The only coercion-free way of life?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I have heard libertarians, libertarian anarchists, etc. say that they do not appreciate being coerced. Their system of morality depends, it seems, on a social system that is free of all coercion. Critics argue that that is utopian. It is not utopian, the libertarians respond.

If it is not utopian then that leads us to what a coercion-free social system would be like and how it would work. I have a difficult time imagining any social system that is completely free of coercion.

Maybe this is why I find it difficult to imagine: In A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright asserts:

a.) Hunter-gatherer societies (true hunter-gatherer societies--the pre-historic ones, not the contemporary societies we call hunter-gatherers) were egalitarian.

b.) The hunter-gatherers got too efficient at their way of life and destroyed all of their food supply.

c.) Extinction was avoided with the discovery of agriculture.

d.) The result of agriculture has been civilization.

e.) Civilizations are hierarchical, not egalitarian.

f.) It is ecologically impossible to go back to hunting and gathering--we are stuck with civilization.


Maybe the pre-historic hunter-gatherer societies were the only coercion-free way of life.

In other words, we are stuck with civilization, all of its social stratification and inequality and, consequently, a lot of us being coerced.

 

[bricklayer]

I have heard libertarians, libertarian anarchists, etc. say that they do not appreciate being coerced. Their system of morality depends, it seems, on a social system that is free of all coercion. Critics argue that that is utopian. It is not utopian, the libertarians respond.

If it is not utopian then that leads us to what a coercion-free social system would be like and how it would work. I have a difficult time imagining any social system that is completely free of coercion.

Maybe this is why I find it difficult to imagine: In A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright asserts:

a.) Hunter-gatherer societies (true hunter-gatherer societies--the pre-historic ones, not the contemporary societies we call hunter-gatherers) were egalitarian.

b.) The hunter-gatherers got too efficient at their way of life and destroyed all of their food supply.

c.) Extinction was avoided with the discovery of agriculture.

d.) The result of agriculture has been civilization.

e.) Civilizations are hierarchical, not egalitarian.

f.) It is ecologically impossible to go back to hunting and gathering--we are stuck with civilization.


Maybe the pre-historic hunter-gatherer societies were the only coercion-free way of life.

In other words, we are stuck with civilization, all of its social stratification and inequality and, consequently, a lot of us being coerced.

We should only coerce (mandate or prohibit) away that tiny fraction of a percentage of liberty that maximizes the liberty secured.

Equal outcomes are not a noble goal.

Slaveing one's sense of wealthy or poor to one's position relative to others is a self imposed slavery.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not sure why people think saying that something is utopian is a good point against it. To me it sounds like, "You are trying to make the world a better place... how silly of you... you should just be content as peasant." Someone in North Korea might think the possibility of living in a developed country would be utopian, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

I don't think it is possible to have no coercion, since then there could be no laws. But we can still work to rid our nations of unjust types of coercion.

 

[souper genyus]

I have heard libertarians, libertarian anarchists, etc. say that they do not appreciate being coerced. Their system of morality depends, it seems, on a social system that is free of all coercion. Critics argue that that is utopian. It is not utopian, the libertarians respond.

If it is not utopian then that leads us to what a coercion-free social system would be like and how it would work. I have a difficult time imagining any social system that is completely free of coercion.

Maybe this is why I find it difficult to imagine: In A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright asserts:

a.) Hunter-gatherer societies (true hunter-gatherer societies--the pre-historic ones, not the contemporary societies we call hunter-gatherers) were egalitarian.

b.) The hunter-gatherers got too efficient at their way of life and destroyed all of their food supply.

c.) Extinction was avoided with the discovery of agriculture.

d.) The result of agriculture has been civilization.

e.) Civilizations are hierarchical, not egalitarian.

f.) It is ecologically impossible to go back to hunting and gathering--we are stuck with civilization.


Maybe the pre-historic hunter-gatherer societies were the only coercion-free way of life.

In other words, we are stuck with civilization, all of its social stratification and inequality and, consequently, a lot of us being coerced.

In my personal view of anarchism, it is not so much about ridding the world of hierarchy or coercion; it's about placing the burden of proof on those in a position of authority. It's about living a life of continual rebellion, always challenging those in power to prove their worth and never taking freedom for granted. This does not mean that organization or hierarchy are necessarily bad things, but that they can be and often are abused. Hence, it is wise to always assume that power will be abused unless proven otherwise.

 

[lupusFati]

I wouldn't mind living in a society that rids itself of unnecessary coercions. But that would require a great deal of responsibility from each and every citizen, which is something I know the human condition is not prepared to deal with.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Which type of libertarian are you talking about? I suppose you mean left-libertarians who make a big deal about eliminating hierarchies in society.

The right-libertarian (such as myself) seeks only to remove coercion (the initiation of physical force) from society, not hierarchy, which isn't regarded as a form of coercion. Whether that libertarian believes in a constitutional government (me) or some form of market anarchy, they allow for hierarchies such as that between employer and employed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Upisoft]

I have heard libertarians, libertarian anarchists, etc. say that they do not appreciate being coerced. Their system of morality depends, it seems, on a social system that is free of all coercion. Critics argue that that is utopian. It is not utopian, the libertarians respond.

If it is not utopian then that leads us to what a coercion-free social system would be like and how it would work. I have a difficult time imagining any social system that is completely free of coercion.

Maybe this is why I find it difficult to imagine: In A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright asserts:

a.) Hunter-gatherer societies (true hunter-gatherer societies--the pre-historic ones, not the contemporary societies we call hunter-gatherers) were egalitarian.

b.) The hunter-gatherers got too efficient at their way of life and destroyed all of their food supply.

c.) Extinction was avoided with the discovery of agriculture.

d.) The result of agriculture has been civilization.

e.) Civilizations are hierarchical, not egalitarian.

f.) It is ecologically impossible to go back to hunting and gathering--we are stuck with civilization.


Maybe the pre-historic hunter-gatherer societies were the only coercion-free way of life.

In other words, we are stuck with civilization, all of its social stratification and inequality and, consequently, a lot of us being coerced.

Eh, not nearly accurate. A group of hunter-gatherers maybe were egalitarian within the group. Though when they faced another group that got into their hunting territory things were not peaceful at all. The other group was treated differently. Thus they were not egalitarian.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Which type of libertarian are you talking about? I suppose you mean left-libertarians who make a big deal about eliminating hierarchies in society...

I have never heard of a "left-libertarian" or a libertarian who makes "a big deal about eliminating hierarchies in society".

I am talking about people who call themselves libertarians, libertarian anarchists, etc. and say that it is morally wrong for anybody to coerce anybody else.

The right-libertarian (such as myself) seeks only to remove coercion (the initiation of physical force) from society, not hierarchy, which isn't regarded as a form of coercion. Whether that libertarian believes in a constitutional government (me) or some form of market anarchy, they allow for hierarchies such as that between employer and employed...

The point is that coercion is the result of the hierarchical nature of civilization. Hierarchies were established--and are maintained--through coercion.

 

[bricklayer]

I have never heard of a "left-libertarian" or a libertarian who makes "a big deal about eliminating hierarchies in society".

I am talking about people who call themselves libertarians, libertarian anarchists, etc. and say that it is morally wrong for anybody to coerce anybody else.

You are either ignorant or dishonest about Libertarianism.

Libertarians want only that fraction of a percentage of liberty mandated or prohibited away that maximizes the liberty secured. Libertarians have no illusion that we can have it all. That is anarchism.