| | Steve:
I don't understand what the last part means? What is this "force... required to prohibit the discipline of discrimination in forming free associations..."?
In my hypothetical -- a government funded by voluntary contributions, and by self-directed distribution of those contributions, in order to prohibit the voluntary/free association wishes of that subset that wished to construct their socius(commerce, fraternity, whatever)based on freely established principles of association, force would be required to prohibit it. (I clearly don't agree with that use of force for that purpose.)
But in that hypothetical nation, with a government funded in that fashion for limited public purpose, there would be(at least, but much more)two broad classes of people:
A] People who did not require access to such public profile information, who did not support disclosure of it, and who would freely not include in their socius those who did require it.
B] People who did, and who formed their socius based on the principle of informed free association.
Group B] would be free to associate with/support/conduct commerce with those members of Group A as they see fit. If none of them, then none of them. With no basis to bitch, either at what Group A decides to fund with its tax dollars, or chooses not to fund with its tax dollars, or even, blindly supports with its tax dollars. (I'm using 'tax' as a shorthand. "Voluntary Contributions to the state" is too long.)
And, vice versa. No force, and yet, an enforcement mechanism to collect funding for common government without force, a condition of free association that applies a discipline, both to freeloaders and to the advocates of public causes that are not widely shared.
Along with, an abdication of the ethical right to bitch about the voluntary choices of others; given that remedy exists in such a hypothetical state-- the right to discriminate based on disclosure of public profile -- there is no need or right or obligation to gripe about the free choices of others, freely made. If it is too much of a hair shirt to bear what the state does in our name, then ... withdraw your inclusion socius from that part of the state that supports that action or inaction.
If the cost of withdrawing that inclusion exceeds the pain of the hairshirt, then choose the greater value, like always.
There is no obligation to provide pain-free choices for everyone, nor is that even remotely possible.
Example: state funding of abortion. There are a set of choices that can be made, ranging from a] decide to support or not support it directly with your tax dollars, b] decide to include in your socius (commerce, fraternity, whatever) those who agree with your position on that issue.
Or, only a], and freely choose not to discriminate your socius based on that issue.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Discriminate on any such public profile issue you wish, or not.
Discipline for freeloaders and over-activists alike, to the degree that individuals find it personally necessary or desirable to exert, without applying force.
The only 'force' at work is peer-peer discrimination, as equals, easily avoided, and non-coercive. It is applied only in the context of free association.
The only conflicts are in cases where it is claimed that free association does not apply to the choosing of one's socius. ie, where a state claims a justifies use of force in the forming of forced association.
BTW, in my hypothetical, I wouldn't make it a requirement to direct the use of tax. Folks would be free to specify 'unspecified' and those funds would be directed as they are now, through a(largely unsightly and out of all control) representative political process.
Or, as many in the tribe would say, 'nutty stuff' -- after appealing to some ultimately religious argument in our non-theocracy, jarringly speaking for either God or "S"ociety.
|
|
