"This is the history of governments,--one man does something which is to bind another. A man who cannot be acquainted with me, taxes me; looking from afar at me ordains that a part of my labor shall go to this or that whimsical end,--not as I, but as he happens to fancy."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays: Second Series, 1844

i know this has nothing to do with this post, but the washington post article says the army and marines are asking for more troops. i hope the draft isnt far away :)

What, I wonder, is Emerson's alternative.

I do agree with Emerson as I think the quiet rebel in us all refuse to give up individual freedom to make our own decisions. But isn’t this the essence of the kind of Representative Republican government we‘ve chosen (or have had chosen for us) to operate under here in the U.S.? It’s just very unfortunate that those who govern and make life decisions for us have become part of such an elite club where its members have removed themselves and gotten further away from those they govern.

"What, I wonder, is Emerson's alternative." -Ralph

Perhaps a free society, where violently coercing others for subjective whims is not accepted.

I know many conservatives as of late see this as a nightmare. I see it as a dream.

"I do agree with Emerson as I think the quiet rebel in us all refuse to give up individual freedom to make our own decisions. But isn’t this the essence of the kind of Representative Republican government we‘ve chosen (or have had chosen for us) to operate under here in the U.S.? It’s just very unfortunate that those who govern and make life decisions for us have become part of such an elite club where its members have removed themselves and gotten further away from those they govern." -asdf

Its no more morally desirable to be mugged by a mob than it is to be mugged by a lone man. Certainly I believe representative republics are better than any other form of government, but in this specific regard, they are no better, and their actions are no more justifiable.

Simply put, there is no morally valid way to infringe on private property, regardless of what end you seek or however worthy you think it is. This is something that central planners, left and right, need to learn.

"Perhaps a free society, where violently coercing others for subjective whims is not accepted."

As before, I find your use of "violent coercion" obscure.

Emerson is complaining about men binding other men, e.g., to pay for things that the latter do not want to pay for. It seems that the only way to avoid such binding is either for every man to agree on the things to be paid for or for no man to be bound to pay for anything. Both alternatives are impossible.

I think perhaps the Emerson's complaint is directed toward projects, not toward simple rule of law, though he certainly does not spell this distinction out.

If we read him that way, we can say: government projects are always legalized robbery, but simple rule of law -- i.e., enforcement of rules about how to live within communities -- may perhaps be OK.

If we can't this then Emerson would simply be an anarchist, and (I think) that is foolish.

"As before, I find your use of "violent coercion" obscure.

Emerson is complaining about men binding other men, e.g., to pay for things that the latter do not want to pay for. It seems that the only way to avoid such binding is either for every man to agree on the things to be paid for or for no man to be bound to pay for anything. Both alternatives are impossible."

Why? What are some areas where socialism works *stunningly* better than capitalism?

The only areas where there is a case is the military and courts, and I'm not totally convinced there.