5 ms·

I always considered "free" as lack of "coersion", where "coersion" has an agent/subject that can be removed to make situation better. Under that definition, the

by theamk 8y ago

I always considered "free" as lack of "coersion", where "coersion" has an agent/subject that can be removed to make situation better. Under that definition, the answers are: > If I put a gun to your head and say "Your wallet or your life," are you free? No -- the subject is you and your gun, if you remove them the situation improves. > If I lay a trap, and you fall into it, and I offer to release you if you give me your bank details, are you free? No -- the subject is your trap, if you remove it the situation improves. > If it's a disaster and I charge $10000 for a bottle of clean water, are you free? Yes -- while there is a subject (you), removing it will not make situation any better at all. > If a society requires you to work in order to live but only offers you poor options for work, are you free? Depends? In USSR, with exit visas and "social parasitism" laws, no. Agent is state, and removing will make a situation better -- yes, you would still be hungry, but at least they would not arrest you, and you could try your luck in another country. In USA, mostly yes. There is nothing you can remove to get better options for work, or to allow living without work. There are some exceptions -- like anti-vagrnacy laws and job licensing -- but they do not affect most people.

dannypgh 8y ago
> or to allow living without work. I join in the argument that labor is coerced into participating in the free market in the US. The agent/subject that you're missing is the government and their enforcement of laws pertaining to property. I would argue that labor is only as free as the social net for unemployed is strong. The coercion comes from the fact that your landlord can have the sheriff evict you (or your bank can foreclose and do the same) and the place where you help yourself to food without paying can have the police arrest you. Likewise if you try to oppose that physically, or, say, gain employment by selling illicit drugs, there's a system already in place to confine you to a jail or prison.
- adventured 8y ago
  > I would argue that labor is only as free as the social net for unemployed is strong. You're arguing that labor is only free so long as it can hold a gun to someone else's head (the evil 10%) and force them to support said labor via welfare by taking the fruits of the labor that the 10% produce. As though one has an inherent right to someone else's very life and property (if you did, you wouldn't need a gun to steal that property). Communism, because it has worked out so well over the last century. It's a contradiction. You're actually saying some people get to be 'free' using coercion and overt threats of force, by enslaving other people to fulfill their needs via welfare transfers based on the taxation of other better off persons income. The system of welfare transfers, much less actual Socialism, requires extreme force to be applied at all times to keep the system functioning, as such there can be no freedom at all - there's always a gun pointed at your head.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Welcome to animal kingdom. The whole prerequisite of welfare is to take excess resources to redistribute. Now who decides what is excess? Definitely not the person who has it and is greedy. So or societies have decided that majority or representative of the majority decided this. Reasonably equitable system, but not exactly colouring or incorruptible.
  - dannypgh 8y ago
    I am not arguing that Communism is free of coersion. I don't think free markets exist, I believe they are an idealized model. I think this is especially true for the labor market. Likewise, I don't believe there are coersion-free societies. But that does not mean I'm willing to overlook some baseline level of coersion as not being coersion at all. Governments (regardless of economic policy) tend to assert a monopoly on the use of violence in an area, and that monopoly on violence means their policies are enforced through coersion.
- theamk 8y ago
  I can see your point about property laws restricticting freedom. But If you say that property laws are coercion, you cannot then say that social net for unemployment helps one be free. The coercion agents are still out there, waiting for you. After all, you were not not free in USSR even if you had a job - freedom is about possibilities.

by theamk 8y ago

dannypgh 8y ago

> or to allow living without work. I join in the argument that labor is coerced into participating in the free market in the US. The agent/subject that you're missing is the government and their enforcement of laws pertaining to property. I would argue that labor is only as free as the social net for unemployed is strong. The coercion comes from the fact that your landlord can have the sheriff evict you (or your bank can foreclose and do the same) and the place where you help yourself to food without paying can have the police arrest you. Likewise if you try to oppose that physically, or, say, gain employment by selling illicit drugs, there's a system already in place to confine you to a jail or prison.

adventured 8y ago
> I would argue that labor is only as free as the social net for unemployed is strong. You're arguing that labor is only free so long as it can hold a gun to someone else's head (the evil 10%) and force them to support said labor via welfare by taking the fruits of the labor that the 10% produce. As though one has an inherent right to someone else's very life and property (if you did, you wouldn't need a gun to steal that property). Communism, because it has worked out so well over the last century. It's a contradiction. You're actually saying some people get to be 'free' using coercion and overt threats of force, by enslaving other people to fulfill their needs via welfare transfers based on the taxation of other better off persons income. The system of welfare transfers, much less actual Socialism, requires extreme force to be applied at all times to keep the system functioning, as such there can be no freedom at all - there's always a gun pointed at your head.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Welcome to animal kingdom. The whole prerequisite of welfare is to take excess resources to redistribute. Now who decides what is excess? Definitely not the person who has it and is greedy. So or societies have decided that majority or representative of the majority decided this. Reasonably equitable system, but not exactly colouring or incorruptible.
- dannypgh 8y ago
  I am not arguing that Communism is free of coersion. I don't think free markets exist, I believe they are an idealized model. I think this is especially true for the labor market. Likewise, I don't believe there are coersion-free societies. But that does not mean I'm willing to overlook some baseline level of coersion as not being coersion at all. Governments (regardless of economic policy) tend to assert a monopoly on the use of violence in an area, and that monopoly on violence means their policies are enforced through coersion.
theamk 8y ago
I can see your point about property laws restricticting freedom. But If you say that property laws are coercion, you cannot then say that social net for unemployment helps one be free. The coercion agents are still out there, waiting for you. After all, you were not not free in USSR even if you had a job - freedom is about possibilities.