>
>At least you don't think freedom from political and economic coercion is a
>"bad" thing in itself, so much as an impractical thing.
Same difference. Given people as they are and could be, a society without coercion would be much worse than one with democratically controlled coercion.
Although you seem to fear people "slacking off", unless they are coerced?
You seem to have a jaundiced view of human nature.
>
First of all, I said some peoplem not all. Those people would be exploiting others--not as a class, but exploitation is bad however you find it. ANd if it went unsanctioned it would spread. Why should I do things I don't like if there were no penalty for not doing them? Then you run into collective action problems. Government--which is in part organized coercion--is precisely a solution to collective action problems,
>
>There are many genuine liberal democracies, though there are none that are
>not distorted by class power and money.
I agree, sort of. But liberal idaels are inconsistent with the existence of classes.
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.
Which I zealously advocate doing.
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?)
Ah, Rousseau's question. The answer is: we would, collectively. No mystery about it: we establish rules democratically and delegate their enforcement to the government.
The only possibility, it seems to me, is that everyone be equally free.
And equally coerced.
>
>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?
Classes are, classically, groups defined by special relations of differential control of productive assets. Thus capitalism has a capitalist class that owns private productive assets and a working class that owns its own labor power but no productive assets. So the solution, as some old German wrote, is Abolition of private property! But this does not imply or require the abolition of government (political coercion), nor indeed of markers (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.
>
I'm with you there.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com