[asift]

How? Free market capitalism is the epitome of creative thought.

It's not a limiting doctrine that says you can only do this or that. It's a doctrine that says you are free to engage with others however you want so long as you respect their autonomy and freedom to make their own decisions.

If someone wants to start a voluntary socialist commune, they have the freedom to do so within a free market. Unfortunately for aspiring socialists, most people don't voluntarily want to adopt socialism (at least beyond a particular point) and socialists must then turn to force and coercion in order to enact their preferred style of society. Ignoring the emergent orders that arise from a free society of creative individuals is the truly limiting mode of thinking. (Note: I just used socialism as an example. You could substitute any style of governance that doesn't respect individual autonomy.)

[aninhumer]

>It's not a limiting doctrine that says you can only do this or that.

Of course it is. It's a limiting doctrine that says "you may use the resources allocated to you within the property system, and no others".

This idea that property rights aren't a form of coercion is one of the most tiresome aspects of libertarian rhetoric.

Capitalism is a very effective economic system, and that efficiency often affords people more freedom than the alternatives, but it is still fundamentally a system of coercive constraints, as indeed any economic system must be.

[asift]

It's only coercive when you adopt some backwards conception of what coercion means. (E.g., The rapist claims they are being coerced because they can't do whatever they please with other peoples' bodies.)

I'll agree that there are many ways in which the status quo contains injustice as it relates to claims of ownership, but that's entirely different than calling the system of private property coercive. I also don't think there is one objective standard for what confers just and unjust title (i.e., I think this is an emergent social convention rather than some clearly definable concept), but that again is an entirely different topic.

[aninhumer]

>It's only coercive when you adopt some backwards conception of what coercion means.

If I try to use particular resources, the system will use violence to stop me. If you claim this isn't coercion, then I think it is your conception which is backwards.

>(E.g., The rapist claims they are being coerced because they can't do whatever they please with other peoples' bodies.)

Yes, the prevention of crimes is indeed a form of coercion.

This only sounds strange if you start with the assumption that coercion is inherently bad. If instead you recognise coercion as a necessary consequence of conflicting desires, you can start to discuss what coercion is justified.

Now I think property has shown to be a very effective economic system, and that using coercion to enforce it is therefore entirely justified. But it's still coercion.

[pnut]

But my freedom requires the exploitation of millions. Don't impede my creative thought!

Your binary perception of the world doesn't take into account why we have systems at all, be they capitalism or government. The point is to maximize quality for everyone, and you can't get there with a single tool.

[warfangle]

There sure was a whole lot of force and coercion behind social security.

[asift]

The fact that governments rely on coercion to enact policies like Social Security is not controversial among political philosophers. It's widely accepted.

The controversy is regarding which cases, if any, governmental coercion is justified. There is a wide degree of disagreement here, but even those who believe coercion is justified still admit that it's coercion.

[ArkyBeagle]

We adjusted to it and I don't know anybody who makes a coherent case for it not making everyone better off, so long as we can figure out the accounting for the temporary, "pig in the python" problem looming.

[asift]

There are lots of coherent cases against Social Security. For instance, there are far better ways to achieve the desired ends of providing a social safety net. My favorite would be eliminating all other forms of welfare and adopting a basic income.

[dragonwriter]

> There are lots of coherent cases against Social Security. For instance, there are far better ways to achieve the desired ends of providing a social safety net

Social Security is not even in theory aimed at providing a general social safety net, so its not surprising that there are better means if that is your goal.

[ArkyBeagle]

A basic income sounds to my ear like an expansion of Social Security, at least conceptually.