
Fine.  Libertarians and anarchists are not alone in being uncomfortable
with the use of state sponsored coercion.  The notion that coercion can
be virtually eliminated in a society (or more properly that once it is
eliminated on the part of the state it is no longer worth serious 
consideration) is a view that is peculiar to libertarians and anarchists.  

For example, does "non-initiated force" (coercion) include tax collection?
Does it include the minimal level of regulation of commerce envisioned
by Adam Smith?  Since coercion can be exercised by actors other than the
state, how is the state to deal with it?  Exclusively through after the
fact arbitration/legal compulsion?  


Well, I must admit that the picture of libertarians as Amway participants
is somewhat more reassuring than the idea of them trying to govern a 
complex, conflictual, industrial society.  I'd venture to point out, 
however, that if libertarians couldn't convince at least 85% of a group 
of "seminar participants" to "embrace" their philosophy, their 
propaganda skills need to be honed.  

Frankly, however, it is no great trick to create a government for a 
society in which (almost) everyone is assumed to agree about what is a proper
government policy.  Once that is assumed, all sorts of annoying formalities
can be dispensed with, elections, police, etc.  And as Mr. Marx said,
the state will just wither away.  

On the way there, however, would you like to explain how eliminating 
virtually all policies that restrain private coercion in the 
current society will help us to live happier lives? Or is it like
socialism; just some short-term pain that we'll have to bear until 
everyone has had the benefit of "re-education" through regular 
"seminar" training?

jsh
