The difference is that a person can opt-out of a transaction or contract in free enterprise. Don't sign the contract, and there's no threat of violence, implicit or otherwise.
On the other hand, there's no way for a person to opt-out of government coercion.
@Cushman History has shown pretty clearly that governments on the more-coercive side of the spectrum have caused more death and destruction than those on the less-coercive side.
A government coercing dollars out of a population by force and a society that is based on using products produced by people other than themselves are two different things altogether.
> History has shown pretty clearly that governments on the more-coercive side of the spectrum have caused more death and destruction than those on the less-coercive side.
I'm not seeing it. Absent governments in the third world cause quite a bit of death and destruction every year.
> A government coercing dollars out of a population by force and a society that is based on using products produced by people other than themselves are two different things altogether.
Until somebody steals something. Then you've got two options: Either you let them take it, in which case you're communist and don't have property, or you chase them down and make them give it back, in which case you're a despot and every transaction made is only made with your implicit consent.
Of course you can-- you can move somewhere else. But you'll be likely to find that places without "government coercion", i.e. government, are not as much nicer as you had imagined.
Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out. Not really seeing the difference here.
"Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out."
<sarcasm>Well then they can move somewhere else...</sarcasm>
What you're describing isn't free enterprise, so it's disingenuous to use it as an example as if it's the normal case. I could use North Korea as an example of excessive government, but I'm not because I realize it's not the usual case.
Correct. Government is not free enterprise. To govern a body is to take control of it to a certain extent.
We can quibble about how much control is too much, but that's the topic of this debate, not whether or not the government is controlling. I rather think "free enterprise" leads to horrible things when said "enterprise" begins to affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and I like that we build systems to manage those large-scale enterprises rather than leaving them up to individual whim. It would be nice if we had more of those systems – say, to stop children from getting sick and dying just because their parents couldn't find work.
On the other hand, there's no way for a person to opt-out of government coercion.