Difference between revisions of "Libertarians Misunderstand Coercion"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Under Construction}} | {{Under Construction}} | ||
Coercion is one solution to almost any collective action problem, and in a large subset of them everyone would prefer to be coerced than to have autonomy. | Coercion is one solution to almost any collective action problem, and in a large subset of them everyone would prefer to be coerced than to have autonomy. | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Coecion of everyone is one solution to almost any collective action problem. | |
| + | |||
| + | If a problem is worse than the coercion needed to solve it (even after non-coercive attempts at solutions), coercion is the logical choice. Even minimalist government libertarians come to this conclusion, requiring coercion to provide for defense. | ||
"coercion" and "initiation of physical aggression" are libertarian [[newspeak]]. Frames, [[phatic expression]], [[shibboleth]], terms of art: very simply, they have a coded meaning for libertarians that is not standard English. | "coercion" and "initiation of physical aggression" are libertarian [[newspeak]]. Frames, [[phatic expression]], [[shibboleth]], terms of art: very simply, they have a coded meaning for libertarians that is not standard English. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
government or if you haven't the money to bribe (pay) private owners not | government or if you haven't the money to bribe (pay) private owners not | ||
to coerce you. | to coerce you. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hayek defines coercion as "control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another (so) that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another"; and again: "Coercion occurs when one man's actions are made to serve another man's will, not for his own but for the other's purpose." Const. of Liberty pp. 20–21,133 | ||
| + | https://mises.org/library/fa-hayek-and-concept-coercion | ||
| + | Most libertarians reject this as not being specific enough to be limited to person and property. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nozick has a good definition of coercion similar to Hayek's but much more analytic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hayek (Const.OL p. 21) switches to ought when he has individuals creating their own private spheres. But really cannot prevent government from having rules about taxation and redistribution. | ||
