4 ms·

In other words, life is inherently coercive? Life is... life under duress?

• techdragon 4y ago
  Unless your able to go off the grid on land you somehow own freehold without needing taxes and subsistence farm without need for any greater wealth than that land you are using… or you can forage freely in the wilderness as a hunter gatherer … then it’s hard to argue that life is truly without some basic level of coercion. It’s tempting to consider it a reduction to absurdity but it’s not really. Society in most places around the world has obligations that require us to do things. It’s coercive. Not in a deliberately malicious way but in an apathetic, conformity sort of way.
  • blamestross 4y ago
    "Not in a deliberately malicious way but in an apathetic, conformity sort of way" It feels that way until it is realized that it is enforced by government monopoly on violence. And despite this rant, I'm not a libertarian or even an anarchist. I just need us to be honest about the fact Society can only exist with consent under duress. It tends to get obvious when you talk about sex-work because people feel different about bodily autonomy when it comes to sex vs other types of bodily harm.
  • Agamus 4y ago
    I tend to agree with your base premise. My question is, do we say "Yes!" to that, or "No!"?
• goodpoint 4y ago
  coercive/noncoercive is not a boolean but a spectrum. Some societies are less coercive by providing for people in need, be it through welfare, national healthcare, UBI, housing, free food... Some societies are more coercing even to the point of imprisoning people for being homeless.