I think you will find what all these destructive groups share, is exclusive group identity, and that is the more likely culprit, rather than groups themselves.

Exclusivity feeds the ego, the "us vs. them" mentality. Instead of helping an individual to self-actualize, such groups pull individuals away from it and try to replace the self with the group identity.

These are all just meaningless platitudes without any alternatives.

Let's take a simple case. I believe that excessive carbon emission is immoral (excessive to the point the most scientists in the field think it will negatively impact future generations). Others may think it moral. what do you suggest we do about that?

We can't just each do what we think - that way those who see it as moral will simply get their way, the atmosphere we both share will be polluted to the degree they're comfortable with.

I can't move - we've only one atmosphere.

We could negotiate, but all the while we're negotiating they're polluting the atmosphere to whatever extent they see fit ie they're getting their way. It's a de facto win for them.

We can't make different decisions for each small community - again, we all share the same atmosphere.

So how do we resolve this without democracy and government coercion? — Isaac

You truly concern yourself with "winning" in such great games?

I personally don't walk around with the weight of the world on my shoulders. Being a moral person happens in everyday life; not in opinions floating around in one's head.

To answer your question; if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win". If the only alternative is violence or coercion, I am in this case more than content with non-action, and I consider moral conduct a victory in itself.

So unless you're a hermit, you will have undertaken hundreds of such decisions which then entail moral responsibilities — Isaac

Name a few. Lets see if we agree.

I didn't say anything about moral conduct, we were talking about how you establish what is our property. an again, you've just told me what isn't and not what is. How do you establish that your gross wage is your property? — Isaac

I don't have an answer for that. I think the idea of property is too complicated for a simple answer. Regardless of what the law says, I don't think the state holds any moral right to take through violence what it believes to be hers. Nor do I think the state holds any stronger claim to property than the individual does.

Then the strong get whatever they want, which you expressly said you were opposed to. — Isaac

So how do they defend themselves against the neighbouring 'small government' who are just that little bit stronger. They'd just be defeated gradually until the strongest took over more land than they could administer, at which point they'd retreat to a scale of governance just below that... Oh wait, all that actually happened, it's called history. — Isaac

Yes, it is. One big mess of self-perpetuating violence fought with more violence. Bravo.

It's not about the problem, it's about the solution. — Isaac

And the solution was never, more violence.

You're consistent dodging, and changing the subject when your position is shown to be untenable is strongly suggesting otherwise. — Isaac

If you believe you have won and I am simply dodging your superior points, then what are you still doing here?

Why waste your time with such a simpleton as I?

How so? — Isaac

We may disagree on what is reasonable, so let us not through coercion force upon others what we believe to be reasonable.

So you've no moral responsibility for anything then, since all of life is something you've been involuntarily thrown into with rules that you've no power over? — Isaac

Not all of life is involuntary, but what a person is to do with the life they have been given, as far as it relates to themselves, is not a matter of moral responsibility. Ergo, if a person wants to end their life, I don't see that as immoral, considering they were not born voluntarily.

If a parent wants to take their own life, it becomes different, because they've made the voluntary choice to have children and that does become a matter of moral responsibility.

The law. The contract you signed. The market value. — Isaac

I don't think any of these form a definitive basis for moral conduct. In some cases laws may prescribe moral behavior. In other cases they may not. This is a subjective matter, and therefore I am highly sceptical of those who would try to force them upon others.

This is why the concept of 'property' which you keep sidestepping is fundamental to your position. — Isaac

It is not. I would consider it unjust even if one were to reclaim through violence or threat thereof their "rightful property" (whatever that may mean and to whoever it may belong).

So morality is optional? Depends on whether you agree or not? I think you're confusing morality with personal preference. — Isaac

I have my thoughts about what is moral, and for me personally moral conduct is not optional.

However, I do recognize that morality is also a highly subjective matter, and that attempting to force subjective views onto others through whatever violent means is contrary to that understanding.

True. I should have said a method of collective decision-making and enforcement. It doesn't alter the point. It's either that or the strongest get their way. — Isaac

The choices you present are one and the same. The remedy is to decentralize power, in other words, small government. This way, whoever counts as "the strongest", is as weak as possible.

Yes. that obviously have no consequences the way you've defined them. — Isaac

How do you feel, for example, about the fact your government may use the money it takes from you, to wage war, the necessity of which, I hope we can agree, I highly debatable?

That fact that it's possible for people to reach very different conclusion with integrity does not prove that any given person is doing so does it? — Isaac

Perhaps your conclusion that I am not, is one you are drawing too swiftly.

What you think is reasonable in that regard may not be what others think is reasonable — Isaac

A perfect argument for small government.

Even so much as buying a loaf of bread involves the use of common resources with which other might disagree. — Isaac

Indeed, but individuals do not partake in this system voluntarily, so I don't agree that one shares any responsibility for injustices perpetuated by said system. Perhaps more importantly, I don't see how one could hold a moral responsibility for something one has no power over.

The point is that the money you get in return for your labour includes tax that belongs to the government. — Isaac

Based on what?

Your use of shared resources like air and water includes a social contract with other users to contribute to the shared maintenance costs. — Isaac

A social contract can exist, but only on the basis of mutual voluntariness, not threats of violence. Obviously such a contract would have no moral weight.

The only options are collective agreement and enforcement — Isaac

A contradiction in terms.

Well then the matter of the justness or unjustness of an action has absolutely no consequence — Isaac

You believe the fact that our system is fundamentally based on injustice, namely coercion and violence, has no consequences?

Adult behaviour is not circumscribed by polite language. — Isaac

"What they believe seems so obviously true, that if you are standing in the way of it, either you must be incredibly stupid, utterly uninformed or simply dishonest. People like that find it very hard to believe that someone else could honestly, sincerely and intelligently reach a different conclusion. They talk about how complex the world is, but it never seems to be complex enough that other people could have read the same evidence they've looked at and come up with a different conclusion." - Thomas Sowel

Thanks for letting me share one of my favorite quotes, and I'll let you figure out how it relates to adult behavior.

That's "might makes right" by negligence. You don't get to absolve yourself of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions by saying "I didn't agree to this" if you didn't offer an alternative either. — Isaac

They are not my actions, and I am not so sure there exists any moral responsibility to rely on unjust means to attain what one considers desirable results.

It doesn't. Unless you want to claim that the exact recompense for labour, to the penny, is somehow a common feeling we all share? — Isaac

No, I don't. Are your views based on such feelings, you think?

Well they're absolutely evidently not are they? — Isaac

I think they are, to anyone who understands the subjectivity our existence is subject to (on a philosophy forum, I assumed there would be many!).

So it's unjust to use coercion to prevent a shooter from gunning down a dozen children. — Isaac

Yes. But as stated before, some injustice can be accepted as a necessary evil in view of the imperfect nature of man. It doesn't make it just. That would be absurd.

Your 'alternative view' leads to some horrific consequences and you don't seem to even care. What else am I to make of that? — Isaac

Such is the nature of disagreement on these sorts of topics, and I am thinking the exact same thing listening to some of your views.

If you want to hear more about my ideas, then engage with them like an adult. If you do not, then what are you doing here other than trying to extinguish your own doubts?


Now then, lets switch it around.

If we accept that violence and coercion can be just means to what we believe to be a just end, then all that is stopping one from enforcing their views of justice on others is whether they have the power to do so. In other words, might makes right. Morality is meaningless, if one holds a view such as this. Literally any course of action can be justified through it, and history is filled with examples.

The solution was to moral conflicts where the parties cannot reach a mutually agreed solution - so voluntary interaction and association doesn't answer the question. — Isaac

Then there shall be no solution that I am willing to be a part of.

My mistake. So are they? — Isaac

The words "rightful" and "property" could each fill a forum thread on their own, and I believe our interactions are starting to exceed what is practical to reply to at once, so therefore I will let this lie.

For now, I don't think this can be answered with a simple yes/no.

I think it's a common feeling we share so no real need to 'derive' it, it's a fundamental precept. — Isaac

How does this relate to your earlier statement that accused me of relying on "mystical" means?

If not the tyranny of the majority, then what? — Isaac

Does a scientist who debunks a certain scientific theory only become valid once he offers an alternative? I think not.

If it's not capable of forcing it's will on others then how does it ensure that it's choice is enacted — Isaac

Likely, it often cannot, which is precisely the point.

What magical ability did those people have to decide such matters that we lack? — Isaac

What I'm saying is, I believe the most important moral conflicts to be solved through threat of violence need to be enshrined in a constitution, precisely because the use of such a tool is so fundamentally wrong and only ever a necessary evil. Writing it down in a constitution should ensure a government is never able to expand its mandate for coercion. Power inevitably consolidates, grows and corrupts. A constitution should provide a boundary a government is unable to cross.

And these boundaries are pretty universal, as far as I am concerned. The thinkers of the 17th and the 18th century were thinking about the same fundamental problems with government as we are today.

I said a course of action cannot be immoral when the end is moral and there's no alternative. — Isaac

I disagree.

Everything in this sentence is susepctible to subjectivity, meaning that it could be used as a justification for literally any course of action.

I'm trying to draw out the implicit reliance on it. — Isaac

There is none. Coercion is an unjust means all by itself.

There are two types of people who promote small government. Those who value autonomy and those who value selfishness. Obviously the latter are people I do not well tolerate and the more ludicrous your counter arguments sound the less tolerant I become of them. These things have real consequences, If we were discussing the merits of Star Wars, I'd hold myself to a level of moderation, but you're suggesting the poor should starve, that children should go un-housed, that medical care be withheld from those too poor to afford it, that the wealthy should be allowed to steal common resources without bar. These are not morally neutral position we can discuss as if it were a game of cricket. — Isaac

That explains the hostility. I'm used to this sort of kneejerk reaction on this forum, sadly. One cannot present a different opinion on this forum without being framed as a Trump-supporting, moneygrubbing, redneck, evil capitalist. If you would like to do the same, then it speaks of your ignorance; not mine.

I think you are making an awful lot of assumptions about what I am suggesting, and our interactions will be much more fruitful if you do not.

If taxation and government intervention in moral conflicts is a necessary method of achieving right goals, then it is the right thing to do. — Isaac

No.

"Might makes right" and "the ends justify the means" are not suitable principles to base one's actions upon.

What use is it saying that it's 'wrong, but necessary', where does that get us? — Isaac

It stops us from regarding it as a just means to an end.

It's really tiresome you keep telling us what is not acceptable and yet refusing to answer questions about what is. — Isaac

Why does it bother you so? A just alternative is not required to acknowledge something as unjust.

I asked you exactly the same type of question about private property and you didn't answer, so why should anyone provide you with an answer with regards state property?

From where would a private individual derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the individual's property"? Who gave it to the individual? — Isaac

The question of what is "rightful property" was never a part of my argument.

Also, I was enjoying our discussion, but the tone seems to be turning somewhat sour. Can we not?

Notwithstanding that, if you want to oppose 'might makes right' you need to supply an alternative, something which you've manifestly failed to do. — Isaac

Voluntary interaction and association, of course.

You must have an answer because you confidently say that taxes are not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac

That is not something I have said.

Yes. that is generally enshrined in most law. I think it's 'right' that we get to decide what we do with our own bodies insofar as it doesn't interfere with the decision of others what to do with theirs. — Isaac

And where is that right derived from?

If the people agree, they get to enforce it. — Isaac

If some people agree, they get to enforce it onto everyone.

A sad state of affairs. The tyranny of the majority, they call it. And majorities can be wrong both morally and factually.

I thought you were opposed to 'might makes right'? Who do you think is going to get their way in the case of a conflict if you do nothing? The one with the nicest hair? — Isaac

A body of power that is much smaller than government, and therefore much less capable of enforcing its will on others.

As for the constitution... if you're seriously suggesting that the only way this question can be answered is by reference to what a handful of men from the eighteenth century thought, then we really have left the realm of sensible discussion. — Isaac

The United States isn't the only nation with a constitution.

Ok, so would taxation still be theft if the final punishment that you were threatened with involved the government sending you to live in some forest away from civilization unless another country wants to take you as it’s citizen? — TheHedoMinimalist

Note that I have not argued that taxation is theft. What I am arguing is that threatening people with violence is undesirable, in most cases immoral, never a just means to an end and in some cases a necessary evil.

However, keeping in mind what I just stated, I'd like to answer your question.

Is there still a threat of violence in effect when the punishment is exile instead of imprisonment? I would assume so. If the person refuses to be exiled, what would the state do? They would force them through physical violence. In other words, the threat of violence is still there.

After all, you might be entitled to not go to prison for refusing to pay your taxes but are you entitled to be able to continue living in the country that you refuse to pay your taxes in? — TheHedoMinimalist

It is a bit backwards to have someone be born into a country involuntarily and then ask them what right they have for living there. From where would a state derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the state's property"? Who gave it to the state?

It is the state's, because the state has the power to enforce that claim. Ergo, it acts on the principle of "might makes right", which, as far as I am concerned, is no right at all.

Well, could you provide me with some specific examples of what you have in mind here? — TheHedoMinimalist

Wars, corruption, propaganda, government scandals, well-intentioned but ill-advised policies. The evils of government should be self-explanatory.

You could, but I'm not the one implying that some things are 'rightful property' and others aren't by some mystical external means. — Isaac

The money rightly belongs to the government. — Isaac

You wish to make a case for "might makes right", which is fine. But I don't think you would like the implications.

If you want to invoke some other means of establishing rightful property, such that the government might still 'steal' it — Isaac

Do you think your body is your rightful property?

despite having a legal claim to it — Isaac

And where do such legal claims stem from, if not states simply appropriating to themselves "rights" that they enforce through power?

If a moral conflict is not resolveable, within the timescale required, to the satisfaction of both parties, what do you do? — Isaac

Me, personally? Nothing. Mediate, perhaps, if both parties agreed they wished for me to do so. I could see a role for governments as mediators, but not all moral conflicts are solvable, and even less are solvable through use of violence or threats thereof.

Government is most people's answer to that question. If you want to reject government action in these situations you need to supply an alternative. — Isaac

Small government is the alternative. The constitution determines what moral conflicts are severe enough to be arbitrated by a government (and we can have a discussion about what those could be), and the rest is left for people to deal with on their own, like adults, I'd almost add.

agree but I think taxation can also be justified if the state uses this money for the maintenance of civilized society that allows us all to be somewhat wealthy in the first place and just for the general public benefit. — TheHedoMinimalist

I would disagree that it can be justified, but in such a case it can be tolerated.

We are, however, continuing to assume states are benevolent and don't use the wealth they received through threat of violence to commit injustice.

We know that in fact, they do. All the time.

Indeed. Though, I think recognizing it as a necessary evil avoids stepping into the pitfall of regarding it as a just means to an end.

If the adult child wants to move out then the father would have to give the console back. Though, the father can demand the console as rent if the adult child still wants to continue living under his father’s roof. I think this is analogous... — TheHedoMinimalist

Just like a child does not choose to be born in the father's home, so the individual does not choose to be born within a state's borders.

It is analagous insofar as the father's ill parenting can be compared to the state's ill governance.

I suppose it might seem problematic that the punishment for not paying your taxes might be jail time. Though, that is rarely the punishment. — TheHedoMinimalist

Because most people, wisely, do not let it get that far. However, that does nothing to change the fact that this is what is being threatened with.

How are you concluding that? What method of establishing who has a right to what are you applying? — Isaac

I could ask the same of you, no?

All I know is that "might makes right" is no basis.

Are you suggesting that all moral conflicts can be resolved in a timely fashion without imposing a solution on either party. — Isaac

I am not.

I don't think all moral conflicts need a solution. And when they do, I don't think government (aka, threatening violence) is a desirable way to go about solving them. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But as stated before, I am not oppossed to government as a whole. I can see a clear case for governments threatening with violence to protect others physical safety. I would still regard it as a necessary evil, at best.

The government doesn't coerce with the threat of violence in the case of taxes though. It deters. The money rightly belongs to the government. — Isaac

If you truly believe this, then I think further discussion on this subject will be fruitless. Governments don't have a right to anything, other than what they themselves appropriated through force.

So you think it's wrong for people to get together and decide for themselves then. Because you're opposing the result of that process. — Isaac

The key word is "themselves". Even democratically elected governments don't decide for themselves, they decide for others also, and reinforce those decisions through threats of violence.

This is undesirable. I'm willing to accept it as a necessary evil, but only under the condition that governments' power is kept as small as possible.

I was talking about the government. It's illegal to steal cars. The government makes the overt threat that you will be forcibly imprisoned if to take a car you don't own. It makes the same overt threat if you take money you don't own. I'm not seeing the difference. Are you saying that the government should protect your property but not it's own, or that it shouldn't protect your property either? — Isaac

As I said, the difference is between coercion (forcing someone to do something by threatening with violence) and deterrence (stopping someone from doing something through threatening with violence).

Both are undesirable, because ideally we would not threaten with violence at all, but the former is a graver injustice than the latter.

You mean you don't work for anyone? — Isaac

I do, but I do not threaten them and I never asked for a government to threaten them either.

Except that's not what you're saying is it? Because people did figure it out for themselves. They gathered together, selected candidates, asked others to vote, ceded power to those individuals to make decisions for the benefit of the group and enforce those decisions against those who disagreed. You're now saying they got that wrong. — Isaac

It is exactly what I am saying.

What you're pointing out is that people got together and decided not to let people figure it out amongst themselves anymore.

And yes, I think that is wrong.

They did, a long time ago. They came up with government. What alternative do you offer? — tim wood

As I said.

Even if the child was a legal adult and bought the console himself with the money that he earned, I think most people would not think that it would be theft if the father took the console as long as the child continues living under his roof. This is because the console can only provide utility for the child if that child also has access to electricity and the console would be worthless without the assistance that he is receiving from his father. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think this example clearly constitutes theft. Just because someone lives under someone else's roof, does not forfeit their right to their property.

I thought people pondering over the skin color of their baby were suggesting Meghan was having an affair. :lol:

I don't see what difference that makes. — Isaac

An assumption takes place in the head of the assumer. If an individual wants to make assumptions about my reaction to them taking my property, then I am the subject and not the actor.

In the case of taxation, the government is clearly the actor and overtly threatens with violence.

That's a different matter altogether. Not liking what a government is doing and not liking governments are two very different positions. — Isaac

Sure. But I think it is relevant.

Again, this just assumes the threat of violence is required. when you work for someone, they're required to pay you by threat of violence. So how do you avoid that? — Isaac

This is not an action I am undertaking or even voluntarily a part of. It is not my responsibility to avoid it, though I can voice my displeasure at this state of affairs as I am doing now.

What do you suggest we do (in cases of moral conflict) to resolve those conflicts other than use democratically elected governments to decide which course of action to take and enforce it if necessary? — Isaac

Beyond protecting people from physical violence and overt threats thereof (in a more general sense: protection citizens' constitutional rights), I don't see much a role for government in the arbitration of moral conflicts. Let people figure it out for themselves.

s not police restraint and eventual imprisonment not a violent reprisal clearly stated in law? — Isaac

It is. Therefore, the threat is clearly stated and no assumption needs to be made.

I'd like to think so too. So the crux of the matter isn't anything to do with legal property, it's to do with the fairness of each person having their needs met. we'd allow the starving man that loaf, regardless of the means by which he acquired it, regardless of his legal rights to it, regardless of the fact that another has a claim on it...rather we'd allow him it entirely on the grounds that he should have it, that it would be inhuman to deny him it.

So how are taxes different, in essence? — Isaac

The fact that I was going to share the loaf of broad, does not changed the fact that I am being threatened into doing so.

What happens when all-benevolent loaf-of-bread-sharing governments turns into something else?

What it comes down to, is governments forcing their inhabitants to act in accordance with subjective moral viewpoints through threats of violence.

That I may or may not agree with said moral viewpoints is, as far as I am concerned, not relevant; the means are unjust.

In a world where people would not pay taxes unless forced by threat of violence to do so, I can't see how those same people would refrain from just driving away in your car unless threat of violence prevented them. what is it about your car which makes it sacrosanct in the minds of the same people who would let children starve for want of a few pounds on their tax bill? — Isaac

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I think the somewhat bleak picture you are sketching is exactly the world we are living in now. People apparently need to be forced to care. I think that fact is as unfortunate as the coercion itself.

The difference is that between coercion and deterrence. In addition, the violent reprisal to the would-be car thief is an assumption on the thief's part, whereas the intention of government to coerce one with violence is clearly stated in law.

For example, I'd imagine that if the object to be stolen was a loaf of bread and the thief had some good reason for stealing it, there may not be any violent reprisals at all.

If you posit a world where people care as little as possible about the welfare of others unless forced by threat of violence to do more, I don't see ownership being anything other than a free-for-all with the strongest winning. — Isaac

I don't posit this. Doesn't the fact that people need to be forced to pay taxes imply it? And wishing for all the power to be in the hands of government is simply another version of the strongest winning.

True of all property. — Isaac

Is it?

How many would pay taxes if there wasn't a punishment for not doing so?

Thus, governments take what they want under threat of violence.

Whether that is ethical I will leave to each to decide for their own.

You pick some demographic and you figure out what they fear.
Then you feed that fear through media and present a scapegoat.

Well said.

In short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, he abases himself - combats his egoism -, but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake. — Gus Lamarch

Even as an egoist this seems rather foolish, for aren't their political opinions more concerned with the sacrifices of others instead of their own?

(I liked your post, by the way)

You must be deathly afraid that he is right.

While rational thought may lead us to conclude that retributive justice is no justice at all, reality forces the legal system to take into account the victim's experience of justice.

If the system cannot provide a solution that appeases the victims (and their close relations), the risk will be very high for them to take matters into their own hands.

And of course, punishment is also thought to function as a deterrent.

An interesting new trend where everything that one doesn't like is branded as "anti-Semitic".

So why does the question "why?" get raised with regards to such cherry-picking, as you stated in the quote I cited? — Isaac

Isn't that obvious? Why would I allow myself luxuries when I know that they cause harm? Would this make sense from an ethical standpoint? Doesn't a luxury imply that I do not need it? And what does this mean for almost everything I own? These should be quite humbling questions, which should help you make sense of that quote.

This is why I noted that this should be discussed without attitudes of moral superiority — Tzeentch

You appear to be raising the property of consistency above the property of causing harm. — Isaac

I do nothing of the sort.

There is surely some ethical reason to mitigate your impact though, right? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Perhaps, but what I tried to point out is the following:

To stop eating meat is basically foregoing a luxury or convenience because it came about through what one deems unethical practices.

But what of many other, similar luxuries and conveniences in our lives; superfluous, but in some direct or indirect way harmful to others (like driving cars).

If one allows themselves to cherry pick what luxuries one sacrifices and what luxuries one chooses to keep, it quickly begs the question "Why?"

And if one allows themselves to cherry pick, then shouldn't others be allowed to cherry pick as well?

This is why I noted that this should be discussed without attitudes of moral superiority; if anything it should show how morally imperfect we are.

I don't think the "leftist bias" on this forum inhibits discussion.

I think the behavior of certain members, some of which probably would style themselves as leftist, inhibits discussion.

I would say in a democracy the first step to better politicians is a better educated and less gullible population.

Some political movements considered left-leaning have. Some political movements considered right-leaning have used the state toward their ends as well. — Pfhorrest

Excluding perhaps a few fringes, I'd say they all have, and are.

The original left-right axis, which recognized [...] that you can't attain liberty without equality — Pfhorrest

Then you cannot attain liberty at all, and we should stop with all the false advertising!

To clarify, the question was tongue-in-cheek, and like I said I am unconvinced of the left-right division in general.

“Leftism” is not a form of statism. — Pfhorrest

I'd argue it is.

Or does it not use the state as a means to pursue social and economic equality?

Both left and right have abused the state, but the original left-right divide had the state on the side of the right. — Pfhorrest

So has the left moved to the right, or the right moved to the left?

I should specify I use the term 'left' and 'right' in somewhat of a modern sense, though I am not convinced of their usefulness. Any system that puts liberty and equality in the same box is bound to be contradictory.

Old definitions have given way to new realities.

There is nothing new under the sun. "New" leftism is simply a more overt and vulgar expression of what has always characterized leftism, and indeed most forms of statism; the use of (government) coercion to impose one's own views on others.

There are plenty of people who think that equality is the natural way of things in a free society, and inequality only arises through the exercise of authority. — Pfhorrest

The great paradox at the heart of all of this type of thinking, is the idea that then through the use of authority should individuals be forced to be equal.

Their definition of a free society is similarly paradoxical. Freedom unavoidably leads to unequality, so when there is mention of a "free" society in this context, it isn't in fact free. A government is needed to tell individuals exactly how free they are allowed to be.

Thereby these ideas supports the greatest and most inescapable heirarchy; that between governments and their citizens. With every law that is passed to further this idea of equality, more force and more authority is exercised, and a stronger heirarchy established.

Interesting discussion.

I think society, and especially governments, rely greatly on coercion to force individuals to behave in certain ways.

Consider that almost all our interactions with governments are involuntary, and our compliance based on fears of what may happen if we don't.

How many people would pay taxes if there were no consequences for not paying them? Very few, I estimate. What this implies is that all these people are being successfully coerced into paying taxes, under threat of violence, which is what imprisonment is.