Freedom and the Necessity of Coercion

I had a conversation with someone a few days ago which relates to my argument (from my previous post) that "freedom" is a problematic term that, in its use, glosses over a complex social reality.

We were discussing associations - groups that supposedly exist for no other purpose than a specific need common to its members.  In particular, we were talking about how associations will raise the price of their products (publications, certifications, dues, etc.) while members complain about the burden of the costs.  Our debate hinged on the question of whether members should have any say in the matter (or whether the solvency of the association is more important).

I provocatively asked, "Well, don't the members have a right to run their association into the ground, if they want to?  It is THEIR association, after all.  It exists for them."

The response:  But these associations MUST exist.  Otherwise there would be no professional ethics, regulations, standards.... no way to ensure that people keep their knowledge up to date.  It's like the federal government. Most people wouldn't pay taxes if they were given a choice.  Plus, people don't agree on what they want.  I would pay more in taxes for defense spending; you told me you wouldn't pay anything.  So you can't let people decide what they want for themselves because society wouldn't be able to function that way.

Now, obviously complete anarchy in a society like ours would be a disaster.  And in general some degree of social coercion is necessary.  That's why the term "freedom" is not very helpful for a nuanced understanding of social life.

The issue is, then, the means and ends of social coercion.  It is also the type of society that necessitates certain (undesirable) forms of coercion.  It is important to remember that most of us live in societies that are large and lack clear boundaries (globalization).  We operate in a system that is structured by forces that redistribute the majority of wealth toward a handful of people.  So, if I don't have any say in how my tax dollars are being used, that is not an evil because I have to bow to communal interests; rather it is an evil because the allocation of my tax dollars is being dictated by the agenda of an insanely wealthy ruling class, whose decisions do NOT benefit either me or society as a whole.

I understand that in a large society like that of the U.S. it would be impossible to have a true democracy (assuming, that is, that we have any democracy at all, which I would dispute).  Rather than resigning ourselves to current conditions based on that fact, though, shouldn't we think about whether or not large societies are really beneficial to most people?

And going back to associations.  Yes, I understand that when groups of people work together that some sacrifice and compromise is necessary.  But associations exist within a context of a stratified, exploitative capitalist system.  When prices of membership and membership benefits become too high, then it becomes a barrier to participation, further exacerbating the stratification of society.  We have developed a society in which the costs of basic social necessities (medical care, education, etc.) rise at astronomical rates, and become prohibitively expensive for a critical number of people.

You can throw your hands up and say "it's the market," or "it's the industry," or "that's what it takes to live in society."  But really, that is what it takes to live in this society.  And there is no reason why we should not be able to critically evaluate the particularities of our current system, and weigh the harms against the supposed gains of social progress.  As always, I just wish this was something that could be discussed or thought about.  It seems that the really interesting questions can never rise to the level of conscious consideration and debate.