Sadly, like most it fails to grasp the keen difference between governance and the State, so it assumes a coercive system must be necessary for the propagation of human rights.
I am really pretty new to liberty but I would like to take a stab at the "keen difference between governance and the state" Please, tell me if I am missing something here.
I can see a distinction where a single individual can 'govern' his own personal life, liberty and property to not be exceeded by real opportunities and limitations. I think it is
impossible for one individual to inflict coercive action against oneself.
The opposite is true in reference to collectives, 'the state' or 'governance' is by definition an outside force (outside of you personally). If 'it'
acts upon your life, liberty or property against your will, you are being coerced against.
Otherwise you are 'with the force' or a 'voluntary member of the collective' and you are not necessarily being governed but are actually acting in concert with others, these others being referred to as 'state' or 'government.' This applies even if you have arranged to have a directorship over some aspect of your life, liberty or property.
The moment any collective acts against your life, liberty or property without your consent, you are being coerced against.
I do not see that human rights are more inherently propagated by collectives than by individuals. In fact, I would argue that on the whole, collectives are historically the greatest enemy of life, liberty and property. In part, due to their multiplied ability to amass violent power.
~~~My Take~~~
A coercive system destroys rights inherently and therefore cannot possibly cause the propagation of rights.
I think the best we can arrive at is a non-compulsorily (freely opt-in only) collective of individuals protecting their own and collectively the lives, liberty and property of others.
The only distinction being that this collective must be a collective that
you can opt-in or out of without violent force from the other collective members to join or for retribution for leaving the collective.
An obligatory, compulsorily collective is a group you did not or cannot opt-in or out of.
A "coercive system" cannot possibly be necessary for propagating human rights because a 'coercive system' would be a obligatory collective by it's very definition. Because if the collective dictates that "reality will be this way" and you are forced to reflect that reality, your conformity with the collective makes you a obligatory, compulsorily member and "part of the system."
Thus, a coercive system destroys rights inherently and therefore cannot possibly cause the propagation of rights.
Or, maybe I am just sleepy and my mind is fuddled..going to bed...=-)
P. S. I am going to listen to the podcast tomorrow...hehe.