5 ms·

Any contractual obligation, any transaction, is implicitly backed by the threat of violence. If you believe free enterprise can be more effective than governmen

by Cushman 14y ago

Any contractual obligation, any transaction, is implicitly backed by the threat of violence. If you believe free enterprise can be more effective than government assistance, you believe "coerced charity" is better. You got anything better than platitudes?

jlarocco 14y ago
The difference is that a person can opt-out of a transaction or contract in free enterprise. Don't sign the contract, and there's no threat of violence, implicit or otherwise. On the other hand, there's no way for a person to opt-out of government coercion.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Of course you can-- you can move somewhere else. But you'll be likely to find that places without "government coercion", i.e. government, are not as much nicer as you had imagined. Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out. Not really seeing the difference here.
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    "Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out." <sarcasm>Well then they can move somewhere else...</sarcasm> What you're describing isn't free enterprise, so it's disingenuous to use it as an example as if it's the normal case. I could use North Korea as an example of excessive government, but I'm not because I realize it's not the usual case.
    - unalone 14y ago
      What you're describing isn't free enterprise Correct. Government is not free enterprise. To govern a body is to take control of it to a certain extent. We can quibble about how much control is too much, but that's the topic of this debate, not whether or not the government is controlling. I rather think "free enterprise" leads to horrible things when said "enterprise" begins to affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and I like that we build systems to manage those large-scale enterprises rather than leaving them up to individual whim. It would be nice if we had more of those systems – say, to stop children from getting sick and dying just because their parents couldn't find work.
- stevesearer 14y ago
  @Cushman History has shown pretty clearly that governments on the more-coercive side of the spectrum have caused more death and destruction than those on the less-coercive side. A government coercing dollars out of a population by force and a society that is based on using products produced by people other than themselves are two different things altogether.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    > History has shown pretty clearly that governments on the more-coercive side of the spectrum have caused more death and destruction than those on the less-coercive side. I'm not seeing it. Absent governments in the third world cause quite a bit of death and destruction every year. > A government coercing dollars out of a population by force and a society that is based on using products produced by people other than themselves are two different things altogether. Until somebody steals something. Then you've got two options: Either you let them take it, in which case you're communist and don't have property, or you chase them down and make them give it back, in which case you're a despot and every transaction made is only made with your implicit consent. There ain't no free enterprise.
stevesearer 14y ago
The problem with that is that "coerced charity" through taxation is not a contractual obligation one willingly enters into. Did you sign something saying you would pay taxes for government assisted programs? I know I didn't. Non-coerced charitable donations are more effective because individuals are putting their own dollars to causes they care about, and therefore have an actual interest in seeing their dollars be spent wisely.
- Cushman 14y ago
  By being born in the United States, and as a child of citizens of the United States, I became a citizen of the United States. This entitles me to rights, like the ability to travel anywhere I like across the continent without impediment, as well as to obligations, like paying taxes on my income or military service in the event of war. The obvious implication of this arrangement is that I rely on the United States every moment of my life, I wouldn't exist in the first place without the United States, and I owe something back to the United States for putting that whole thing together for me. But, if that's just a bridge too far, the United States is reluctantly willing to wash its hands of the whole thing and walk away if I am-- all I have to do is live somewhere else. I've never understood what makes this concept difficult or complex.
  - stevesearer 14y ago
    I don't think that is a difficult concept to understand, but the implication of it is that you don't actually have a right to own property. If you own a home, you are merely using your country's land temporarily. If you perform a job and receive wages, those wages are not yours - but instead they belong to the country. What I believe is that people innately have rights, regardless of what government regime happens to preside over them. The best governments are ones that are set up to protect those innate rights. To protect rights by taking rights away is a concept that doesn't make sense to me.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      Are you universally dualist, or only when it comes to governance? It seems as if we only know these "innate" rights through the protection of government.
dmm 14y ago
> If you believe free enterprise can be more effective than government assistance, you believe "coerced charity" is better. I don't understand this. Where is the coercion with donated vaccines?

by Cushman 14y ago

jlarocco 14y ago

The difference is that a person can opt-out of a transaction or contract in free enterprise. Don't sign the contract, and there's no threat of violence, implicit or otherwise. On the other hand, there's no way for a person to opt-out of government coercion.

Cushman 14y ago
Of course you can-- you can move somewhere else. But you'll be likely to find that places without "government coercion", i.e. government, are not as much nicer as you had imagined. Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out. Not really seeing the difference here.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  "Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out." <sarcasm>Well then they can move somewhere else...</sarcasm> What you're describing isn't free enterprise, so it's disingenuous to use it as an example as if it's the normal case. I could use North Korea as an example of excessive government, but I'm not because I realize it's not the usual case.
  - unalone 14y ago
    What you're describing isn't free enterprise Correct. Government is not free enterprise. To govern a body is to take control of it to a certain extent. We can quibble about how much control is too much, but that's the topic of this debate, not whether or not the government is controlling. I rather think "free enterprise" leads to horrible things when said "enterprise" begins to affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and I like that we build systems to manage those large-scale enterprises rather than leaving them up to individual whim. It would be nice if we had more of those systems – say, to stop children from getting sick and dying just because their parents couldn't find work.
stevesearer 14y ago
@Cushman History has shown pretty clearly that governments on the more-coercive side of the spectrum have caused more death and destruction than those on the less-coercive side. A government coercing dollars out of a population by force and a society that is based on using products produced by people other than themselves are two different things altogether.
- Cushman 14y ago
  > History has shown pretty clearly that governments on the more-coercive side of the spectrum have caused more death and destruction than those on the less-coercive side. I'm not seeing it. Absent governments in the third world cause quite a bit of death and destruction every year. > A government coercing dollars out of a population by force and a society that is based on using products produced by people other than themselves are two different things altogether. Until somebody steals something. Then you've got two options: Either you let them take it, in which case you're communist and don't have property, or you chase them down and make them give it back, in which case you're a despot and every transaction made is only made with your implicit consent. There ain't no free enterprise.

stevesearer 14y ago

The problem with that is that "coerced charity" through taxation is not a contractual obligation one willingly enters into. Did you sign something saying you would pay taxes for government assisted programs? I know I didn't. Non-coerced charitable donations are more effective because individuals are putting their own dollars to causes they care about, and therefore have an actual interest in seeing their dollars be spent wisely.

Cushman 14y ago
By being born in the United States, and as a child of citizens of the United States, I became a citizen of the United States. This entitles me to rights, like the ability to travel anywhere I like across the continent without impediment, as well as to obligations, like paying taxes on my income or military service in the event of war. The obvious implication of this arrangement is that I rely on the United States every moment of my life, I wouldn't exist in the first place without the United States, and I owe something back to the United States for putting that whole thing together for me. But, if that's just a bridge too far, the United States is reluctantly willing to wash its hands of the whole thing and walk away if I am-- all I have to do is live somewhere else. I've never understood what makes this concept difficult or complex.
- stevesearer 14y ago
  I don't think that is a difficult concept to understand, but the implication of it is that you don't actually have a right to own property. If you own a home, you are merely using your country's land temporarily. If you perform a job and receive wages, those wages are not yours - but instead they belong to the country. What I believe is that people innately have rights, regardless of what government regime happens to preside over them. The best governments are ones that are set up to protect those innate rights. To protect rights by taking rights away is a concept that doesn't make sense to me.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Are you universally dualist, or only when it comes to governance? It seems as if we only know these "innate" rights through the protection of government.

dmm 14y ago

> If you believe free enterprise can be more effective than government assistance, you believe "coerced charity" is better. I don't understand this. Where is the coercion with donated vaccines?