>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >Liberalism so understood is compatible with socialism, understood as
>democratic control over the basic economic decisions of life. It does not
>favor markets or planning. On that issue it is neutral. It is not
>compatible with Marx's communism envisaged as a stateless society without
>law. But then I think that would be a very bad thing.
>
>However, the law and the political state necessarily involves coercion,
>whether it be a liberal state or a tyranny. I agree that the former is
>preferable to the latter, but why do you conclude it is a bad thing to have
>a society that is free of both economic political coercion entirely?
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas
Because people won't agree, and need rules to resolves disputes, and these rules must be enforceable, which means coercion. Moreover some people will cheat or slack off, and others--few, but a nontrivial number--will just rob and kill if not stopped.
I would not want a world where everyone agreed on all fundamentals, and think the prospect of getting everyone to go along without, ultimately, force to back up the rules in the case of refractoriness or cheating, is unrealistic in this world or any other.
But if you want to hold out the hope for it, I can't stop you. It's just not anything I care to think about. In the meantime we can work together for a genuinedly liberal democracy that is not distorted by class power and money. You can regard it as an intermediate stage; I as the ultimate stage.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx