Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Freedom, coercion, and free markets (III)
Message-ID: <99@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 23:13:37 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.99
Posted: Wed Feb 13 23:13:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 05:35:48 EST
References: <328@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <4793@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 22

> >Suppose A offers something that B must have -- water when he is
> >stranded in the desert -- but at an exorbitant price.  Is he not then
> >coerced?  
> 
> Yes, he is not then coerced.

So what if A again offers B something that he must have -- that A not
shoot him -- at great price? This is coercion. But I don't see much
difference. (Unless you want to say that it is a difference between
doing and not doing something, in which case I'll think of some more
examples. But you probably get the idea.)

The problem is that you seem to be fixing an entire ethical and
political system on on idea -- coercion -- when it isn't even that well
defined.  I haven't seen anybody explain exactly why coercion is the
worst possible evil, except maybe to the "ethical relativism" argument,
which doesn't hold water. Does anybody want to define "coercion"
properly for me and explain why it is so bad? (Don't get me wrong -- I
don't think it is a good idea, but absolute freedom of will doesn't
seem to be a likely candidate for the ultimate good, either.)

	Wayne