Ethical way to liberty

Hello!
I am seeking constructive comments on a possible practical strategy to overcome democracy and achieve real self-governance. Its principal feature is that it starts with new ethical norms. The separation of private and public moral spheres (equi-morality) allows to define a clear set of rules to eradicate any type of coercion in the public sphere. In my opinion, people have to have a better ethics to be actually capable to build free society. So the strategy concentrates on improving ethics and cultivating ethical behaviour.

http://ethical-liberty.com/breaking-deadlock-of-democracy.htm

Main points:  Freedom is a social contract that requires ethics so the parties could trust each other. Ethics of freedom is to reject all kinds of coercion (physical, psychological, economic, etc) otherwise the parties will sooner or later have to revert to violence to restore justice. The participants create trusted community (-ies) based on principles of new ethics. Recomendations of existing members are obviously required in order to join. Then they introduce community money backed by existing currency or a basket of currencies. Later, the community could develop all kinds of new, fair and free social institutions: property, justice system, security agencies, etc.
Thanks!

What does "economic coercion" mean?

This means that someone will be forced by economic means. For example, hypothetically, all resources are already owned by other people, and you enter the market with exactky nothing. You will be economically forced into unfair deals, although it may be technically voluntary.

 

You will be economically forced into unfair deals

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/nv8f1/how_different_are_anarchocapitalism/c3c8vt6?context=1

If you can persuade a community of people to try this, so be it. But as a preliminary step, you're going to have to get some kind of political disaggregation (secession) to occur first... the United Nations or the US government are not interested in the kind of thing you're talking about. They're interested in subjugating the world and its natural resources to their imperial ambitions.

Clayton -

What makes you think so? No one can prevent people from organizing virtual or real community, especially if they do not do anything illegal.

Wheylous wrote the following post at Mon, Mar 5 2012 2:52 PM:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/nv8f1/how_different_are_anarchocapitalism/c3c8vt6?context=1

---

(sorry, citation does not work for me)

You missed the point. Anyway, I'll try to explain why the poster of the comment is wrong. "Wage slavery" is only one possible example of coercive, unfair deals. Property is monopoly but there is no market without it. So the question of fairness (and ultimately freedom) is: when the degree of monopolization become such that it coerces people and how it should be prevented.

Hope this clarifies the matter.

Please prove that your idea of "fair" is the correct one.

It is a fair question. It addresses the whole point of my post. People form the community of like minded people and then they for themselves decide what is fair. Does that make my idea of fairness correct?

What makes you think so?

Clayton -

dimar:

It is a fair question. It addresses the whole point of my post. People form the community of like minded people and then they for themselves decide what is fair. Does that make my idea of fairness correct?

No, it doesn't. There's no correct idea of "fair". It's entirely subjective.

Regardless, what you wrote is in no way a proof that your idea of "fair" is correct.

No, it doesn't. There's no correct idea of "fair". It's entirely subjective.

Regardless, what you wrote is in no way a proof that your idea of "fair" is correct.

The first part of your response contradicts the second. Regardless, it has no relation to the topic.

 

No it doesn't. My point with the second part of my response is that you didn't even bother trying to construct a logical proof that your idea of "fair" is correct. And this is entirely related to the topic, because, if fairness is subjective, then you can't claim that your proposal is necessarily fair.

Correspondingly, liberty just like its opposite, coercion, can be used both for good and for evil purposes. But logically liberty ultimately entails only one specific form of ethics, which is the ethics of public social contract. This is because liberty means contract, contract means trust, trust means ethics.

A. How can liberty be used for "evil purposes"?

B. I had to stop reading after the last line. If you're not going to define terms and then actually begin conflating them together, it's not possible that your thinking is clear enough to make a cogent point.

I like that you're focusing on coercion, but you don't seem to be saying anything else.

a possible practical strategy to overcome democracy and achieve real self-governance.

You say democracy is terrible, and the Greeks agreed, but we're not a democracy, we're a republic. Meaning rule of law. Where do you come down on rule of law? 

Meh. I'm working on a similar reworking on institutions myself, so these issues are interesting to me. Certainly building a society strongly integrated with the NAP is interesting to me. But your conception of building "trusted communities" first then evolving political organizations second seems a recipe for chaos.

Anenome wrote the following post at Mon, Mar 5 2012 10:57 PM:

Thanks for the comment. A. Freedom itself is ethically neutral. If defined poorly by a society, freedom of one its member could be used to suppress the freedom of another. "Perfect" freedom, if it is achievable, is the absence of any coercion. B. I agree with your point but the text was large enough so I presumed the terms were intuitively clear. And besides, it is based on some preliminary texts also. Could you please specify what exactly am I conflating? If you mean liberty=contract=trust=ethics, then in my view one is follows from the other. Here how it goes. 1 Liberty is a social contract (as are rights, property, etc). 2 Parties of the contract have to trust each other otherwise there will be no contract. 3 In order to trust somebody you have to be sure that he is ethical enough not to betray you. That is why I see ethics as the only way to liberty. The laws are basically written ethical norms (I say about it in the end). In order to write them down you first have to get inner feeling of them, they somehow have to become the shared understanding between the members of society. That is what the community for and that is what people seems to be doing here. All other laws are coercive norms of majority (or whoever rules the republic).

Anenome wrote the following post at Mon, Mar 5 2012 10:57 PM:

Thanks for the comment.

A. Freedom itself is ethically neutral. If defined poorly by a society, freedom of one its member could be used to suppress the freedom of another. "Perfect" freedom, if it is achievable, is the absence of any coercion.
B. I agree with your point but the text was large enough so I presumed the terms were intuitively clear. And besides, it is based on some preliminary texts also. Could you please specify what exactly am I conflating? If you mean liberty=contract=trust=ethics, then in my view one is follows from the other. Here how it goes.

1 Liberty is a social contract (as are rights, property, etc).
2 Parties of the contract have to trust each other otherwise there will be no contract.
3 In order to trust somebody you have to be sure that he is ethical enough not to betray you.

That is why I see ethics as the only way to liberty. The laws are basically written ethical norms (I say about it in the end). In order to write them down you first have to get inner feeling of them, they somehow have to become the shared understanding between the members of society. That is what the community for and that is what people seems to be doing here. All other laws are coercive norms of majority (or whoever rules the republic).