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.