I think you are getting hung up on terminology in your comment above. You are saying “Other than magnitude I see little difference between governmental coercion and non-governmental coercion”. You are absolutely right: There is, morally and praxeologically, no difference at all between “governmental” and “non-governmental” coercion.

There is only coercion or non-coercion. Those people who happen to be called government just happen to be shooting a lot more people than those who call themselves the mafia, gangs or warlords.

But help me out here: What is in your view the solution to the evils of mass murder and mass theft in this world?

For easiness of discourse I will stick to more physical forms of coercion. Even though I do not have a coercive disposition I also have very little coercive ability. I do not own a gun, or anything much past a pocket knife that I would be able to use for physical coercion. I could attempt to rob someone with it, but would probably be taking quite a risk considering the knife’s size :)

If I was incredibly wealthy I would possess much more coercive ability. I could theoretically hire someone to threaten others with physical violence, etc. I also have a greater ability to purchase weapons for myself and others. Notice this is regardless of (probably even hampered by) the existence of a central government. Simply the possession of great wealth provides me with much greater coercive ability.

Finally there is leverage. Having a position of prestige or influence over others, not necessarily monetarily. For instance if I have no great wealth but say possess a position of great influence within some kind of corporate or communal structure, I can theoretically wield that influence over others, even to the point of being able to threaten violence. This is often the type of coercive ability politicians and police can use to influence, regardless of its legality, but by no means should be considered unique to governments.

Granted governments wield especially strong forms of such coercive abilities by virtue of the area of control usually involved, the strength and number of their military/police force, and the general support among the populace (or at least acceptance) and sense of legitimacy that they normally experience. They also possess the ability to prevent the coercion of others. Microsoft is relatively powerless to create a paramilitary group (at least within the United States) to coerce people physically themselves.

Other than magnitude I see little difference between governmental coercion and non-governmental coercion. Granted if I am a subject of a loose tribe headed by a warlord in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region, I have much less freedom in some ways, but do to the limited scope of influence the warlord has, I have a greater ability to escape.

I see no reason why in the absence of a government or even large coercive military, warlord, or mob-like structure I would still not face a decent into such coercion by virtue of the wealthier and more influential members of society being able to slowly construct such physically coercive institutions.

Another way to put it is that there will ALWAYS be people who wish to exert coercion. The only thing stopping them is the ABILITY to coerce and I see no reason to believe that a voluntarist society will be able to prevent someone with the will to coerce from gaining the ability to coerce.

At least in a somewhat democratic society no single individual has completely control over the admittedly massive infrastructure of coercion and those that do wield the majority of this power do so only temporarily and (at least somewhat) at the will of the majority of the coerced. Now I readily admit it is not perfect, that it can always be improved, that it can always disintegrate into greater tyranny… but so can a lack of government. In fact it seems that when governments are overthrown, or in a state of flux that that is when it is MOST likely to descend into dictatorship and massacres.

Just some thoughts.

To me, the best place to start thinking through this issue of coercion is really to begin with yourself. How much coercion did you use today to get things done? How did you get your clothes, your food, etc. ?

Then you can take it one step further.

How much coercion did your friends around you use in their day to day lives? And their friends?

How about people around you who are the staunchest defenders of government? Do they frequently coerce people into submission to get things done?

In my case at least, all these questions are kind of obvious. 99.9% of what I myself and all the people I know do day in day out requires absolutely no aggression whatsoever.

Coercion is a fact of life, but that doesn’t mean we should condone or even institutionalize it. It also doesn’t mean that coercion is needed to get things done. Empirical evidence, to me, pretty much proves the opposite, and that is taking aside all the moral and effectual arguments I have advanced for voluntaryism.

This is a nice videocast (or car-cast :) ) on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/stefbot#p/search/5/9Sa-q_bJxNw

UPDATE: Actually that link was incorrect, but a nice discussion nonetheless. This is the one I was referring to actually: http://www.youtube.com/stefbot#p/search/5/AidXSubb-2U

Like I said I was not too concerned with authority figures, especially once I reached high school. Prior to that I was what you’d call a good student I guess. Rather independent. I had friends but not that many good friends really. Kids made fun of me for pacing around and other idiosyncrasies. In middle school I gradually became disillusioned with school and gradually started “rebelling” in little ways.

It might also help to know that while I don’t shy away from expressing my views when appropriate, I am not the most confrontational person and consider myself to be somewhat situationally sensitive. I will dialogue and engage people if I feel they might be responsive but tend to shy away from open confrontation as some kind of bullying tactic or even under the assumption that I can change someone’s mind through brute force. I try to pick my battles carefully. Granted this ends up meaning that maybe on occasion I do not engage someone in a situation that might be productive, other times it is probably helpful.

In occasional anti-war protests I have been in I have tried to engage the “pro” war protesters on occasion. Usually the older ones that seem less intimidating :)

Part of the reason why I have shied away from anarchism recently is two-fold. First I have grown skeptical of the non-coercive utopia for which anarchism strives. Not only out of practicality, but also out of plausibility. I don’t think such a thing really exists as lovely as it might sound. Even on a farm a farm hand can be coerced by his employer without need for government. Despite the fact that he is not government regulated and many of his associates carry guns, a mob boss is still able to coerce his underlings. Coercion seems an unfortunate fact of life, and not necessarily pure evil. Second, I have developed more pragmatism, attempting to fight battles that I think are the most expedient.

I am still open to debate about these and many other thing though, and look forward to talking to you further.

In your childhood, did authority figures, such as parents or teachers make fun of or somewhat reject your independent views, did you encounter problems holding atheist ideas?

If I am at all close in this assumption, I think you might have made a misdiagnosis, created a concept of me that does not match the empirical evidence.

I think everyone for sure has certain preconceptions, it is somewhat unavoidable. When entering into a debate you must posit positive propositions (wow, a lot of P’s). I, however, do not think I am very close minded and am far from meeting the description of the “scarred child” unwilling to face the truth.

Approximately a year and a half ago I started a blog which I maintained only briefly. On it I would talk about anarchism, expressing my ideas and working through my thought processes. I would post videos by Murray Rothbard and others talking about anarcho-capitalism. In fact for probably at least 3-4 years of my life (if not more, I can’t say I am big on “declaring” my self as something that often) I considered myself an anarchist of one kind or another. I even thought, how could someone not be an anarchist? To be against anarchism you have to be FOR coercion, that doesn’t make sense, does it?

I participated in actions. Worked with loose organizations of people participating in my local CopWatch. A wonderful organization, I must add, which should be expanded into most communities. In case you don’t know, CopWatch is involved in watching police and providing a third party to witness and put pressure on police and hopefully alter their actions and diminish the coercion to what extent possible through the law. We also distributed literature informing people of their rights and the best way to deal with police.

So I have witnessed first hand coercion of the state from a variety of perspectives. I am very aware and not blind to the brutality of the state. I have also involved myself with various anti-statist groups associated with operating as much outside the organization of state apparatus as possible and setting up Temporary Autonomous Zones and such.

In fact I have lived the majority of my life against the state (either in actions or in ideology) when I think about it. I have pretty much never been PRO-state.

As far as religion, I was never raised in one and have identified as atheist my entire life. I am currently reading the entire bible, am in the middle and have yet to find it very persuasive to say the least :) As far as my actual childhood and parents. They were rather main stream statist liberal Democrats. Rather early I separated from that type of dogmatic partisanship. I can’t say my childhood was perfect, I also can’t say it was scarring. I probably experienced more scarring from my own childhood thoughts and fears than any outside influence.

I do not come by my opinions, or even start debates (I often ague multiple sides and enjoy playing devil’s advocate from time to time) based on “immediate denial” and “aggressive rejection” and “complete ridicule” of ideas.

I come by my opinions and arguments from having come from the perspective of many of those same ideas. From having often explored most of those ideas for myself. I try my best to debate honestly and openly and except defeat when I am out argued (although I think this part can be the hardest for anyone including me)

I hope this illuminates somewhat my thought processes, from what perspective I come, and any misperceptions you might have had of me.

I will not comment on all the tangents you are trying to take this to because you are already refusing to accept the most simple of all facts.

Thanks for the example with the homeowner’s association. I have heard that one many times. The analogy has such grave and obvious flaws that I hope you don’t really think it applies even remotely.

I assume you are, for the sake of your argument, ignoring the fact that such an association would go out of business rather quickly in a voluntary society. Fine, the good thing with consistent logic is that it holds up no matter how many hurdles you throw in its way.

When I sign a contract to live on the property of the company I voluntarily agree to pay a certain sum that it determined in a certain manner in exchange, we have ourselves a voluntary transaction. If I fail to deliver my part of the contract I am an aggressor against the owner’s property and he has every right to drag me off or even shoot me if I effectively resist.

(Again, for the sake of your argument I will not delve into all the problems, the public relations fiasco, and the rising DRO charges that would inevitably ensue and cripple the association financially, in which case its reps would most definitely think twice about such acts, heck it’ll be more lucrative to work out a special deal with the guy!!)

Show me the contract that you or I or the unborn whose future is being pillaged have signed or even verbally agreed to in which we commit to paying the government an arbitrarily flexible some for … uhm … for something that is sort of unspecified I guess? Are you renting your apartment from the government? Did you buy your house from the government? Does the federal government own the roads you drive on and the sidewalks you walk on every day? Do they own the office you work at or the places you go toe meet your friends and family? Certainly not!

Then by what right should they be justified in making you leave all that!? If they want me off their property, fine! Don’t let me enter the damn Post Office. Don’t allow me into the IRS and INS buildings. (Not sure why I would ever want in there anyway, and once again, for the sake of your argument I am ignoring the fact that even those smoky and boring premises have been paid for with looted money anyway.) Don’t allow me to use the interstate highways if you insist!

You have to try really really hard to look past such simple facts …

I ALREADY told you. Hide your income or do not involve yourself in government recognized economic activity. I already said this. I already pointed this out and you never responded. Do you want me to go step by step through tax evasion?

“What are you basing your assertions on?”

I know people who do it. People involved in organized crime and street people.

Let me give another stab a this.

Let’s say we are in your perfect anarcho-capitalist world. You voluntarily sign a contract to join a homeowner’s association, which collects fees for road repair, garbage collection, fire protection, and private security.

Part of this contract is that your community has to collectively decide on any fee changes through a majority vote. You have agreed to this through the contract and it is all fine.

Now let’s say at some point that for some reason you believe that a recent fee (tax) hike was not done according to the contract and therefore invalid. You launch your protest but alas, you are in the vast minority. Eventually the private security comes to forcibly collect those fees (that you think are being collected illegitimately) and you blockade yourself inside with a gun. They enter and shoot you.

This anarchist world does not prevent you from being shot for what you believe is property theft. I doubt any world does.

The main difference is states have implicit contracts that you will abide by their rules, if you want to break that contract in exchange for another one you have to leave the country. Do you think it is possible in an anarchist world to NOT sign a contract?

Also, if you wan me to answer new questions please respond to the previous answers I’ve given first, vis-a-vis tax evasion and such.

I have seen actual footage and testimonies of armed IRS and FBI, and special ops agents intruding the homes of tax protesters and shooting at even UNARMED people. Not that this surprises me in any way, for it is completely predictable, but it is of support in my quest for truth and evidence. What are you basing your assertions on?

If you concede at the very least that you will be kidnapped and locked up in a cell if you resist paying your taxes (albeit ineffectively), then I don’t know why we are debating the matter.

For the praxeological character of the action doesn’t change in any way, shape or form. It is an aggression against your property, period.