> den Otter wrote:
> >We are no Powers, and therefore must co-operate in order to improve
> >our situation [...]
>
> Yes, that's obvious. But cooperation does not equate to coercion; the two
> are mutually exclusive.
If by "coercion" you mean giving up some of your freedom so that cooperation with not completely like-minded people becomes possible, than they certainly aren't mutually exclusive, but rather a basic necessity for progress. Semantically speaking, cooperation and coercion aren't mutually exclusive either, as the former is defined as "working together to same end", not *voluntarily* working together to same end.
> >I prefer the one by Anders: "Individualists of the world, unite!"
>
> That always cracks me up. Or how about, "Anarchists of the world, rally
> 'round your leader"?
It may sound silly, but it's true. It's all nice and well to be a lone rebel, but it doesn't really get you anywhere. It's more rational to sacrifice a little freedom now, and reap unprecented autonomy later.
> >>"a society which surrenders some small measure of freedom
> >>for security shall end up with neither",
>
> >If you don't do it, you won't have a society at all (bye progress, hello
> >suffering and death).
>
> Why are you assuming that we can't have a society without abrogating one
> another's freedom?
Because one person's freedom is another person's oppression. At the very least you can't allow people to steal, rape, murder, pollute and damage property freely. Due to human nature it is currently impossible to create a non-coercive society.