A colleague says that if there is only one employer available, and I work for them, then I am being forced to work for them.  I would rather work for someone who would pay more, so I am being “forced” to work for less.  In this way, my colleague imagines that capitalists coerce people just as the government does when it regulates and taxes the people.  There is no difference between the two, in her mind.  Used judiciously, taxation and regulation may actually decrease the net amount of coercion.  But this idea muddles the distinction between voluntary action and coercion, a distinction that is an essential part of living in society.

The problem is, her view of coercion encompasses any instance when my actions are limited by the actions of another.  Thus, when someone takes a seat that I had hoped to sit in, or someone takes an apple that I had my eye on, or woos a woman who I had been pursuing, I am a victim of coercion in that I am forced to take something I view as less valuable.

I suppose that this is true in a sense.  Obviously, circumstances can force us to do or not do many things.  The laws of physics force us not to do many things we would enjoy doing, such as flying like birds.  But such a broad view of coercion can hardly be helpful.  We are all part of a larger environment that limits our actions, and this environment includes other people.    In this view, no action could truly be called “voluntary,” I suppose, because it is always limited by the circumstances of our environment.   It is true that we are all always struggling to push back such limits to our freedom of action when we work, innovate, and relate to others. Planes and automobiles are examples of fighting against such limitations on our freedom of action.  This kind of “coercion” is an inevitable part of existence in a physical world with scarce resources. It is an inevitable source of struggle as we seek the things we want.  And this is really the goal–to get what we want.

Of course, by defining “coercion” and “voluntary” in such ways completely eliminates the usefulness of the terms. But the argument is not really about definitions of words, but about how best to get what we want.  My colleague believes that by limiting people’s liberty through coercive regulations and taxation, the general “freedom” of the people can be maximized.  She believes that there is no difference between being the first to pick the apple and actually throwing down my neighbor and stealing his apple.  She sees no difference between offering a man a low paying job when he has no other, and chaining him to an oar.  For her, apparently these are all coercive techniques.  The overall goal is to maximize our freedom of action, and because all of these techniques are equivalent, the use of physical force against our neighbors becomes an acceptable part of our toolkit for maximizing overall “liberty”.

But by so doing, we open the door to being physically forced by others to do what they want.  We violate the most fundamental rule of social interaction:  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  And not only will this lead to a decrease in our ability to get what we want as others use force against us, but it will also decrease the satisfaction that we get when we attain our goals:  One does not feel as satisfied at winning if he won by cheating.

And not only this, but we will decrease our actual freedom and hinder our ability to get what we want.  Nature itself argues against coercive measures.  Most interspecific relations in nature are characterized not by force or predation, but by mutualism, symbiosis, and peaceful coexistence.  This makes sense.  Aggression can only consume resources.  It cannot produce them.  On the other hand, voluntary action has the power to produce.  Imagine a world where only aggressive action was possible.  Such a world could not exist.  But imagine a world where only voluntary action took place.  Such a world would be wonderful, and wonderfully productive.  The two are not equivalent any more than predation is equivalent to symbiosis or murder is equivalent to marriage.

The words “coercion” and “voluntary” have probably arisen for this very reason–they are part of the nature of mankind and what makes for a successful and satisfying existence.  The one leads to less freedom, less satisfaction of wants, the other to more of both.

Advertisement