Laissez-Faire Capitalism

[DavidOdden]

I’m having a hard time rationalizing how laws could not be coercion.

I see the point. Coercion is not the same as initiation of force. If we go with the Webster’s dictionary definition of “coercion”:

to restrain or dominate by force

;

to compel to an act or choice; to achieve by force or threat

then law is a form of coercion, because it achieves compliance with moral law by threating certain consequences. That is the proper function of government. Returning to your initial post:

If laissez-faire capitalism means no government interference,

that is false

Laws are a form of coercion, coercion is a form of force,

that is true, in a so-what sense

therefore government laws interfere in the market

that is false and irrelevant (“lack of interference” is not how you define capitalism).

I find hypotheticals help to clarify issues and questions

Yes, but they have to be plausible. Your hypothetical is entirely implausible, although I could imagine writing a sci-fi novel expanding on those themes.

Once laws are created, they exist at all times - regardless of whether anyone follows them or not.

They do not exist when they are repealed.

[JeffS]

“Coercion” has no standing in the debate: what matters is the initiation of force. A law is not initiation of force when it is the threat of retaliatory force, which means “if force is initiated, this will be the retaliation”.

Coercion is force used to make somebody do something against his or her will. If it is someone’s will to kill another person, whether that is rational or not, and they don’t do it because there is a law against it, then that is coercion. Since the law existed before the person wanted to kill the other, the force began when the government wrote the law.

[Chops]

Is a law ever not coercion? Is a law never coercion?

A law is not an initiation of force when it does not violate rights. For example: one does not have the right to murder, therefore a ban on murder is not a violation of rights, and does not constitute an initiation of force.

A law is an initiation of force when the law itself violates rights, i.e. taxes, regulation.

[JeffS]

I see the point. Coercion is not the same as initiation of force. If we go with the Webster’s dictionary definition of “coercion”:

to restrain or dominate by force

;

to compel to an act or choice; to achieve by force or threat

then law is a form of coercion, because it achieves compliance with moral law by threating certain consequences. That is the proper function of government.

Coercion is not the same as initiation of force, but it is force. If this force is applied first, before any other force is applied, then it is an initiation of force.

Returning to your initial post:

If laissez-faire capitalism means no government interference,

that is false

Huh?

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. - Ayn Rand, “The Objectivists Ethics”, The Virtue of Selfishness

If this doesn’t mean “no government interference,” then I must be confused about a lot more than I thought.

Laws are a form of coercion, coercion is a form of force,

that is true, in a so-what sense

therefore government laws interfere in the market

that is false and irrelevant (“lack of interference” is not how you define capitalism).

Yes, it is. It’s how you define laissez-faire capitalism, and it’s how Ayn Rand used the term.

Yes, but they have to be plausible. Your hypothetical is entirely implausible, although I could imagine writing a sci-fi novel expanding on those themes.They do not exist when they are repealed.

“Plausible” as in forming a secret society protected by a futuristic machine which projects a mirage over several hundred square miles, and doors which open not when words are spoken, but when spoken words are sincerely meant?

[DavidOdden]

Coercion is force used to make somebody do something against his or her will. If it is someone’s will to kill another person, whether that is rational or not, and they don’t do it because there is a law against it, then that is coercion. Since the law existed before the person wanted to kill the other, the force began when the government wrote the law.

For the record, I was mistaken in post 7. I decided it was time to research the term “coercion” to see if it means “necessarily improper”, which it does not. Thus the question of whether a law constitutes coercion doesn’t have any relevance to whether capitalism implies anarchy or whether law is by nature improper.

The law against murder is not ad hominem – it does not say “Bill Smith may not commit murder”. It is conceptual, saying “no man may commit murder”. That law, specifically the threat to use force against anyone if they do further initiate force by committing murder, exists because of the fact that murder and rights-violations in general do exist and have occurred, and we have reason to believe will occur again, , even if the specific individual Bill Smith has not committed murder

The proper function of government is to regulate the use of force, so that it is only used in self-defense and in retaliation against the initiation of force by another individual. Since the very purpose of government is to use (or threaten) force in an objectively controlled fashion, the fact of using force is not a relevant argument in determining whether a law is proper.

[DavidOdden]

If this doesn’t mean “no government interference,” then I must be confused about a lot more than I thought.

Agreed. Maybe these quotes from “The Nature of Government” (p. 126) will help:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.

The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—can-not be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

Visualize, for example, what would happen if a man missed his wallet, concluded that he had been robbed, broke into every house in the neighborhood to search it, and shot the first man who gave him a dirty look, taking the look to be a proof of guilt.

The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.

[Chops]

Government exists not to protect against coercion, but to protect against the violation of rights. Coercion does not necessarily constitute a violation of rights, though in most situation it does (you rarely have to coerce someone to not kill). Notice how most of the arguments from the others in this thread use the term “violation of rights”, while you keep coming back to “coercion.” “Coercion” is not primary, “rights” are primary (within the context of this discussion, of course).

This seems to be the source of the disconnect.

[Jake_Ellison]

Coercion is force used to make somebody do something against his or her will. If it is someone’s will to kill another person, whether that is rational or not, and they don’t do it because there is a law against it, then that is coercion. Since the law existed before the person wanted to kill the other, the force began when the government wrote the law.

The world at large doesn’t define force the way you do: force is a physical influence that causes an object to change its direction or speed. Coercion on the other hand can mean a million things that don’t involve physical force.

Objectivism holds that the initiation of physical force against another man is the equivalent of violating someone’s rights, and that this should be forbidden by law. (And no law should initiate force.) Physical force in that statement means the above definition. If you wish, I can prove to you that Objectivism is right in this regard. (And that LFC laws don’t initiate force, by this definition.)

Now, if you wish to define force in some other, novel way, and using that definition you wish to make an assertion, I am willing to go along with that, but we’ll be in disagreement. You are of course welcome to prove that this yet unstated assertion is right as well, using your own definition, but you cannot claim that I subscribe to your assertion (even if our words are exactly the same), since in your statements force means something other than what is generally accepted, and what I meant when making my statements.

[DavidOdden]

An additional point. When Rand speaks of capitalism in “The Objectivist Ethics” p. 37, saying “I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism”, she is directing the reader’s attention to actual capitalism, not the miscreant notions discussed in CUI ch. 1. She gives the Objectivist devinition of capitalism on p. 19 of CUI in “What is Capitalism”:

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The lack of government regulation of business is a consequence of this fact about capitalism, the nature of rights, and the proper function of government.

[AndrewRyan]

I was debating with myself how best to solve JeffS’ confusion on this subject when I came to the realization of what force/coercion is. I thought about what rights are, and i know rights are anything that I can freely do WITHOUT interfering in another individuals rights. For example, I have a right to live, as my existence does not prevent another individual from existing. I conclude that an initiation of force/coercion is anything that violates a RIGHT. I can then conclude that laws in an LFC system are NOT force or coercion as they do not violate rights.

Then, I reasoned that no matter how much a person claims the existence of laws constitutes force/coercion is irrelevant. This argument is irrelevant because no LFC law violates any individuals right.

Claiming that this argument is the same as the “if you have nothing to hide” argument is false. Individuals do have privacy rights and government spying in the form of a law would constitute as exercising force/coercion against an individual’s rights.

The only conclusion is that laws in an LFC system are not an initiation of force/coercion. To continue claiming that they are is to say that murder/mugging/fraud/theft/rape/what have you are all rights. As I mentioned those cannot be rights as an individual cannot murder/mug/fraud/steal/rape/what have you WITHOUT violating another individual’s rights.

[DavidOdden]

I thought about what rights are, and i know rights are anything that I can freely do WITHOUT interfering in another individuals rights.

If I own a widget, Smith wants to buy the widget because it’s crucial to his goal of building a veblitzer, but instead I elect to sell it to Jones, does my action interfere with Smith’s right to build a veblitzer? What definition of “interfere” are you assuming that would say that this is not “interfering”?

I conclude that an initiation of force/coercion is anything that violates a RIGHT.

So do you take “a right” to be primary and force is defined as “anything that violates a right”? We had that discussion here recently.

I can then conclude that laws in an LFC system are NOT force or coercion as they do not violate rights.

But that implies that Rand was mistaken when she said “All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative” and “A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.”

[AndrewRyan]

“If I own a widget, Smith wants to buy the widget because it’s crucial to his goal of building a veblitzer, but instead I elect to sell it to Jones, does my action interfere with Smith’s right to build a veblitzer? What definition of “interfere” are you assuming that would say that this is not “interfering”?”

To the first question, no it does not. Smith should offer more money, attempt to purchase the widget from Jones, or build one himself. I’m not violating Smith’s rights by exercising my property rights and doing whatever I want with my property. It would only be interfering if I somehow prevented him from buying another widget through fraud or force.

“So do you take “a right” to be primary and force is defined as “anything that violates a right”? We had that discussion here recently.”

Individual rights are primary to other concerns, and yes force is anything that violates a right.

"But that implies that Rand was mistaken when she said “All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative” and “A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.” "

I’m not sure how anything I wrote implies Ayn Rand was mistaken. I agree with both those statements, and my statement “I can then conclude that laws in an LFC system are NOT force or coercion as they do not violate rights” doe not contradict either of Rand’s statements.

[DavidOdden]

I’m not violating Smith’s rights by exercising my property rights and doing whatever I want with my property. It would only be interfering if I somehow prevented him from buying another widget through fraud or force.

Then you’re saying that “interfering” depends on there being force or fraud? We can’t know if something is interfering until we know if there is force, and we can’t know if there is force until you know what a right is (see below). I’m trying to understand your logic. That seems wrong, because the concept of “interfering” applies to non-humans and even inanimate objects.

Individual rights are primary to other concerns, and yes force is anything that violates a right.

Actually I was asking about what you think is logically primary. For example, “consciousness” is logically primary in the relationship of “consciousness” and “knowledge”. So you’re saying that, given “rights”, “force” and “interfering” that “rights” is the primary (most fundamental, most primitive) concept which the other terms must presuppose. So how does one know what “a right” is?

I’m not sure how anything I wrote implies Ayn Rand was mistaken. I agree with both those statements, and my statement “I can then conclude that laws in an LFC system are NOT force or coercion as they do not violate rights” doe not contradict either of Rand’s statements.

If one has a right to defend oneself, then that act cannot involve force, by your definition. Yet Rand acknowledged that use of force in self defense is both force (self-evidently) and is a right.

The solution to this apparent pickle, the one that Rand adopted is that “force” is used literally, to mean “force”, and that “rights” are defined in terms of the moral principle that man has the right to live according to his nature – by reason, free from force. Thus “rights” are defined in terms of absence of force, whereas you want to define force as violation of rights. That leaves you with the problem of explaining what a right is, for example, if you say that I have the right to own that which I create, how do you show that that is a right – since you can’t appeal to “force” in your justification (remember that under your definition, we can’t understand what “force” is until we know what rights are).

[JeffS]

Agreed.

So, you’re arguing that government can interfere in the economy and it would still be LF capitalism?

(If this was Ms. Rand’s intent, she couldn’t have made it less clear.)

I don’t disagree that government must exist, it must have a monopoly on retributive force, and there must be objective laws which codify when government can use this force. If we can simply argue government can interfere in the economy and it would still be LF capitalism, that this type of regulation isn’t really regulation, then we’re left with the conclusion that what differentiates “allowable” interference from “disallowable” interference comes to a question of the purpose of that law - an ends justifies the means argument. If we disagree on any one law, it would be a disagreement on the purpose of that law. You might have a different intent for law than I.

I’m going to assume how you would answer this: You would probably argue, “Yes, and the purpose of law is to protect individual rights. Therefore, a law which serves only to protect individual, natural rights, would not interfere in the economy, nor would it be an initiation of force. A law which served to do something other than protect individual rights would probably interfere with the economy and would be an initiation of force.”

If this is your argument, then I agree. In convincing someone that laws are not an initiation of force, we would have to begin by agreeing that the true purpose of government is to protect individuals’ rights. This, I think, gets to what Andrew is saying. If we begin with the premise that government must protect the rights of its citizens, and these rights are only natural rights, i.e. rights which preclude abridgment of any others’ rights, then the only laws which it can codify are laws which, by necessity, must be laws which would not abridge any others’ rights. Therefore, no law (under a proper system so described) would be coercion, and therefore not force, and therefore not an initiation of force, because no law would abridge anyone’s rights and would not force them into any action.

I see the point, I think, but I don’t think I’m quite there. Please, consider this exchange:

Capitalist: In LFC, the government does not interfere in the economy.

Collectivist: Then, you’re arguing for anarchy.

Capitalist: Of course not. Governments are necessary, as are objective laws.

Collectivist: But laws interfere in the economy by coercing people into a particular action. Like a mugger, they proscribe what action is and is not acceptable, and then proscribe what force will be used if the unacceptable path is taken.

Capitalist: [blank out. The only out for the Capitalist is to acknowledge that the government does, in fact, interfere in the economy.]

I think my difficulty lies in the free-will component of coercion. Coercion isn’t like physical force. Physical force implies, as mentioned, an object acting in such a way on another object as to make impossible any other course of action. For example, I can force someone to come with me by picking them up and carrying them. But coercion has an element of free-will to it. I can coerce someone into coming with me by offering money, or some enticement, but whether they come with me or not is up to them; they have to choose whether or not to come with me. In a sense, most of the force claimed by collectivists is a form of coercion: e.g. an employee is forced to work long hours because if he doesn’t he’ll be fired and the employer will find someone who will work long hours. Is this force in the sense of going against someone’s rights? No, but it is coercion. So we’re left with, when is coercion not force?

[DavidOdden]

So, you’re arguing that government can interfere in the economy and it would still be LF capitalism?

Clearly, that’s not my position. In fact, I have been crystal clear that your notion of “interfering” obscures the truth. Rights and the proper nature of government is not defined in terms of “interfering”, it is defined in terms of force: initiation, and retribution. That tells you that the government should enforce contracts, and prohibit assault, and should not prevent the sale of alcohol. The reason why you’re having a hard time understanding these point is because you cling to this fuzzy notion of “interfering”.

I think my difficulty lies in the free-will component of coercion.

Why do you care? No moral principles are defined in terms of “coersion”.

Try to rethink your problem in terms of rights, and define rights in terms of using force; adopt the specific principle that no man has the right to initiate force, and that it is the purpose of government to objectively regulate retaliatory force (“retaliatory” implies “in response to other force”). This should solve all of your problems. If you persist in clinging to “coercion” and “interfering” as the defining elements of “what you may not do”, then of course you are going to end up in the hell that is anarchy.

[JeffS]

Clearly, that’s not my position. In fact, I have been crystal clear that your notion of “interfering” obscures the truth.

Would you prefer the term “regulate?”

Rights and the proper nature of government is not defined in terms of “interfering”, it is defined in terms of force: initiation, and retribution.

Is coercion not force?

[softwareNerd]

Is coercion not force?

Jeff, I think you’re using the concept “force” and “coercion” in a way that Objectivism does not. Take this small, non-business example:

When the government says: M_urder is defined as … and it is a crime that will result in … <some reasonable punishment>_

That is not governmental coercion, nor is it “initiation of force” … not if one uses the terms as the opposites of “upholding rights”.

OTOH, if you want to call rights-upholding laws “coercion”, then you have to rephrase your principle to say that there’s a class of coercion that is within the legitimate purposes of government, and that certain instances of the “initiation of force” are fine … using the concept that way would cause confusion, rather than aid thinking.

[DavidOdden]

Is coercion not force?

So what? Retributive force is just, as a response to the initiation of force.

[JeffS]

So what? Retributive force is just, as a response to the initiation of force.

I’m not questioning the justice, or the injustice of force. I’m not discussing the proper nature of government. I’m not discussing rights in any way. Perhaps our difficulty lies in your belief that I am.

I’m merely trying to justify laws in laissez-faire capitalism. I accept retributive force is just. I also accept initiative force is not. If it is not, and if laws are coercive, and if coercion is force, then laws are initiative force and unjust. Unless I can find some way around it.

I notice you mentioned nothing about whether you preferred the term “regulate.” Regulate means (for our purposes): control or supervise by means of rules and regulations. Would not laws meet this definition? If not, how? If laws do control or supervise action, even business action, and laws are made by governments, doesn’t this mean government is always regulating business, and the economy, even in laissez-faire capitalism?

[softwareNerd]

I accept retributive force is just. I also accept initiative force is not. If it is not, and if laws are coercive, and if coercion is force, then laws are initiative force and unjust. Unless I can find some way around it. (emphasis added)

The way out is to realize that the bold text is false, by the terms being used. There is no way you can justify the notion that “initiative force is unjust”, given the way you’re using the various concepts.

Drop that principle, and you’ll solve the logical puzzler. (Alternatively, you could change the meaning of the concepts and retain the principle.)