: :It doesnt really matter where it comes from, if other people can decide and enforce an action with which the subject does not agree its a defacto dictatorship. This differs from rich men buying all the bananas and 'denying' the opportunity to buy them to the other fellow, the difference is in the dynamic - the lack of coercive enforcement.
: But if I don't agree that the rich man is entitled to buy or possess all the bananas, what then? The dispute will usually be adjudicated by the law. The law is then backed up by the police. This resembles a coercive force. "Well", you might say, "we all must agree to abide by laws, else how would society function?" Precisely. Now then, who writes the laws?
Gee wants to rid the world of coercion by saying it's bad. Never mind the world of social interrelationships that allows the "individual" to survive. Never mind that the "individual" is a necessarily-conditioned human being whose "freedom" and whose "choice" is made with the guidance of cultural and material compulsions that the "individual" herself has no power over. The individual is sovereign, "choice," though merely an abstract concept with no material substance, is Gee's reigning ideology, and don't expect any argument about the circumstances of real life to persuade Gee into thinking otherwise. Gee can always dissolve such circumstances into thin air by saying they're bad.
"Choice" in this Debating Room nearly always points in the same direction, the control of ideology over human beings. "Choice" for Gee, for instance, always points to the erection of an anarcho-capitalist facade, never otherwise. This, of course, is why I put little stock in ideals of anarcho-capitalism or socialism or what have you. Too many people are just too conditioned to believe without questioning, and that's all that stuff ends up being.