“Coercion” isn’t a single concept, simply an immoral act of force to overpower the will of another. It’s an act of man which may or may not be justified morally based on the circumstances.
We don’t have defined unchanging and context independent rights that are violated by coercion. Rather, what constitutes immoral coercion and freedom are subject to reason, which we can refer to as the contractual agreement between free agents behind the veil of ignorance of what rights and obligations all to be allocated. Violating rights through coercion would be to violate ones reasonably accepted obligations.
Right, there's good coercion and bad coercion. I agree that coercion based on a single person's will is bad coercion. But general rules won’t guarantee good coercion. Bad rules bring bad coercion.
It seems like you are edging in the direction of positive liberty. A liberal society of one that maximizes individual liberty, and if coercion is necessary for that than this coercion is justified. I agree with this.
That said I would compartmentalize market relations, which are voluntary and non coercive, with property rights which are. Consider a transaction that involves only my labor and skill, no external property involved and your labor and skill, also no external property involved. This is a market transaction. And since no property is being transferred, no coercion is involved. Of course one could consider your own time and effort as your private property. But then the enforcement of this property of not backed by state coercion.
“Coercion” isn’t a single concept, simply an immoral act of force to overpower the will of another. It’s an act of man which may or may not be justified morally based on the circumstances.
We don’t have defined unchanging and context independent rights that are violated by coercion. Rather, what constitutes immoral coercion and freedom are subject to reason, which we can refer to as the contractual agreement between free agents behind the veil of ignorance of what rights and obligations all to be allocated. Violating rights through coercion would be to violate ones reasonably accepted obligations.
I discuss this argument here as well. https://open.substack.com/pub/neonomos/p/there-are-no-natural-rights-without?r=1pded0&utm_medium=ios
Right, there's good coercion and bad coercion. I agree that coercion based on a single person's will is bad coercion. But general rules won’t guarantee good coercion. Bad rules bring bad coercion.
It seems like you are edging in the direction of positive liberty. A liberal society of one that maximizes individual liberty, and if coercion is necessary for that than this coercion is justified. I agree with this.
That said I would compartmentalize market relations, which are voluntary and non coercive, with property rights which are. Consider a transaction that involves only my labor and skill, no external property involved and your labor and skill, also no external property involved. This is a market transaction. And since no property is being transferred, no coercion is involved. Of course one could consider your own time and effort as your private property. But then the enforcement of this property of not backed by state coercion.