To the editor:

I believe that David Claassen-Wilson’s Aug. 26 letter, “Against coercion,” presents an argument based on a false premise, namely, that “liberals and conservatives alike” claim to believe that “it is immoral to initiate the use of physical force against another human being.”

On the contrary, it is certainly true that people across the political spectrum often admit to a limited role for coercion (which Claassen-Wilson here equates with force), for instance, in preventing barbaric child labor practices, which are an example of what can happen when the “pursuit of happiness” of a few succeeds at the expense of the many.

Claassen-Wilson, in a sweeping dismissal of all political beliefs besides objectivism, opposes all coerced governmental redistribution of wealth, presumably preferring a totally uncontrolled market. I, however, would strongly question any view of human nature that assumes that the most successful in a laissez-faire market would not soon take undue advantage of their power — a power that would laugh at the “voluntarily” funded courts that he recommends, who, after all, would then be in the best position to fund these courts (or resort to force, failing those means)?

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely” however that power is derived. And, when people are reduced to desperate conditions such as grueling child labor, it doesn’t take any obvious coercion to keep them so reduced, since their condition may in all likelihood not afford them the bootstraps to pull themselves up with.

Chris Hayden,

Lawrence