States require revenue, usually copious amounts, but cannot create wealth. One issue not discussed is that states use their coercive powers to raise revenue through direct ownership of the means of production and/or taxation. Both methods of raising revenue no matter how well thought out, necessary and just will be resented as attempts to interfere with and dominate the citizenry. As with membership in any organization, states must demonstrate in word and deed that the advantages of membership outweigh the loss of freedom. States unable to do so will ratchet up their coercive power resulting in further losses of freedom.
A delicately balanced discussion. But I think Mr. Pettit walks a tightrope when he suggests that a work relationship (indeed any human relationship) can avoid aspects of dominance and submission. Looking to his left, he risks falling into the abyss of perverse incentives that discourage hard work. To his right he risks a plunge into socialist denial of private property rights. He should keep his focus firmly on individual choice so he won’t be tripped up by Panglossian illusions. As long as the contract is understood by the employee and not coerced, there is no gap at all to be bridged. The employee can always quit, string his own wire, and pick his own path.
I think we should give the last word regarding “freedom” to Alfred Jarry in “Ubu Roi:”
“PISSWEET: Forward, comrades! Hurrah for freedom!... We are free to do what we want, even to obey. We are free to go anywhere we choose, even to prison! Slavery is the only true freedom!
ALL: Hurrah for Pissweet!
PISSWEET: In response to your pleas, I agree to take over command. Forward! Let’s break into the prisons and abolish freedom! (V.1., tr. Taylor)”
States require revenue, usually copious amounts, but cannot create wealth. One issue not discussed is that states use their coercive powers to raise revenue through direct ownership of the means of production and/or taxation. Both methods of raising revenue no matter how well thought out, necessary and just will be resented as attempts to interfere with and dominate the citizenry. As with membership in any organization, states must demonstrate in word and deed that the advantages of membership outweigh the loss of freedom. States unable to do so will ratchet up their coercive power resulting in further losses of freedom.
"Non-domination". I like that.
A delicately balanced discussion. But I think Mr. Pettit walks a tightrope when he suggests that a work relationship (indeed any human relationship) can avoid aspects of dominance and submission. Looking to his left, he risks falling into the abyss of perverse incentives that discourage hard work. To his right he risks a plunge into socialist denial of private property rights. He should keep his focus firmly on individual choice so he won’t be tripped up by Panglossian illusions. As long as the contract is understood by the employee and not coerced, there is no gap at all to be bridged. The employee can always quit, string his own wire, and pick his own path.
I think we should give the last word regarding “freedom” to Alfred Jarry in “Ubu Roi:”
“PISSWEET: Forward, comrades! Hurrah for freedom!... We are free to do what we want, even to obey. We are free to go anywhere we choose, even to prison! Slavery is the only true freedom!
ALL: Hurrah for Pissweet!
PISSWEET: In response to your pleas, I agree to take over command. Forward! Let’s break into the prisons and abolish freedom! (V.1., tr. Taylor)”