No Coercion

Comment from Robert Mayer
Time: July 4, 2007, 11:05 pm

Very cool! Now if this country only had a couple hundred million more parents with that kind of attitude…

Comment from Darren
Time: July 6, 2007, 1:53 pm

Indeed!

Comment from John K
Time: March 13, 2008, 1:40 pm

Life in the “clean, well-lit prison of a single idea”. How very nice for you. Don’t worry, the rest of us will deal with reality.

Comment from Darren
Time: March 13, 2008, 3:01 pm

Well, we all have to deal with reality, but is there some reason I can’t strive to make reality conform more to the ideal?

Comment from Peter Sramka
Time: December 16, 2008, 11:37 pm

This website is pure fantasy… At their core, many humans are worthless scum and would do all sorts of horrible things if there was “no coercion”. If fact, many already do all sorts of horrible things even with all the coercion we already have in our society. I’m sorry, but I can have no respect for the nonsense on this blog. If the author “doesn’t want his son to grow up in such a coercive system”, he should have never procreated…

Comment from Darren
Time: December 17, 2008, 1:35 pm

Dang, Pete. Tell me how you really feel. For someone who claims to want to keep discussions “civil,” that sure was one hell of an uncivil, troll-like rant. And have you considered that a great many of the horrible things people do today might actually be DUE to various aspects of government coercion?

Comment from Peter Sramka
Time: December 17, 2008, 2:37 pm

I gave up on being civil with everyone a while back. There are just too many jerks in this world. And, no, I am not saying you are a jerk. I’m just saying that your beliefs on “no coercion” are not rooted in any observational evidence of reality. Have you ever studied any psychology? criminology? sociology? history? Do you read the news? Did you see what happened in New Orleans after Katrina, when the police were not around? How do you explain these sorts of things?

On a more personal note, do you ever coerce your child? Do you make him get up in the morning and go to school even if he doesn’t want to? Would you allow him to eat only ice-cream if he wanted to? Do you make him brush his teeth every day? Do you forbid him from watching X-rated movies? Have you ever, even once in your whole life, ever sternly told him “No”? I suspect you have, like any good parent, practiced coercion.

Am I taking this argument to an extreme? Yes! Because your “No Coercion” motto is extreme. If your motto was “Less Coercion” or “Less Needless Coercion” I would take your site more seriously. I think there are times when there is too much coercion in our society. I think there are times when there is not enough coercion in our society. But to suggest that there should never be coercion (even for a child wants to stay up to 4am on a school night) is just not rational!

Also, I don’t think my comments were particularly “troll-like”. Here is the definition of troll: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

I never had any “intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion” with my post. I was just being brutally honest. The procreation remark is also just brutally honest. I have specifically decided not to have children because of the way society works. I’m sure I could have sugar coated my remarks better, but I just didn’t feel like it yesterday. (Today I am in a more gracious mood.) I do apologize if I offended you and I probably should have expressed my opinion more gracefully, but I in no way retract my remarks…

Comment from Andy Cox
Time: September 29, 2009, 8:43 am

I like the ‘no coercion’ philosophy. Its something I discuss in http://andycox1953.webs.com/. Essentially, the problems we face today are primarily attributable to the fact that, in today’s world, goods and servives are produced to be sold with a view to realising a profit. So, lets get rid of this system, and replace it with one in which goods and services are freely available. The implications of this proposition are vast and numerous. But with global warming threatening to make our planet uninhabitable, and deranged lunatics flirting with nuclear armageddon, we meed to act, and to act fast. I’d love to hear what everyone thinks of this.
Cheers,
Andy

Comment from Darren
Time: September 29, 2009, 12:37 pm

Andy, do you have access to an infinite source of free goods and services of which the rest of humanity is unaware? If not, then my observation that we live in a world of scarce resources (including the space occupied by our bodies) would seem to remain valid, and the only ethical way of living is to allow the natural rights of self-ownership and property ownership (which derives from self-ownership) to operate freely. Any attempt to abolish property rights (which are a fundamental feature of sentient beings) would be a gross act of coercion and violation of human rights.

Comment from Andy Cox
Time: September 29, 2009, 4:18 pm

Whoa, hold on there, Darren, there’s a lot of question begging going on here:
• Did I say anything about it being necessary to have access to an infinite source of free goods and services, and why are you assuming my standpoint is necessarily premised on this?
• Why do ‘self-ownership’ (whatever that means) and property ownership make for the ‘only ethical way of living’, and in what sense are they ‘natural rights’?
• Why would abolishing property rights ‘be a gross act of coercion and violation of human rights’?
• What do you mean when you say property rights ‘are a fundamental feature of sentient beings’?
First a confession: I guess just wandered into this site via some or other link, saw the by-line: ‘No Coercion:A blog exploring the idea of ending coercion and living in a free society’,and thought great, this seems right up a my street: I’m all for non-coercion. Little did I realise, I’d strayed into a vipers nest of anarcho-capitalism.
So I guess I’d better set out my stall (Actually, I’ve written a fairly lengthy essay setting out my point of view which can be accessed via http://andycox1953.webs.com/ )
Basically, I’m a firm believer in communism, and when I say communism I mean in the Marxist sense. I am most defiitely NOT advocating state ownership, control, coercion, or anything of the sort. If I might quote from my essay:
‘In a nutshell, advanced communist society would operate on a world-wide basis in accordance with that old Marxist dictum, ‘from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs’. As such, it would bear no resemblance to extant and extinct ‘state capitalist’ states, ludicrously and cynically claiming to be ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’. It would be a democracy in the truest sense of the word, and would be established on the basis of a majority choosing to have it - most certainly not imposed by revolutionary vanguards. States and the geographical limits of their administrative operations – national borders - would no longer exist. Freedom of expression would be completely unfettered, and the only socially sanctioned limitations on behaviour being those intended to deter actions demonstrably causing harm to others. No longer straitjacketed by the need to make a profit, production would be undertaken on the basis of need and in a wholly rational manner: Manufacturing processes that might have deleterious environmental effects or pose unacceptable risks, for example, would not be considered, and every effort would be made to ensure that safe alternatives were used instead. People would contribute to the production of goods and services as and how they wished. That is to say, work would be both voluntary and co-operative - there would no longer exist competition between workers, companies and countries. And people would have free access to the fruits of human labour. In other words, neither money nor barter would play a role: If people needed something, they would simply go along to their local distribution facility and take it without having to hand over something in exchange. Sophisticated stock control measures would ensure that needs were anticipated as far as possible by flagging up potential shortfalls. The production of the items in question would then be undertaken in a wholly rational and planned way. Where an actual shortfall did exist then rational strategies such as considering alternatives, rationing, reserving, utilizing different manufacturing processes, importing from further afield, or simply making do without would be deployed. There is no need to suppose that people would in some way abuse the system: Why should they when goods and services were freely available? In any case, it is reasonable to suppose that a wholly different mindset would prevail in this new society; one that would be altogether more socially responsive, humane, tolerant and far less sullied by egotism and greed. Property being held in common, there would no longer exist the immense armies of personnel and the bloated resource-depleting structures dedicated to upholding property rights or access to resources inside and outside each state as obtains at present: I am talking here of the police and the military, the entire justice system, the prisons, the arms industry, the myriad agencies involved in administering property rights and claims, etcetera. Correspondingly, untold millions around the world would no longer be drawn to a life of crime or end up incarcerated because of this career move. The raison d’être for crime, war, terrorism, industrial strife, and internecine conflict, amongst other hideous stressors characteristic of the modern world would simply not exist. People would be able to travel and settle where they wished, but, as the current economic and political conditions driving people to uproot and seek refuge in other parts of the world would no longer obtain, mass migration (Not to mention the attendant angst and resentment in host populations) is unlikely to occur – except in the event of some catastrophic natural disaster. Education would be radically different from what it is today: Being both free and non-compulsory, it is to be expected that those seeking to further their education would do so joyously. The grim discipline-orientated schools of today, which seek to mould kids into industry and business fodder, would become a thing of the past. For once, art would genuinely be for art’s sake, not cynically foisted on a passive populace as a means of turning a quick buck. Quality, in other words, would be the watchword in all creative activity, from architecture and landscaping to music, theatre, film, and writing. Technological innovation, no longer fettered by patents or invested interests, would accelerate, albeit in a controlled, socially responsible way, and many of the more onerous tasks that need undertaking could be systematically automated. Medical research in particular (especially in areas that are currently under-researched – for example, tropical medicine – because there is less of a financial incentive to do so) would be prioritized in order to rid humanity of the misery of disease and illness as far as possible. Moreover, it would be conducted in an open, coordinated manner, not in the fragmented fashion that it is today, with numerous research groups jealously guarding their discoveries for ‘commercial reasons’. In this respect, and so many others, the establishment of world communism – or socialism – would utterly transform the way we live. Life would simply be incomparably more relaxed, enjoyable, fulfilling, and happy. Practically all of the so-called today’s ‘evils’ – if one might revert to pulpit language for an instance – would just disappear: war, ethnic cleansing, vandalism, robbery, prostitution, pornography, drug pushing, protection rackets, nepotism, corruption, repression, the cynical manipulation of minds for financial gain, people trafficking, slavery, mass hunger, poverty, unemployment, environmental destruction, the wastage of resources, the deliberate creation of soulless and ugly human environments, to name just some. And the reason for this is simply that each and every one of these phenomena has it’s origin in or is sustained by the current social dispensation, by the manner in which society is organized today. Money, in other words, is what these evils are all about. When humanity eventually chooses to embrace communism, then truly it shall have crossed a threshold between barbarism and civilisation.’
The essay then goes on to consider why, in the 21st century, this is a wholly feasible and reasonable proposal. As this section runs into several pages, I really wouldn’t want to take any more liberties with the ol’ copy & paste procedure. Suffice to say, I believe it makes the case reasonably adequately and addresses some of your concerns as well. I’d really like to know what you think of it.

Comment from Andy Ferdinand Cox
Time: September 30, 2009, 4:07 am

Further to my post above, I should add that the non-coerciveness of communism resides in the fact that, as I’ve said, ‘People would contribute to the production of goods and services as and how they wished. That is to say, work would be both voluntary and co-operative’. Moreover, because the state would wither away, any mechanisn for coercian would effectively be dismantled. People would enjoy all of Further to my post above, I should add that the non-coerciveness of communism resides in the fact that, as I’ve said, ‘People would contribute to the production of goods and services as and how they wished. That is to say, work would be both voluntary and co-operative’. Moreover, because the state would wither away, any mechanism for coercion would effectively be dismantled. People would enjoy all of the ‘freedoms’ (speech, religion, movement etc) cherished by libertarians - and then some. Libertarians of your ilk have a tendency to focus on freedoms to do something, and downgrade/dismiss the notion of freedom from something - like freedom from poverty, hunger, or homelessness. I think what you end up with is a very curtailed notion of ‘freedom’. Not knowing where your next meal is coming from , having to work at three stultifying jobs to make ends meet, not having a roof over your head are all scenarios that entail severe restrictions on what one can do. Foe example, you might want a day by the seaside, but, no, this might result in you losing your job. To that extent, there is an element of ‘systemic coerciveness’ bearing down on you

Comment from Jen
Time: May 17, 2010, 7:12 am

Ending coercion for your children can only start in the home.

Would you like to live in an absolute dictatorship that polices your eating habits, sleeping patterns, media consumption and hundreds of other personal choices 24/7? You’d probably be upset if you were required by law to have a job–how about if that job and its hours were chosen for you and you weren’t allowed to talk to your coworkers? How about a government that can forcibly drug you at any time, or punish you for crimes not specified in advance with no right to a fair trial?

Millions of people are living in this situation right now, and you have the ability to end it for your children. Live up to your principles and be the change you want to see in the world: keep this dictatorship out of your house!