TheAgitator.com
Coercing Matthew Yglesias
Monday, June 28th, 2004Matthew Yglesias says that coercion “has a vital role to play in building a better tomorrow.”
Okay, so Yglesias isn’t a libertarian. But statemtents like this one from otherwise smart people continue to confound me. Even tossing out the quaint notion that a man ought to have ownership of his own body, his own labor, and what he creates with it, Yglesias still has to assume that those doing the coercing will be coercing in a way Yglesias approves, that they’ll be coercring goods and labor Yglesias is okay with, and that the coercer’s definition of “better” more or less jibes with Yglesias’s.
How often is he going to get that? And how is he going to get it? Through rule by democracy? Philosopher kings? The editorial board of The American Prospect?
Hat tip: Catallarchy.
Slightly off topic, but Matt’s mother died last week…
Not that it has anything to do with what he says about the use of force, but just thought people might want to send their condolences.
“…but fortunately enough we live in the real world, where people understand the vital role coercion has to play in building a better tomorrow.”
Lenin couldn’t have said it better himself, but he came close a number of times. Stalin implemented these policies quite successfully at least as far as he was concerned – he really changed things in the Soviet Union for quite a number of people. Other leaders learned and followed.
Yeah, ‘coercion’ has quite the reputation for being a fucking failure.
Oops, the post above is mine ;-)
Yglesias’s sentiments are pretty much the reason why I defaulted to being a Republican in my political youth — the core motivating ideology (coercing our way to a better tomorrow) of the left scares the beejezus outta me. Every so often they slip up and expose their repellant core beliefs. The fact that Republicans have failed dismally at following their small government rhetoric is what led me to becoming a (small “l”) libertarian.
Regarding the question many have posed about “who decides what is better?”…
Well, Democrats do, of course! The circular logic of the left is that, so long as you keep voting for the morally superior Democrats, the coercive power of the State will be used for good! Rawlsian theories of justice dictate you aren’t entitled to what you have, anyway. Silly libertarians! :O
Coercion is the final refuge of the frightened and incompetent.
Matthew Yglesias says that coercion “has a vital role to play in building a better tomorrow.”
Only an anarchist would disagree with that.
Balko On Yglesias
I like Radley Balko and I like his blog. That’s why I feel obliged to take him to task for stuff like this:Matthew Yglesias says that coercion “has a vital
hmm…is it just me, or have all of Matt’s comments for that archive group been conveniently wiped out?
Looks like he’s having problems with his site and has temporarily set up shop here:
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/
I doubt it’s convienient.
Evan,
Going back to the old Ben Franklin quote that I [over]use so much, in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep vote on what’s for lunch. In a republic, the wolves don’t get to vote on lunch, and the sheep is well-armed.
Which does Yglesias prefer?
The sheep and the wolves have come to an understanding, the sheep get to vote for wolves and they can all try to work their way up to wolf. So there’s no problem anymore with the wolves voting on lunch, the sheep are for it.
The power to tax is the power to vote on lunch and Franklin was in it up to his eyeballs.