The Problem of Liberty, Force and Choice

[OzzyKP]

How much can choice be restricted before it becomes force? Is freedom to pick between 2 equally bad choices really freedom? How does a libertarian address these problems?

I consider myself a libertarian, but I'm not sure how to resolve this issue. It often comes up when debating theory with communists, and I don't have a good answer for it. Hopefully someone out there will.

If an employer pays workers .05 cents a day socialists say it is exploitation and wrong. Libertarians say if the worker doesn't like it they can always find a different job. This is fine in pretty much all situations in this country as we have a healthy market and have many options available. But what if there really were no other choices (as the communists always maintain) and the worker literally had no other choice but to work for a pittiance?

Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. In most practical cases this is true, but if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true.

For example it is ok for a private company to charge you whatever fees it wants, because if you don't like it you can always switch companies. Libertarians maintain that it is wrong for governments to charge taxes because it is force. But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country.

They seem to me to be identical situations. Unless the government is stopping you from leaving the country, then you always have the option to leave, just as we always have the option to switch companies.

The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.

How does a libertarian get out of this trap?

[Agathon]

They can't because they oppose all forms of state coercion, like regulation.

I suppose one fundamental difference between Libertarians and the rest of us is that they think the market system represents some fundamental moral order, whereas the rest of us think that it is a pragmatic response to some organisational problems faced by human societies.

I think the Libertarian ideal of coercion is incoherent because it only works if coercion is described as the removal of choice, rather than the imposition of unpleasant choices.

What if someone comes up to you and says, "Give me all your money or I will tell my friend over there to beat you up."

Surely only the friend is responsible for the violence, and, if so, it isn't clear that the first person has done anything wrong (even if he lied).

[Maniac]

Freedom is an illusion.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Maniac
Freedom is an illusion.

And they wonder why he's called "Maniac".

[Sandman]

As has already been said, you could argue that certain kinds of exploitable monopoly (like the only water hole for hundreds of miles in a desert) are 'natural', and should just be accepted as part of life, like diseases and meteors.

Try telling that to the shipwreck survivors turned away from the only island for hundreds of miles, though. Actually, could the owner of the island shoot them for trespassing if they tried to land?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sandman
Actually, could the owner of the island shoot them for trespassing if they tried to land?

According to some on this forum.

[Berzerker]

Ozzy - You just posted this in the other thread. Oh well...

How much can choice be restricted before it becomes force? Is freedom to pick between 2 equally bad choices really freedom? How does a libertarian address these problems?

Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, i.e., coercion or constraints imposed by others. So, restricted by whom? What is the context of these restrictions? If all you have are two bad choices, then choose. If I'm dying a slow and painful death from an incurable cancer, I have two bad choices, suffer or end my life. These choices don't mean I'm no longer free to choose.

If an employer pays workers .05 cents a day socialists say it is exploitation and wrong. Libertarians say if the worker doesn't like it they can always find a different job. This is fine in pretty much all situations in this country as we have a healthy market and have many options available. But what if there really were no other choices (as the communists always maintain) and the worker literally had no other choice but to work for a pittiance?

You've defeated your own question by pointing out we have options under capitalism. Better to ask communists what happens if their government builds a wall to prevent people from leaving and the only "employer" is the government.

Libertarians maintain that the actions of a private entity like an employer are never force because you have other options, whereas actions of a state are considered force because you don't have other options. In most practical cases this is true, but if we look at this theoretically, this may not be true.

For example it is ok for a private company to charge you whatever fees it wants, because if you don't like it you can always switch companies.

What do you mean by "ok"? Obviously people are going to get angry and boycott the company and someone will develop a business to compete (except under communism).

Libertarians maintain that it is wrong for governments to charge taxes because it is force.

That's a generalisation, many libertarians would allow some forced taxation. Then there are user fees for the use of public property, etc., so not all taxes are forced.

But in a commercial model by living in this country we are enjoying the benefits of it and thus have a contractual obligation to pay the fees (taxes) if we don't like it we can just move to another country.

There is no such contract. That's what many on the left and the "right" claim to justify "legalised" stealing. But when others inform them they have a contractual obligation to hand over their money, we get a different version of this "contract". Just look how many Democrats talk about taxing the rich because they need to pay their fair share but that this share is arbitrary and different for other people. Now, when leftists tell us we can move if we don't like it, do supporters of Bush and Ashcroft tell them they can move if they don't like it? How would the left react to such a crass dismissal of their complaints? Would you tell the victims of Mafia extortion they can move if they don't like it?

They seem to me to be identical situations. Unless the government is stopping you from leaving the country, then you always have the option to leave, just as we always have the option to switch companies.

They aren't identical.

The response i've heard from libertarians is that well all countries have taxes, and it'd be too difficult or costly to move to another country anyways. This sounds very much like the argument communists make that all employers have X policy they don't like, and if there aren't very many employers in the area it could be very difficult or costly to find another.

How does a libertarian get out of this trap?

Again, the employer does not hold a gun to my head - there is no coercion or constraint. The government is holding a gun to our heads - there is coercion, and there are constraints accompanying non-compliance.

Agathon -

They can't because they oppose all forms of state coercion, like regulation.

Not true, coercion and constraints to deter murderers is desired under libertarianism.

I suppose one fundamental difference between Libertarians and the rest of us is that they think the market system represents some fundamental moral order, whereas the rest of us think that it is a pragmatic response to some organisational problems faced by human societies.

I thought you were a communist and now you're telling us the market is pragmatic? If there were 2 people on the planet, they can agree to cooperate to reach some goal, such as exchanging goods and services - that is the market and it is moral. If one said to the other, I am a communist and therefore all land and resources belong to me and you must work for "the common good" as defined by the communist, you wouldn't consider that moral. Or would you?

I think the Libertarian ideal of coercion is incoherent because it only works if coercion is described as the removal of choice, rather than the imposition of unpleasant choices.

The libertarian ideal includes a ban on the imposition of choices, unpleasant or not. The key word being "imposition"...

What if someone comes up to you and says, "Give me all your money or I will tell my friend over there to beat you up."

Oh geez, there you go again. That's called coercion, Agathon.

Surely only the friend is responsible for the violence, and, if so, it isn't clear that the first person has done anything wrong (even if he lied).

Did not the one demanding your money tell his friend to beat you up? That's coercion by the one demanding your money and a constraint by the one following the orders.

According to some on this forum.

Trespassing doesn't justify murder, except of course, under communism. Hell, communists shot down an airliner for allegedly crossing over the corner of their country.

Sandman -

Try telling that to the shipwreck survivors turned away from the only island for hundreds of miles, though. Actually, could the owner of the island shoot them for trespassing if they tried to land?

He could just send them back to that communist paradise called Cuba.

[Sandman]

Trespassing doesn't justify murder

Why not? They might be burglars. And you can kill burglars under libertarianism, can't you? Defending property and all that. Even if they're not, it's their own fault for trespassing.

[Agathon]

You're missing the point of the example Berz.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Berzerker
There is no such contract. That's what many on the left and the "right" claim to justify "legalised" stealing. But when others inform them they have a contractual obligation to hand over their money, we get a different version of this "contract". Just look how many Democrats talk about taxing the rich because they need to pay their fair share but that this share is arbitrary and different for other people. Now, when leftists tell us we can move if we don't like it, do supporters of Bush and Ashcroft tell them they can move if they don't like it? How would the left react to such a crass dismissal of their complaints? Would you tell the victims of Mafia extortion they can move if they don't like it?

This is the crux of what I wanted to discuss. Is it not an equally crass dismissal to tell the .05 cent an hour worker to just move and get another job? If our government doesn't force us to stay in the United States then by freely deciding to stay in this country we consent to the income tax, drug prohibition and gun control, correct? If we don't like these laws we can just move to a different country.

Just like if I don't like the wages I get I can just move to a different employer.

The principle is exactly the same as far as I'm concerned. How isn't it?

[Urban Ranger]

I think Libertarians have some fundamental misconception of "free market." A market is a purely human construct. As such, it has always been regulated by written and unwritten rules, yet Libertarians want a market without rules. This is a fundamental contradiction.


Berzerker,

"Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, i.e., coercion or constraints imposed by others. So, restricted by whom? What is the context of these restrictions? If all you have are two bad choices, then choose. If I'm dying a slow and painful death from an incurable cancer, I have two bad choices, suffer or end my life. These choices don't mean I'm no longer free to choose."

That is an amazingly contradictory position. If death is always an implied choice, there cannot be coercion. Force always fails to work if death can be a valid choice.

[Berzerker]

Sandman -

Why not? They might be burglars. And you can kill burglars under libertarianism, can't you? Defending property and all that. Even if they're not, it's their own fault for trespassing.

You're changing the hypothetical, if I answer this one will you change it again? If they are burglars you have a justifiable fear for your life and that becomes self-defense.

Agathon - No I'm not.

You say libertarianism would allow me to threaten you with a proxy - a friend who will beat you up at my behest - in order to get your money. That's coercion and force with co-conspirators... If the 1st party is lying, it's still coercion because the victim doesn't know. Your decision as the rightful owner of the money to refuse or comply is made under a threat.

The last time we had this debate you claimed libertarians believe this coercion was allowable under libertarianism and I asked you to cite them...you didn't... Are you going to repeat that performance?

[OzzyKP]

"If death is always an implied choice, there cannot be coercion. Force always fails to work if death can be a valid choice"

Yea, this is what I'm wondering about.

[Berzerker]

Ozzy -

Is it not an equally crass dismissal to tell the .05 cent an hour worker to just move and get another job?

No, because he can...and he doesn't have to sell his home, say goodbye to his friends and go off somewhere only for another government to tax him. Are you going to ask the communists here what people do when they can't leave the country and their ideology and the government is the only "employer"? They too claim to believe in freedom...

If our government doesn't force us to stay in the United States then by freely deciding to stay in this country we consent to the income tax, drug prohibition and gun control, correct?

Then the victims of Mafia extortion "consent" to extortion by not moving away.

UR -

I think Libertarians have some fundamental misconception of "free market." A market is a purely human construct. As such, it has always been regulated by written and unwritten rules, yet Libertarians want a market without rules. This is a fundamental contradiction.

You have a fundamental mis-conception of libertarianism. For example, one of these rules prohibits fraud and libertarians support that rule.

That is an amazingly contradictory position. If death is always an implied choice, there cannot be coercion. Force always fails to work if death can be a valid choice.

I said dying from an incurable cancer or suicide was coercion? I said just the opposite...The last part makes no sense...

[Berzerker]

Ozzy -

Yea, this is what I'm wondering about.

Then explain what it means because it makes no sense to me.

[Berzerker]

Ah, I think I understand what he's getting at.

UR, it doesn't matter if force suceeds or fails, the existence of force violates the definition of freedom. Would you argue slavery doesn't violate the slave's freedom because he can simply choose to die?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ozzy -

No, because he can...and he doesn't have to sell his home, say goodbye to his friends and go off somewhere only for another government to tax him. Are you going to ask the communists here what people do when they can't leave the country and their ideology and the government is the only "employer"? They too claim to believe in freedom...

I'm not making any comparisons to communism nor am I defending or speaking about it at all. I'm just offering up a critique and looking for more insight into libertarianism. The point that I've often heard is as long as a person is presented a choice there is no coercion. The quality of that choice is completely irrelevant. What you are saying is we have a choice to move out of the country its just that selling your home, saying goodbye to your friends, and having only other similiar situations elsewhere make the choice an equally bad choice.

Isn't this what you tell the commies to just deal with all the time? Who cares if its a bad choice, or a difficult choice, or an impractical choice, its still a choice.

So by this logic can't all the actions of government be justified as long as it doesn't forcably prevent you from leaving the country?

Then the victims of Mafia extortion "consent" to extortion by not moving away.

By the definition you put forward, yes.


Again, I'm not criticizing you to put forward an alternate perspective. Heck, I'm not even trying to "win" this debate. I very much want for you to provide a consistent libertarian answer to these questions. I consider myself a libertarian, and I am probing further to seek out a consistent philosophy. If there is such a thing.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ah, I think I understand what he's getting at.

UR, it doesn't matter if force suceeds or fails, the existence of force violates the definition of freedom. Would you argue slavery doesn't violate the slave's freedom because he can simply choose to die?

Maybe.

If we go with the common libertarian perspective that I believe you already stated above, that having only bad choices still means you have choices. Then the slave's options are die or be a slave. Both very bad choices, but is it not a choice? Likewise with what the leftists call "wage slaves", people so poor with no options left that they have no way to fend for themselves beyond the one employer in town who pays next to nothing. Now their choices are work for peanuts (like the slave) or starve. You, and in fact I, have argued this is a free choice.

Perhaps it is a free choice. But where does that leave us?

If this is the case than any act of force is justified. "Give me a wallet or i'll kill you" becomes a free choice. Pay your taxes or I send you to prison becomes a free choice.

I dunno.

[Berzerker]

Ozzy -

I'm not making any comparisons to communism nor am I defending or speaking about it at all. I'm just offering up a critique and looking for more insight into libertarianism.

Aren't there competing ideologies purporting to be based on freedom?

The point that I've often heard is as long as a person is presented a choice there is no coercion.

Coercion is about "psychologically" or forcefully compelling a person to make a certain choice favored by the "coercer". The person being coerced obviously has the choice to do as told or not, but having that choice doesn't mean no coerion exists. I provided a definition at the bottom.

The quality of that choice is completely irrelevant. What you are saying is we have a choice to move out of the country its just that selling your home, saying goodbye to your friends, and having only other similiar situations elsewhere make the choice an equally bad choice.

No, you'd be moving because someone is threatening you with harm if you don't hand them your money. This thread is about "liberty" and choices, but you're mixing actions that violate the meaning of freedom with choices that we should have if we are free. Hence your comparison to communism is illogical...

Isn't this what you tell the commies to just deal with all the time? Who cares if its a bad choice, or a difficult choice, or an impractical choice, its still a choice.

And? An employer does not force me to hand him my money or my labor, therefore he is not violating my freedom. Communists do, government does.

So by this logic can't all the actions of government be justified as long as it doesn't forcably prevent you from leaving the country?

So if I warn you before I pull the trigger and you don't get out of the way - I'm not violating your freedom when I shoot you? No...

By the definition you put forward, yes.

I didn't put that definition forward, you did.

Maybe.

If we go with the common libertarian perspective that I believe you already stated above, that having only bad choices still means you have choices.

Ozzy, I said having bad choices wrt dying of a painful, incurable cancer and committing suicide - choices not imposed upon you by others - does not violate your freedom. You're using that and jumping to choices that are imposed by others thru force or coercion.

Now their choices are work for peanuts (like the slave) or starve. You, and in fact I, have argued this is a free choice.

It is, unlike the slave, they are not being compelled or coerced. However, they have other choices as well...

Perhaps it is a free choice. But where does that leave us?

A state of freedom.

If this is the case than any act of force is justified. "Give me a wallet or i'll kill you" becomes a free choice. Pay your taxes or I send you to prison becomes a free choice.

It isn't a free choice, it's a coerced choice.

From Merriam-Webster - coerce

1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat

Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. Clearly your example is an act of coercion... Hope that helps...

[johncmcleod]

This is why I disagree with libertarians. They want an economy that is more moral, yet it is so much worse then other economies. This is a small part of my post on the other thread.

As for the libertarian argument saying a system where people being forced to work is worse then a system where those who don't work starve, I disagree with it completely. If you don't work in a traditional communist state, you get the can and suffer the consequences of being in prison. If you don't work in a capitalist state, you get fired and suffer the consequences of living on your own (which would mean starvation). But what difference does it make? How many people in a communist state just refuse to work and then spend all of their time in prison? And how many people do you know in a capitalist state just refuse to work and decide to starve to death?

I guess that libertarians can be deontologists and make their economy based on whatever is moral or not. But we must look at the bigger picture. Why do what is moral and immoral? I believe the best answer for this is to make the world a better place. So if we are doing what is moral is making the world worse, then why do it? In a libertarian economy there is no control. It is brutal. There will be jobs that pay ridiculous amount of money, and there would be jobs that would pay dirt. And there wouldn't be enough jobs for anyone. Without state help, many would be jobless. There would be starvation. Corporations would terribly exploit people just as they did during the depression when they could just lower their wages to almost nothing and the people could do nothing about it because they didn't have anywhere else to work. The people could form strikes, but it would be very hard to strike when you could take that job and feed your family. Many strikes just couldn't be organized because people wouldn't want to lose a job. The environment would be destroyed because nothing would stop the corporations from doing what they please. Monopolies would rule. Corporations could literally slowly accumlate more power until all business would be owned by just a few corporations. The country wouild be controlled by a few rich old guys. The poor would get no health care. If you were rich, you could survive diseases. If not, you're dead. The poor would be starving. And yet there would be rich corporate owners who never had worked a hard day in their life and had so much money they didn't know what to do with it. This is why a libertarian economy makes the world a better place. If we will follow the libertarian point of view, the purpose of morality has been destroyed.

And even if morality is the only deciding factor, then tell me this: is it moral to allow such an immoral economy to exist when it could be stopped?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sandman -

You're changing the hypothetical, if I answer this one will you change it again? If they are burglars you have a justifiable fear for your life and that becomes self-defense.

I'm not saying they are burglars, I'm saying that they might be burglars. How exactly do I tell the difference between 'harmless' trespassers and burglars? I can hardly go up and ask them, can I? Better to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Ramo]

The ability to pick between two bad choices is by definition not freedom. Freedom is lack of constraint, so if you're constrained to two bad choices you are not free. No one is totally free as everyone is subject to some constraints - some man-made (i.e. laws), some natural (i.e. starvation). So, a moral system based on the idea that freedom is good logically must minimize constraints on people, regardless of whether a gov't or a corporation or a disease imposes these constraints. Which leads one to anarchism (libertarian socialism).

[Dr Strangelove]

People should be forced to choose liberty, darn it!

[Dr Strangelove]

Is letting the sick and helpless alone to die moral?

[Verres]

if thats what they want, then yes. People seem to assume that those who are dying actually want anyone with them.

[Maniac]

Well I guess that would be true for a large majority...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh God. The libertarians have re-emerged.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Is letting the sick and helpless alone to die moral?

OK, let me stipulate that I'm not talking about the incurable terminally ill who wish for no further intervention.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Oh God. The libertarians have re-emerged.

They're like Herpes, always coming back.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Obviously people are going to get angry and boycott the company and someone will develop a business to compete (except under communism).

Oh yes, obviously. Yup, happens every day in response to the BS corporations pull on people. (<--masturbation smilie)