrates it, it does not balance (redistribute?) power, it allows the powerful to become more so, It does not limit power, it allows individuals to control far more than they could just as individuals, and it’s mechanations are far from transparent (see classified information). – Jackson

The state is not the only entity that can use coercion to undermine societal life, liberty and private property. Every single instance of anarchism has resulted in the establishment of a statist structure that has severely undermined these tenets. So anarchism is not the answer, we have relatively secure civil and political rights (despite the ramblings of some fringe conspiracy theorists) however we need to tweak the system to remove the statist’s hand from the economic cookie jar. WHen this end is achieved I think we will see a stable, free, peaceful and prosperous globe. Indeed, Europe, the US the Western Hemisphere and the Asian pacific rim for all its economic problems are utterly peaceful and extensively integrated economically and socially with each other.

125

Tunk, What would be the purpose of knowing what my ends should be, if not to maximize (long-term) net pleasure?

126

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
If you use the language and engage in argumentation, then you necessarily accept the the modus ponens principle, like it or lump it. If you don’t like it, well, then shut up and quit arguing. Quit thinking too, for that matter.
[/quote]

I run into this one a lot. So, if I play Legend of Zelda, I must accept that I truly am Link in order to play the game? Or am I just manipulating the sprite of a fictional character on a TV screen?

Can I utilize logic without necessarily accepting its validity?

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
This is why logic is not something that can be argued about, but rather something that makes argumentation possible to begin with. Its existence is axiomatic for any participant in discussion and argumentation, but, yes, who gives a crap about logic outside this context? Logical arguments cannot be made in a vacuum, but only to another conscious, rational being.
[/quote]

This is why I consider it folly to attempt to build a universal ethic from such a deductive system. We’ve already established the necessity for blind faith in the system’s validity.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Man’s life qua survival is his ultimate end.
[/quote]

What a base, mundane pupose for life. Meaningless existence, like a rat.

127

Centinel,

Actions speak louder than words, and the state neither intentionally limits, balances, decentralizes, nor makes transparent, the elements of coercion in society by definition.

It wields unlimited power in a geographic area, by definition.

It claims a monopoly over all legitimate violence, by definition.

It is a centralized authority, by definition.

It is secretive, and run by a chosen exclusionary cadre, by definition.

I am uninterested in the populace of the Pacific Rim, the CIS, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. I am concerned with my freedom, my self-determination, my ends, etc. Even while living in a Liberal Democracy, I am threatened with insumountable force to comply to certain norms, which typically run counter to my goals. If you could somehow demonstrate how I am more free under a Liberal Democracy, rather than an anarchic society, it may sway me, but until then, I think we’ve reached an impasse.

128

This strikes me as a silly question, because the demand for validity presupposes some framework by which we can evaluate a statement’s validity, i.e. logic. You have already accepted this framework merely by posing the question. And this is hardly blind faith. Logic is simply a premise no one can rationally reject. The simple axioms of logic can be used to show that their opponent necessarily accepts them even as he tries to deny them, because they are the groundwork that make argumentation possible. So long as you are a conscious human being that engages in thought and language, you accept the basic principles of logic. I don’t see anything wrong with writing a story (Randian-Aristotelian ethics) in a language we all speak.

Douglas Rasmussen puts it well:

If I reasoned using the PNC as a premise, I would be begging the question and could be accused of “vicious” cicularity. If, however, all I do is show that the premise cannot possibly denied by a conscious actor, I am indeed being circular but hardly in an objectionable way. This is why we call certain things axioms, like the action axiom on which Austrian economics is founded.

I encourage you to read Tara Smith’s book Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics. The reality is actually the reverse of what you just said. If we take as our ethical starting point the goal to help every man survive in the most optimal way, then ethics, for from being mundance, becomes the most important study, of the “art of living well”. Ethics becomes a guide for human flourishing. You are more likely to survive, for example, if you are convinced your life is worth living. If life is man’s ultimate end, man is flourishing when he pusues hobbies, fruitful relationships, a healthy community, and good relations with his fellow man. Far from being meaningless, our lives turn into huge opportunities for actualizing our inherent potential as human beings. I don’t see it as mundane or meaningless at all.

129

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
This strikes me as a silly question, because the demand for validity presupposes some framework by which we can evaluate a statement’s validity, i.e. logic.
[/quote]

ORLY??? I determine validity by direct revelation from God, not by utilizing rational deduction. There are other ways to validate positions. Which you choose to accept as valid is a statement of preference.

What we consider contradictory/non-contradictory is based upon our knowledge. Non-omniscience is the limitation of our application of logic. Loggic is a problem solving algorithm, like a computer program. If you use garbage data (our knowledge) as the inputs to that machine, you will get nonsensical results (the old programming adage, “Garbage in, garbage out”). My favorite example,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Bulletproof logic leading to (what we consider) ridiculous conclusions.

This demonstrates our personal cognitive limitations, nothing more. All swans are not white.

This is also why some of us think we are too ignorant to even be close to claim this and that as “axioms”.

Your last paragraph is really just a statement of aesthetic preference. None of it follows from from your starting premise,

130

Wow, you simply tossed aside every argument I made and chose to just restate your own beliefs. Whether you like it or not, having this argument wouldn’t even be possible unless the law of non-contradiction held true, since otherwise your utterances would be entirely incoherent.

Duh. That’s the difference between a sound argument and a valid one. Philosophy 101. How does this disprove logic again?

And of course, everything I say will strike you as “a statement of aesthetic preference”, because you begin with the assumption that all statements are statements of aesthetic preferences. Of course, you engage in hilarious self-contradiction even as you write it, but you refuse to admit it.

131

What were the arguments you made, exactly?

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Philosophy 101
[/quote]

Sorry, I dropped out of high school, smarty-pants.

I’m not trying to disprove logic. I’m attempting to demonstrate how our implementation of logic is insufficient to derive “truth”, such as an objective ethic.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
because you begin with the assumption that all statements are statements of aesthetic preferences.
[/quote]

Well, aren’t they?

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Of course, you engage in hilarious self-contradiction even as you write it, but you refuse to admit it.
[/quote]

So do you.

132

So everything I’ve been writing has been neither read nor understood. I’ve been talking to a wall. How surprising.

Believe what you want to believe. But you haven’t demonstrated anything. You just keep repeating some postmodern nihilist slogans about “aesthetic preferences” and similar garbage. You have yet to rebut the law of non-contradiction. Until you can do that, you haven’t made your case nor proved that anything I said was false. (You don’t even believe that anything can be “false”, though you don’t realize it, since you pointlessly argue against the possibility that anything could ever be evaluated as false. Quit arguing, then.)

133

No, what you’ve been writing has been nonsense dribbling from a logic-bot.

You’ve already conceded that our implementation of logic is limited, so you’ve lost the argument.

Nevermind that flowery gobbledy-gook of bare assertions concerning "life"and “virtue”, which you conveniently chose to leave untouched after my challenge.

I thought the folly of attempting derive perfect conclusions (objective anything) from an imperfect system (human cognition) would become evident as we went on, but apparently I was wrong.

I think this really sums it up well:

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I am indeed being circular but hardly in an objectionable way.
[/quote]

LOL, OK keep on keepin’ on, brother. Trust me, it won’t hurt to admit you don’t know what you are talking about any more than I do.

134

I have “already conceded that our implementation of logic is limited”? I’m sure you’d like to believe that, but why don’t we have a look at what I actually said.

I fail to see how this is a concession.

I “conveniently chose to leave untouched” your “challenge”? What was your challenge?

What was my response?

What was your reply to this? Nothing, except caricature and fashionable slogans. Yeah, I know traditional virtue ethics isn’t popular in the postmodern-leftist university climate. I don’t really give a crap.

And what is your finishing blow? At the end of your post you quoted me out of context and then concluded triumphantly as if you’d won. You have the standards of debate of a Stalinist commisar.

What I said was there’s no problem with an axiom being self-referential as long as it isn’t self-contradictory. Have you made any effort to refute this? No.

Whoever it is that doesn’t know what he’s talking about here, it isn’t me.

ANd I’m still waiting for a rebuttal of the law of non-contradiction. Yawn.

135

You have yet to rebut the law of non-contradiction.

In so much as these things are:

A=A.

I=I

Good = Good

Bad = Bad

Coersion = Coersion

Peace = Peace

etc

In so much as one of these things is, it is as it’s own and functions for it’s own sake. In so much as I am - I utilize all that which is mine. If something is coercive, or peaceful; it is my peace.

136

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
What I said was there’s no problem with an axiom being self-referential as long as it isn’t self-contradictory. Have you made any effort to refute this? No.
[/quote]

I’m not the one with an assertion about some eternal universal ethic! The burden is on you. What you are describing sounds circular to me. How about this one,

“My ultimate goal is the cessation of suffering”.

Not self refuting, self-referring, which is cool, right?

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I fail to see how this is a concession.
[/quote]

Because that wasn’t your concession. Yawn. Fart. Cough.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I am indeed being circular but hardly in an objectionable way.
[/quote]

This was your concession. Talk about begging the question!

“What makes a circular argument objectionable/not objectionable?”

Oh, wait, that’s right: YOUR AESTHETIC PREFERENCE!!!

Damn, that’s probably just another “nihilist slogan”, or me unfairly caricaturizing you, though. Better just ignore it.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
ANd I’m still waiting for a rebuttal of the law of non-contradiction.
[/quote]

As you said, interpersonal communication cannot express such a rebuttal without being self-refuting. That demonstrates the limits of language and our congnition, nothing more. Oh crap, more “slogans”.

137

This was not a concession. You clearly did not read what came before it, since I was summarizing the passage from Rasmussen. Let me quote it again, and this time try to avoid quoting me selectively and distorting my posts so that they fit your self-serving narrative.

The point of this passage is that reasoning from the PNC to prove the PNC would indeed be “viciously” circular and would beg the question. But that wasn’t what I was doing. It is not “vicious” circularity but self-affirming circularity if I merely demonstrate that the opponent of the PNC cannot attempt to deny it without accepting it. The PNC is what makes argumentation possible. You are accepting it as you attempt to deny it.

To make this point clear, go back to Lewis Caroll’s fable. According to her, logic is based on question-begging premises and should be mistrusted. Yet can’t this be put in syllogistic form?

  1. Every argument that begs the question ought to be rejected
  2. Logic begs the questions.
  3. Thus, logic should be rejected.
    The “if-then” relationship can only be rejected by making use of the if-then relationship!

You can regard this as a “limitation” of language and thought if you want, though I hardly think the foundations of a house are “limiting” the building of the house so much as they are making the existence of house possible. The point is that, if what I’ve said is true, then logic can be regarded as a kind of language that everyone speaks by virtue of being a thinking, speaking human being (though certainly some people speak the language better than others), and whatever is shows to be true through logic holds for all thinking, speaking human beings.

This is what I wanted you to disprove, not my claims about morality, and you have yet to do so. Since it’s obvious that you can’t because it’s by definition an impossible task, let’s move on.

138

We are on two different planets, kid.

Man and Logic is obviously your deity.

Mine is the Tao and nothingness.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
You can regard this as a “limitation” of language if you want, though I hardly think the foundations of a house are “limiting” the building of the house so much as they are making the existence of house possible. The point is that, if what I’ve said is true, then logic can be regarded as a language that everyone speaks by virtue of being a thinking human being (though certainly some people speak the language better than others), and whatever is shows to be true through logic holds for all human beings.
[/quote]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1.1

If that is the case, then logic is my enemy, a fetter keeping me bound to the illusory “self”. See Zen Koan

And this,

Should demonstrate how much faith you are placing in your own deductions.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Since it’s obvious that you can’t, let’s move on.
[/quote]

Can’t what, prove that there isn’t an objective ethic? LOL, there very well may be, but there is no way for either of us to find out who’s right and who’s wrong. I actually think there is too, but to discover it requires one to no longer be an “conscious, acting, human”. It requires the shedding of all illusions, and reconnection with the Atman.

Can I “prove” that? No, and I don’t pretend to. I’m just trying to get you to see that your assertions are just as baseless!

139

It wields unlimited power in a geographic area, by definition.–Jackson

Nope, I am armed, my neighbor is armed, my local sheriff is armed, and my reserve unit is armed. None of whom support the current government and would resist by force any attempt by that Federal government to deny us our freedoms under the bill of rights. In addition, the elements of coercion on the Federal level are balanced, limited, decentralized and transparent by design. The four branches of the military, the Congress that allocates funds, the taxpayer that provides funding, the civilian President who commands, the miltary that executes, the Congress that oversees, the states that provide their own police force, the disparate intelligence agencies distinct from the military command, et al.

By design our Constitutional system significantly decentralizes, balances, limits and makes transparent the elements of societal coercion.

It claims a monopoly over all legitimate violence, by definition. – Jackson

What violence ?

Besides Waco and Ruby Ridge, I don’t see any gross violations of civil and political rights for a nation of over 300,000,000. In addition, there is virtually no violence committed by the state against the citizenry in higher order democracies. Of course, if you want to deal in absolutes and extremes, then yes elements of the government test the water from time to time to see if they can exert more coercive power over the citizenry to reduce some measure of political and civil freedoms – however the trend since 1776 has been an overwhelming increase in civil and political freedoms.

It is a centralized authority, by definition. – Jackson

Then why hasnt the state become absolutist ?

Why the unecessary charade of a supposed free society if they possess all of the coercive power ?

You see your argument collapses when subject to reality.

It is secretive, and run by a chosen exclusionary cadre, by definition.–Jackson

Lets be serious, the Federal government can’t keep a secret or even protect classfied material. Virtually everything the Federal govt. does is open to scurtiny.

What specifically do you claim they are hiding ? Alien bodies at Roswell ? Obama’s birth certificate ? Elvis ?

also, if you don’t like it run for office!

A doofus like obama got elected with virtually no establishment support when he first ran for Senate. Even a dude like Cain was very strong prior to his misteps and he had virtually no establishment support. Ron Paul gets alot of his support from the grass roots (net roots) level of the polity however his naive and ridiculous notions on national defense have derailed his campaign. No sane AMerican would subscribe to his view that the only serious threats to American freedoms reside within the USA and not abroad despite the fact that there are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons outside our borders.

I am uninterested in the populace of the Pacific Rim, the CIS, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. I am concerned with my freedom, my self-determination, my ends, etc. Even while living in a Liberal Democracy, I am threatened with insumountable force to comply to certain norms, which typically run counter to my goals. If you could somehow demonstrate how I am more free under a Liberal Democracy, rather than an anarchic society, it may sway me, but until then, I think we’ve reached an impasse. – Jackson

I have pointed out the obvious – liberal democracies intentionally decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of coercion in society in a conscious effort to protect life and liberty. However, within an anarchist society no such institutionalized mechanisms exist – anarchist society is based on profit, not life or liberty. Those actors in anarchist society that are motivated by ends other than profit will see their capital and power relative to profit seeking actors dwindle.

Within anarchist society, the elements of coercion will coalesce via specialization of labor and economies of scale. They will form territorial monopolies of coercive power that will result in lower costs to the consumer which in turn will lead to ever greater control over specific geographic areas. Unlike virtually all other goods and services, proximity is essential to security. You can’t defend something or someone if you are thousands of miles away – so it is a no-brainer that geographic monopolies of coercive power will be the end result of anarchist society. Importantly, contiguous anarchic societies won’t give a damn whether their neighbors are living under tyranny or not since to quote granny Paul ‘it is none of our business what happens in another nation’. Also, I doubt refugees will be welcome within a private-property society. How would you like destitute squatters camping out on your private property ?

Also, where is the profit in humanitarian wars ? Only liberal democracies fight wars for freedom – anarchists fight wars for profit – or by definition it is not an anarchist society.

If you believe the adage by Acton that ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’ then you cannot believe that anarchist society will remain free or peaceful for long since the elements of coercive power have no limit, they are opaque, and there is no mechanism to balance and decentralize this power within a geographic region since security, by definition, is more effective in close proximity to the customer.

140

I am beginning to suspect you have some kind of reading difficulty.

I wasn’t saying, “OBJECTIVE ETHICS EXIST PROVE ME WRONG LOL”; I made my case for objective morality elsewhere and in a different way. I was asking you to try and rebut the laws of logic. (Which you still haven’t done; you’ve only changed your accusation. Now I apparently worship logic, although I don’t recall appealing to anybody’s revelation that the principle of non-contradiction holds true.) These were two different issues. Stop conflating them.

And I’m the one appealing to “faith”? Okay, so you like the Tao. Good for you. I don’t accept the authority of either scripture.