Coercion, how I see it

[neverforgetlol]

Here's a definition I got from the dictionary

"the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will"

Libertarians claim that government is coercive, because the government forces us to do things like pay taxes, or obey laws, under threats of violence or reprisal, such as fines, jail time, etc. However libertarians do not believe capitalism is inherently coercive.

Capitalism is a system by which there is a market for labor power. Thus there are some who own capital and buy labor power to produce using said capital, and those who do not own capital and thus must sell their labor power.

We have two classes, and it is clear that in most cases those who sell labor power need the buyers more than vice versa. It is one thing to be a lawyer or a physician, but your average factory or farm worker doesn't have the privelege of market power. Thus the employer is able to act in a way that I consider coercive and essentially "get away with it."

Let's look at an example, we have a male boss, and a female employee, let's say in a factory. The employee is doing menial labor that many people are able to do, especially immigrants, for example. Now let's say the boss makes a demand, for example he demands this employee have sexual intercourse with him or she will be fired.

The question is, how is this any less coercive than government? In both cases there are threats or intimidating behavior, implied or otherwise, that puts a person in fear of consequence (jail time, or getting fired from their job) such that the person acts against their will (pays their taxes, or has sex with their boss to keep their job).

So what is the difference? Libertarians would say that you don't have to work there, you can just leave. But you can also leave the United States, renounce your citizenship and never have to pay U.S. taxes again. There is also the argument that the US has no right (whatever those are) to tax us. But from whence does the employer get the right to coerce his or her employees?

Just my two cents. I think either both cases are coercive or neither are. Either you accept capitalism and government or you reject both.

[Borodog]

She can quit. When the government wants to [censored] you, you have no choice.

Next.

[tomdemaine]

Imposition of a negative is not the same as the withdrawal of a positive!

Say i decided to give you a free $1000 a day for a whole year. Then on jan 1st the next year I stop for no reason. You'll be pissed off, and it'll feel like I'm imposing a negative but I'm not I'm just taking away a positive that is under MY jurisdiction. That cannot be abusive otherwise your definition of abusive includes everyone that doesn't give me $1000 a day (ie everyone in the world)

However if I come up to you and say give me $1000 or I'll shoot you, I'm imposing a negative situation on you. We can define that as abuse and not implicate the entire world.

[hmkpoker]

There is a difference between me not giving you my property, and me stealing your property.

A job is an agreement between two people to trade (labor for dollars). She gives him her labor, and he gives her his dollars. If she becomes disgusted with the kind of labor she is asked for, she can quit, and he will stop giving her his dollars for her labor. He is not stealing anything from her.

The reason why this is so confusing is that human beings are coerced and coerced constantly by a fact of reality that remains largely inescapable: human nature. Human beings are creatures that must consume constantly, or we will die. We must constantly breathe oxygen, have a roof over our heads, eat, drink, and so forth. Our bodies are constantly destroying our property and demanding more. The fact that we need to eat is the most essential element of coersion in our lives.

Government is another element of coersion while capitalism is not. The state takes from you while the market does not. However, the market may be less generous, in certain instances, in which cases capitalism looks very, very exploitative. It's very easy to look at a poor man in a poor economy choosing one of very few jobs, making little, and following the constant demands of his boss as they become increasingly difficult, and see exploitation. The man is free to quit his job, but he is subject to the inherent coerciveness of his own human nature. That doesn't, however, mean that his boss is the coercing agent; his personal needs are.

EDIT: [ QUOTE ]

Imposition of a negative is not the same as the withdrawal of a positive!

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you tomdemaine! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Borodog]

I.e. being coerced by nature != being coerced by a moral agent.

People who argue against capitalism seek to remove the former by imposing the latter. That way madness lies.

[tomdemaine]

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
She can quit. When the government wants to [censored] you, you have no choice.

Next.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can quit the job and the US the same way, by leaving. You do have a choice. No one is forcing you to stay in this country.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]

However if I come up to you and say give me $1000 or I'll shoot you, I'm imposing a negative situation on you. We can define that as abuse and not implicate the entire world.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that different than give me sex or I'll fire you?

[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between me not giving you my property, and me stealing your property.

A job is an agreement between two people to trade (labor for dollars). She gives him her labor, and he gives her his dollars. If she becomes disgusted with the kind of labor she is asked for, she can quit, and he will stop giving her his dollars for her labor. He is not stealing anything from her.

The reason why this is so confusing is that human beings are coerced and coerced constantly by a fact of reality that remains largely inescapable: human nature. Human beings are creatures that must consume constantly, or we will die. We must constantly breathe oxygen, have a roof over our heads, eat, drink, and so forth. Our bodies are constantly destroying our property and demanding more. The fact that we need to eat is the most essential element of coersion in our lives.

Government is another element of coersion while capitalism is not. The state takes from you while the market does not. However, the market may be less generous, in certain instances, in which cases capitalism looks very, very exploitative. It's very easy to look at a poor man in a poor economy choosing one of very few jobs, making little, and following the constant demands of his boss as they become increasingly difficult, and see exploitation. The man is free to quit his job, but he is subject to the inherent coerciveness of his own human nature. That doesn't, however, mean that his boss is the coercing agent; his personal needs are.


[/ QUOTE ]

But if you are disgusted with the government, you can leave the country and renounce your citizenship. In both situations you have a way out.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She can quit. When the government wants to [censored] you, you have no choice.

Next.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can quit the job and the US the same way, by leaving.

[/ QUOTE ]
The woman can likely quit her job and get a new one without having to move. Not true with the government.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She can quit. When the government wants to [censored] you, you have no choice.

Next.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can quit the job and the US the same way, by leaving.

[/ QUOTE ]
The woman can likely quit her job and get a new one without having to move. Not true with the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? What does moving have to do with you having a choice?