Coercion will continue to exist because we create social systems that require people to abide by particular modes of intercourse.
|It's not the only point of human interaction. Put down Atlas Shrugged for a second, geez.|
It is not about Atlas Shrugged, it is about the ways in which particular characteristics are distorted, amplified or curtailed according to the framework through which they operate. The sort of anarcho-capitalist framework that you're arguing for would create a social organism far more tyrannical than what exists presently.
|Because it is in our nature to help one another. This is why things like charities have been created and exist without any outside coercion. They would not suddenly disappear because people are no longer required to pay taxes.|
And the problem with charity is that it is a set of individuals trying to solve an issue structurally integrated into the fabric of society. In other words, it provides temporary and incomplete assistance, largely provided by the very individuals that succeed on the backs of others. More to the point, we can acknowledge that we are social animals, interested in helping one another, yet would say that your ideas about ways to magnify that would actually have the opposite effect.
|I don't think you have the faintest clue how the allocation of resources occurs in a free-market. You seem to operate from the perspective that things as they are now -corporations and monopolies that exist as a result of state intervention- would happen just the same in a world where coercion was not tolerated.The ponzi scheme you speak of is propped up by the state, which has declared that certain companies (willing to pay out the nose for political favor) and industries are too big to fail, and so they are kept alive through taxation of the masses. That is a true misallocation of resources and requires the general public to be fooled into thinking that it is good for certain companies to exist, no matter how poor their business practices may be. |
I am speaking about actually-existing capitalism, yes, because that is the context in which the debate about social security is taking place. The state has always existed has always existed as a safety valve for markets when they collapse, the main battering ram with which to open new markets, even as an agent of confiscation of lands - which is the role it played in the early days of capitals. Further, as I said earlier in the thread, monopolies are a naturally occurring phenomenon in a social organism where accumulation of mutual benefit, if that is what you'd like to refer to it as, means some have more and some will be able to cannibalize the smaller actors in the market. The extent to which state intervention causes this may to be seen in companies with whom it prefers to demonstrate favor, however, the provisions are directly proportional to the size of a company and the influence it can purchase,i.e, an already large company uses influence to achieve larger shares of the marketplace. Lastly, on the topic of coercion, the way in which it is being posed is situated comfortably in the ideological conceptions of the individual and disregards that society is an interlocking set of relations, in which the articulations of those relations - whether juridically, in terms of ideas, actions and so on - invariably effect the lives of others. A voluntaristic system would not change that fact and an individuals whose only aim is some gain does not give much thought or foresight to how it spreads more broadly because that is beyond their scope of interest. More to the point, as it becomes the norm, it is embedded in the very mechanisms you advocate and, since their acts aren't inhibited under your definition of coercion, there is little recourse others have.
|Social Security may not be for profit, but it is most definitely for plunder by the state. It's starting to fail because it was a poorly designed initiative from the start. As we've been discussing there are better alternatives that don't open themselves up to exploitation by the government.|
Social security wasn't something absorbed by the state willingly, it was forced on the state by the desperate people who fought against the oligarchs. That the state plunders it routinely is evidence of being beholden to the interests of capital. There are alternatives, I agree, and one of them might be redistribute the wealth more widely so as to eliminate the need for such programs; the things that we look at as special, as for just in case, can be broadened in such a way as to make them a beneficial part of everyone's life. Reforms, as you said, are always open to distortion by the government and that is why I believe the capitalist state must be eliminated completely. Since that option isn't on the horizon just yet, I will settle for social movements that force through new sets of relations that can create the circumstances for that day.