Stigma against Communism?

[FredLC]

Should I play Devil's advocate just a little here today? Yes, I guess I should.

I'm not gonna enter an argument about what is true communism or true capitalism, and how the phenomena of the world has differed from the theories;I think many of the usual posters of these forums will recall that I have done analisys of the kind to death here before.

Nevertheless, just to add a bit of food for thought in this thread, I'll challenge the argument that "communism is against human nature"... or better, I won't - but I'll do the next best thing, and challenge the expected conclusion from that argument, which is that "Capitalism is FOR the human nature".

So, to all devoted capitalists here, I urge you to imagine an environment where force is removed from the equation. One where there is no cohercion to determine people to respect the linkage between subject and object, which is the essence of ownership - hence of capitalism. Without such environment of penalty, would there be anything to prevent hungry people from taking everything at the supermarkets? Or kids from taking all video-games on stores? Or you and your neighbour from taking a car you fancied in the streets?

And if there were no punishment for people who break contracts, would you trust human nature and work deals? Or would you fear that the person you contracted might not complete his part?

We are constantly surrounded by the threat of punishment, should we disrespect obligations or conventioned rights. Being so used to it that we don't see it as a threat does not, however, change it's nature. We live in a system that is based on force, and that without force, would collapse.

Remember when I spoke of the hungry person who would take everything from a supermarket? Well, I'd like to see anyone come here and tell me, with a bold face, that when a hungry bum passes in front of a 7-eleven, sees plenty of food avaiable, food that would end his misery, but not only don't take it, he actually feels he has no right to take it, he isn't challenging his nature as much as a communist who is expected to give away what he owns. Specially to latter argue that the compulsion to own, and own even more (much more) than the strictly necessary, is the drive behind the prosperity in capitalism.

All societies are about constricting individuals. There are individual interests behind this, but the fact remains that we must concede privileges to a larger body. A good society (should) constrict less, but no society, capitalists societies included, can exist without cohercion. As Montesquieu said, if men were Angels, there would be no need of laws.

So, my question is: is it true that the problem is "communism being against human nature", or is the truth a bit more complex; that the matter is just that the kind of violation against human nature required by capitalism is more easily implemented?

I'm curious to see what will you guys say.

Regards .

 

[Archbob]

What if the basic needs (ie. shelter, food, clothing) were provided by the state - but any luxury would be up to the individual to acquire?

I'm not saying this would work - but it might be a more realistic model.

And where does the state get these things? People have to provide to provide the state with such abilities to provide these things. If people already assume they will get such things no matter what, they stop working.

China tried this at the beginning of the 1950s. Let me let you in on a little secret--It didn't work.

About communism, yes it is against human nature. Mammals as a whole are territorial beings and will fight to defend their own territory. Studies have shown that in the animals kingdom among most species, the battle many times is not over mating rights but over territorial rights. The more powerful the male or individual(as sometimes it is female), the larger the territory. Humans are no different in our basic instincts. We as a species are not one that likes to fairly share everything.

 

[luiz]

Just a bit of trivia: the USSR had democratic elections, just not in the same way as the west is used to. They approved or disapproved a candidate; the West is forced to choose between a limited number (sometimes only 2) candidates who could all be bad.

Another bit of trivia: when some rival group within the Communist Party started gaining too much power, the ruling faction would often declare the leaders of the rival group as "enemies of the people" and have them all executed.

Very democratic.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

Another bit of trivia: when some rival group within the Communist Party started gaining too much power, the ruling faction would often declare the leaders of the rival group as "enemies of the people" and have them all executed.
Very democratic.

This are all perfect example of power abuse under a dictatorship

@Colindale: A communism is an ecomomic theory, as stated before, so it can be ether used under democracy or dictatorship. Capitalism too. Hitler's Germany was a capitalist dictatorship, and U.K. modern day is a democratic capitalism. The U.S.A. however, is an elected dictatorship. No matter how unpopular you are, you still last 4 years, and you cant be voted out. Of course, when those years are over, democracy returns.

 

[malclave]

So, my question is: is it true that the problem is "communism being against human nature", or is the truth a bit more complex; that the matter is just that the kind of violation against human nature required by capitalism is more easily implemented?

Good question.

I think you're right... capitalism is still a compromise people make, just far less of one.

 

[allhailIndia]

Should I play Devil's advocate just a little here today? Yes, I guess I should.

I'm not gonna enter an argument about what is true communism or true capitalism, and how the phenomena of the world has differed from the theories;I think many of the usual posters of these forums will recall that I have done analisys of the kind to death here before.

Nevertheless, just to add a bit of food for thought in this thread, I'll challenge the argument that "communism is against human nature"... or better, I won't - but I'll do the next best thing, and challenge the expected conclusion from that argument, which is that "Capitalism is FOR the human nature".

So, to all devoted capitalists here, I urge you to imagine an environment where force is removed from the equation. One where there is no cohercion to determine people to respect the linkage between subject and object, which is the essence of ownership - hence of capitalism. Without such environment of penalty, would there be anything to prevent hungry people from taking everything at the supermarkets? Or kids from taking all video-games on stores? Or you and your neighbour from taking a car you fancied in the streets?

And if there were no punishment for people who break contracts, would you trust human nature and work deals? Or would you fear that the person you contracted might not complete his part?

We are constantly surrounded by the threat of punishment, should we disrespect obligations or conventioned rights. Being so used to it that we don't see it as a threat does not, however, change it's nature. We live in a system that is based on force, and that without force, would collapse.

Remember when I spoke of the hungry person who would take everything from a supermarket? Well, I'd like to see anyone come here and tell me, with a bold face, that when a hungry bum passes in front of a 7-eleven, sees plenty of food avaiable, food that would end his misery, but not only don't take it, he actually feels he has no right to take it, he isn't challenging his nature as much as a communist who is expected to give away what he owns. Specially to latter argue that the compulsion to own, and own even more (much more) than the strictly necessary, is the drive behind the prosperity in capitalism.

All societies are about constricting individuals. There are individual interests behind this, but the fact remains that we must concede privileges to a larger body. A good society (should) constrict less, but no society, capitalists societies included, can exist without cohercion. As Montesquieu said, if men were Angels, there would be no need of laws.

So, my question is: is it true that the problem is "communism being against human nature", or is the truth a bit more complex; that the matter is just that the kind of violation against human nature required by capitalism is more easily implemented?

I'm curious to see what will you guys say.

Regards .

Not really...

Is it also not human nature to protect what is yours? If I have worked for something, I will try to protect what rewards I got for working that hard and will I also NOT try to get more than what I got?
Let us not kid ourselves...Communism also hoped for a withering away of the State by strengthening of the State...at least capitalists recognize that the State has a role to play and cannot be done away with and accept a level of regulation in the interests of continued stability. Communism's idea of sharing was to put a certain set of people in charge of deciding who gets what of how much and that any effort to take more or even try to get more should be punished. Sounds very Dickensian to me.

 

[Rik Meleet]

So Saddam's Iraq was democratic?

No.
Please read what I said.

Another bit of trivia: when some rival group within the Communist Party started gaining too much power, the ruling faction would often declare the leaders of the rival group as "enemies of the people" and have them all executed.

Very democratic.

Not democratic anymore and that's when the USSR stopped being communistic.

 

[Che Guava]

Another bit of trivia: when some rival group within the Communist Party started gaining too much power, the ruling faction would often declare the leaders of the rival group as "enemies of the people" and have them all executed.

Very democratic.

Good point. Did you know that HITLER came into power through a republican system, then eliminated his political opponents by having them executed??!! Anyone who advocates a republican model for the state should know that they are supporting skinheads, power-crazy dictators, and kitten-eaters....

I'm not making any appologies for the soviet union, china, or whatever other country that stuck 'democratic republic' in front of thier name, but why single them out based on thier economic system? The cold was is over, eh..?

 

[Shaihulud]

and Singapor modern day is a democratic capitalism. The U.S.A. however, is an elected dictatorship.

Wow...Singapore is definitely not a democratic country relative to the U.S. In fact it is a one party system with only 2 opposition members in the parliament. Many relevant opposition were incarcerated in jail or the psychiatric ward, driven to suicide, accused of being communist and exiled, in the persent days, they are being sued into bankruptcy, accused of being criminals and investigated by the police(which is death poliically). Forced to sign documents pledging never to contest in any election under threat of more lawsuits. Unfair laws being implemented to prevent opposition into contesting in elections.

Singapore is not a democratic country, by any normal definition. When that old man sitting on the throne dies, we will see how much of the rotten stuff comes to the surface, but Singapore is not a democratic country although it is very capitalistic.

 

[FredLC]

Not really...

Is it also not human nature to protect what is yours? If I have worked for something, I will try to protect what rewards I got for working that hard and will I also NOT try to get more than what I got?

Yes, it is human nature (though a discussion of "something" "belonging" to "someone", philosophically speaking, is complex, but I'll not enter i here); but it is also human nature to give, and to expect, compassion and help; as it is to be egoistic. Point being, than, that evoking the human nature is ultimately useless, for it is a vague expression that can encompass any behavior, both egoistic and altruistic.

People want to keep what belong to them, sure; but at the same time, people want to get what they need, even if it does not beloing to them. We train ourselves to respect the property of others (cohercion being the instrument of such training), but we are fighting our nature when we ignore the necessity of ourselves and our loved ones to respect an immaterial linkage between object and subject that beneficts strangers with more than what they need - when a poor man does not steal from a rich man.

I'm not advocating Robin Hood or communism, BTW; I'm just demonstrating that this argument, commonly delivered as the ultimate proof against collectivist ideals, is not as demolishing as some people seen to think.

Let us not kid ourselves...Communism also hoped for a withering away of the State by strengthening of the State...at least capitalists recognize that the State has a role to play and cannot be done away with and accept a level of regulation in the interests of continued stability. Communism's idea of sharing was to put a certain set of people in charge of deciding who gets what of how much and that any effort to take more or even try to get more should be punished. Sounds very Dickensian to me.

Communism and marxism are not the same, and the material dyaletics, despite it's popularity, is hardly the manner to arrive at more collectivist *functional* systems, as history have proven (now, if there actually IS a way to do so, I don't know). So no, the "theory capitalism - antithesis socialism - synthesis communism" archetype, the one which promoves increasing state for decreasing state, is not "per se" evidence of the inviability of the global concept.

Regards .

 

[Atropos]

@FredLC: All societies are based on coercion. However, some employ more coercion than others. People join societies to prevent the Hobbesian war of all against all, i.e. to prevent "rule" by force. Ergo, a society which uses more coercion than the minimum necessary defeats its purpose. Major premise.

Some capitalist societies have been highly coercive. Many still are. However, they were not coercive because they were capitalist. In contrast, ALL "communist" countries (not a very accurate term to describe the USSR, but never mind) have been highly coercive. I would argue that this was in large measure a consequence of their economic system. Certainly the degree of correlation is high: it is now known that Stalin extended the Leninist system of terror rather than creating a new one. Moreover, capitalism as a theory is based on the idea that, if only two parties are present in a transaction, then no third party has a right to interfere in that transaction. Unless you can show that X leaving money to Y harms Z, then Z has no right to prevent the transfer of money to Y. This is an idea that largely rules out economic coercion, even though it has nothing to say about political coercion. Communism, in contrast (at least in its Marxist form), is based on the "theory of value," the idea that the labourer and only the labourer does useful work, and therefore that any profit a second party may make through a transaction with the labourer must exploit the labourer. The fact that the labourer chose to engage in the transaction becomes irrelevant: only the third party's idea of what is "just" is relevant. Thus, capitalism tends to be less coercive than communism. Minor premise.

Conclusion: if coercion should be avoided, and communism is coercive relative to the main alternative, then communism should be avoided.

 

[Che Guava]

Conclusion: if coercion should be avoided, and communism is coercive relative to the main alternative, then communism should be avoided.

Just remember not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are still countries today with socialist systems in place that don't need to use coercion...

 

[Atropos]

Don't confuse a welfare state with socialism. They are different ideas completely.

But also, bear in mind that all taxation is a form of coercion. If you do not pay taxes, you will be fined. If you do not pay the fine you will be imprisoned. A country can be a democracy and still employ coercion - all countries do, in fact - but there are ways to minimize this coercion.

 

[Che Guava]

Don't confuse a welfare state with socialism. They are different ideas completely.

I'm not. I'm talking about countries where the majority of industry is state owned/operated along with trade being strongly regulated

But also, bear in mind that all taxation is a form of coercion. If you do not pay taxes, you will be fined. If you do not pay the fine you will be imprisoned. A country can be a democracy and still employ coercion - all countries do, in fact - but there are ways to minimize this coercion.

Very true, but not all coercion is done by the state. If , for eg, you don't pay taxes for healthcare, you still have to pay an HMO or a private clinic or risk not being treated...

 

[Atropos]

If you aren't treated, you die. You aren't killed. No one is "responsible" for your continued existence, so no coercion has taken place. Coercion is active, not passive. Your example would only imply coercion if the clinic were responsible for your illness. It's the difference between shooting yourself (with bystanders who don't try to intervene) and being shot.

Btw, in the US, emergency rooms are required to accept all patients by law, regardless of insurance status.

To take another analogy: You're starving to death. I'm rich. Should I help you? Yes. Does someone else have the right to FORCE me to help you? I would argue that this is not the case, any more than that person has the right to force me to do anything else.

Epitome of the welfare state: A, B and C deciding that D ought to do something for E.

 

[Che Guava]

If you aren't treated, you die. You aren't killed. No one is "responsible" for your continued existence, so no coercion has taken place. Coercion is active, not passive. Your example would only imply coercion if the clinic were responsible for your illness. It's the difference between shooting yourself (with bystanders who don't try to intervene) and being shot.

Btw, in the US, emergency rooms are required to accept all patients by law, regardless of insurance status.

Hmmm. Good point, but I still think that you get the same 'coercive' effect, as most people would choose just about anything over death or serious illness.

To take another analogy: You're starving to death. I'm rich. Should I help you? Yes. Does someone else have the right to FORCE me to help you? I would argue that this is not the case, any more than that person has the right to force me to do anything else.

Epitome of the welfare state: A, B and C deciding that D ought to do something for E.

I guess its just different definitions as the same thing: what you call coercion I think of as care, while your definition of freedom (well, the opposite of coercion, anyways) I might call state negligence.

 

[Atropos]

If X forces Y to help Z, then X is forcing a portion of his moral code on Y - the part which says "it is a good thing to help others." That's a moral code which is fairly widely accepted, true, and one to which I would adhere; but it is nonetheless not a universal code - no such thing exists - and, consequently, the state has no more right to force Y to adhere to it than it has a right to force Y to adhere to, say, Protestantism.

 

[allhailIndia]

Yes, it is human nature (though a discussion of "something" "belonging" to "someone", philosophically speaking, is complex, but I'll not enter i here); but it is also human nature to give, and to expect, compassion and help; as it is to be egoistic. Point being, than, that evoking the human nature is ultimately useless, for it is a vague expression that can encompass any behavior, both egoistic and altruistic.

People want to keep what belong to them, sure; but at the same time, people want to get what they need, even if it does not beloing to them. We train ourselves to respect the property of others (cohercion being the instrument of such training), but we are fighting our nature when we ignore the necessity of ourselves and our loved ones to respect an immaterial linkage between object and subject that beneficts strangers with more than what they need - when a poor man does not steal from a rich man.

I'm not advocating Robin Hood or communism, BTW; I'm just demonstrating that this argument, commonly delivered as the ultimate proof against collectivist ideals, is not as demolishing as some people seen to think.

Taking off from your own point, communism does not expect people to give out of compassion or care, but out of coercion and force. It would work in something like a kibbutz or a village because its a 'place where everybody knows your name..' Can this system work in a country with a Government, established hierarchies, history of conflict and violence? No, because you will not give up what you have earned when you can discern no benefit for yourself. Taxation is different because you see the place (police, roads, army, etc.) where it goes and as long as you are not being made to part with too much of your money, you will still pay. If you are convinced that your money is being thoroughly pissed away you either stop paying or try to make sure it is being used properly.

 

[FredLC]

@FredLC: All societies are based on coercion.

My point, exactly. Bear in ind that I’m not defending communism here – I’m just disproving a false “pro-capitalist” argument. I think capitalism has better, if less emphatic, qualities to defend itself from critique, than some supposed alignement with the human nature, that simply does not exist.

However, some employ more coercion than others. People join societies to prevent the Hobbesian war of all against all, i.e. to prevent "rule" by force. Ergo, a society which uses more coercion than the minimum necessary defeats its purpose. Major premise.

Oh, I have read “The Leviathan” – a rather insightful book, though surpassed by the thoughts of John Locke (remember the other debate we held?) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And only by this surpassing your description is true – in the Hobbesian archetype, “society must bear the prince it chose”, and coercion in whatever degree is acceptable in the name of common god. The idea that the prince exists in fuction of the people, and not the other way around, was ulterior. Hobbes, after all, wrote in favour of absolute tyrants.

Nevertheless, academic ramblings aside, I do agree with the concept that society has the duty of finding what I like to call optimal balance, there is, the least degree of cohercion in which it is able to properly function.

Now, what does such functionality is vary, but, again evoking our previous debate, I think the validity of a social body is determined by the universality of it’s goals,

Some capitalist societies have been highly coercive. Many still are. However, they were not coercive because they were capitalist. In contrast, ALL "communist" countries (not a very accurate term to describe the USSR, but never mind) have been highly coercive. I would argue that this was in large measure a consequence of their economic system. Certainly the degree of correlation is high:it is now known that Stalin extended the Leninist system of terror rather than creating a new one.

Yes, all communist experience was rather coercitive. Like you apparently do, I prefer to keep in mind the theoretical built of communism/socialism, and refer to real life experiments as Maoism, Leninism and Stalinism – but I hardly deny the fact that all of those were of marxist inspiration, and were indeed scourges.

The reason for that, however, I don’t necessarily link to the construct itself. Unlike capitalism, which developed from natural conditions, the collectivist governments/economic models were willfully installed. It’s typical of the intelligentsia to believe they can re-think society, stablish a rupture and than build paradise earth from scratch. Only that both society and economy are way too complex to work based on a cisma and by following somebody’s diagram – this being the reason for the deterioration of the concepts of justice and equality which were the core ideals behind the very conceptalization of communism.

So, for me, these attempts to create shortcuts – be them benevolent such as Marx’s, or malevolent such as Lenin/Stalin’s views, are both equally doomed to became parodies, just as it happened – and, if some day, a more, say, altruistic approach on economy should ever become functional, it will be by natural development, not because someone, anyone, cryed “eureka”.

It’s silly to think a political stance based on emancipation of human spirity can be implemented by armed revolution. It will have to come from slow social movements. And I think they are possible, though I don’t expect it to come anywhere in the foreseeable future.

Moreover, capitalism as a theory is based on the idea that, if only two parties are present in a transaction, then no third party has a right to interfere in that transaction. Unless you can show that X leaving money to Y harms Z, then Z has no right to prevent the transfer of money to Y. This is an idea that largely rules out economic coercion, even though it has nothing to say about political coercion.

Yes and no. That is the utopical construct of the theory, that ignores that such agreements are not made between equals, but between people in dominant and dominated positions, and that the social built, which is millenia old and can’t be helped by the individuals, places them arbitrarily in these positions.

This is what is most silly when debates are held with capitalist idealogues – they fail to perceive that reality is not that simple. One could argue, and not entirely deprived of reason, that contracts are invalid if a part accepts a disadvantageous position due to necessity. Their will was not free, but coherced by the system.

You see, then? Society places most of people in the loosing spot; in it’s mechanics, force (lead) people to accept conditions they would not if they had functional alternatives. The fact that the cohercion is institutional, not strictly physical, does not make it any less real – hunger and desease, which you can’t fight without the resources from your job, are as eloquent as the whip.

The school of thought behind all collectivism is not aimed at damaging the rich, as some seen to think, but at leveling the starting condition – letting everyone shine by their individual merit, not by advantages conceded by accident of birth. Of course it encompasses more, specially limiting the profit to be an exact reflection of one’s true ability (supressing monstrous fortunes as some in the current world), but this is, to keep with your terms, a minor premisse.

There were failure in these implementations, no doubt, and in many senses, the attempts caused much more harm than good. I, however, still see merit in the ephistemology. Only that not by any mechanic avaiable in the world today, or in the future I can reasonably extrapolate to.

Communism, in contrast (at least in its Marxist form), is based on the "theory of value," the idea that the labourer and only the labourer does useful work, and therefore that any profit a second party may make through a transaction with the labourer must exploit the labourer. The fact that the labourer chose to engage in the transaction becomes irrelevant: only the third party's idea of what is "just" is relevant. Thus, capitalism tends to be less coercive than communism. Minor premise.

As you said yourself, that is Marxism, not communism. And again, much of it involves an honest, and meritorious, questioning of wheter the laborer choice was valid or invalid, like I have explained above. Nonetheless, as I said, I’m not defending it, just explaining that the real problems are not the ones people usually emphasize.

Conclusion: if coercion should be avoided, and communism is coercive relative to the main alternative, then communism should be avoided.

Can we settle that communism, as in any construct, historical or currently avaiable, should be avoided in these terms?

If you aren't treated, you die. You aren't killed. No one is "responsible" for your continued existence, so no coercion has taken place. Coercion is active, not passive. Your example would only imply coercion if the clinic were responsible for your illness. It's the difference between shooting yourself (with bystanders who don't try to intervene) and being shot.

Btw, in the US, emergency rooms are required to accept all patients by law, regardless of insurance status.

To take another analogy: You're starving to death. I'm rich. Should I help you? Yes. Does someone else have the right to FORCE me to help you? I would argue that this is not the case, any more than that person has the right to force me to do anything else.

Epitome of the welfare state: A, B and C deciding that D ought to do something for E.

This is where our doctrines seen to differ. Passive behavior can be equally cohercitive – usually, even criminal law of even the most capitalist countries will recognize that, and penalize “criminal negligence”, in cases such as a pregnant woman who does not bother with seeing a doctor, or a parent who don’t take an ill kid to a doctor, or someone who witness somebody else’s heart attack and don’t do so much as calling an ambulance. Remember – hunger is as abrasive as the whip.

What brings me to my final point here. Remember the subject in discussion – wheter or not the level of cohercion in capitalism is as against human nature as the one in communism (only more easily implemented). Lemme take advantage of your example:

You, as a rich man, cannot be forced to help me, a starving beggar, correct? But I, the starving beggar, cannot kill you to steal your possessions to end my starvation. And why I can’t? Because I’m also submitted to the rules of society, that criminalize such behavior.

But – remember the social contract – the reason why I’m bound to the rules of society is because I want to share it’s protection. In modern world, society is failing at this goal, because it’s allowing a systemic disadvantage of people who are born poor and have to face insurmontable odds to success, while others are born rich, and breeze through life. It is, effectively, creating and enforcing a systemic difference between people, hence protecting some at expense of others, the anti-thesis of it’s goal. This, in many levels, makes the submission of one, in misery, to the rules that prevent him/her from stealing, tyranny instead of legitimate ruling.

Now, I’m not advocating anarchy, but at the same time I refuse the Aristotelic obedience model – abide to the rules even if it means your death (what would again place the individual be second to the prince's commands). In order to society to validly expect the underprivilege to abide to the norm (I say validly because it can froce it invalidly, but that is another story), it must at least be acting to end, or minimize, the differences it has previously enforced – and it is in this manner that yes, someone – the social body – is responsible for adressing my famine, even if no one, individually, has that duty.

I entirely agree that welfare is not communism/socialism (no matter how many people like to paint it as so). I see it as a sign that modern society achnowledge it’s role and try to fulfill it through such resdistribution. There are problems with this approach, because it is forceful, not systemic. It creates a flowing of wealthy that is unjustified by the mechanics of the economic model adopted, and it also encourage leechs to suck on the tits of state instead of working. Oh, well – I never claimed that I have the solution to the problem.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that there IS a problem. There is a degree of force applied, in the cappitalist world, over a large part of human kind, forcing them to ignore possessions that are avaiable and would end their individual necessities; and that this force is not entirely legit, in the terms above described. We are so used to see it that we hardly think of it as force, but it is there, and it is pernicious.

Marxism is not the solution, true enough. But neither it is to accept this system as positive when it isn’t. Counscientious criticism, acknowlegment of the troubles, understanting of the merits and demerits of alternative schools of thought, that is what we are to do today, and hope that, little by little, we can amend society and get rid of the troubles that afflicts it.

Regards .

 

[Che Guava]

If X forces Y to help Z, then X is forcing a portion of his moral code on Y - the part which says "it is a good thing to help others." That's a moral code which is fairly widely accepted, true, and one to which I would adhere; but it is nonetheless not a universal code - no such thing exists - and, consequently, the state has no more right to force Y to adhere to it than it has a right to force Y to adhere to, say, Protestantism.

So are saying is that any type of 'social coercion' used by the state should be to enforce values that are nearly universal across the nation, or that any kind of assistance should be voluntary?

So for eg, the ideal that every citizen should have access to food, water, medicine & education is pretty universal, and IMhO the state should be able to supply these even if it means punishing the 'freeloaders' who don't want to give up thier share of the pie. Do you think that giving money/resources to aid these causes should be voluntary?

EDIT: Nice post FredLC! Sorry if I restated a few things, you had posted while I was still composing...