>>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?
>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.
At least you don't think freedom from political and economic coercion is a "bad" thing in itself, so much as an impractical thing. Although you seem to fear people "slacking off", unless they are coerced? You seem to have a jaundiced view of human nature.
>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.
There are many genuine liberal democracies, though there are none that are not distorted by class power and money. Because all are class societies, where some people are free to "slack off", while the majority are coerced into labouring to supply this privileged class their every need and desire. The only way class power could be eliminated, is by eliminating class distinction entirely. But it would seem to be both logically impossible and contrary to human nature to design a society in which everyone is equally coerced and unfree. (Who would do the coercing?) The only possibility, it seems to me, is that everyone be equally free.
If you don't want to think about it, I can't make you. But perhaps you would care to explain how this "ultimate stage" of liberal democracy would be structured to eliminate class distinction without eliminating political and economic coercion?
Liberal democracy is a step forward, because it is based on the notion that all people are entitled to political freedom, political equality and political democracy. But without wishing to belittle that, it is not enough. We want *economic* democracy, freedom and equality too.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas