Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

You cannot punish someone without coercion.

They will just leave. :lol:

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

cap'n queasy wrote: You cannot punish someone without coercion.

They will just leave. :lol:

So you believe just punishment = coercion?

[Babylon_Horuv]

I see nothing wrong with indicating that you are ready and willing to hurt those who wrong you. That is certainly coercion.

[jawsome]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: You cannot punish someone without coercion.

They will just leave. :lol:

So you believe just punishment = coercion?

How is it not? It normally just involves an un-biased and independent third party to apply the coercion.

[Kindred]

Well, I'm not surpised to see people attempting to change definitions to fit with their ideologies, it's commonplace on this site these days. But for those who are interested in the actual (i.e. not ideologically loaded) definition of coercion, here is it;

Quote: co‧er‧cion  /koʊˈɜrʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-ur-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coercion&x=40&y=18

In case you're still wondering, jawsome (and I, and cap'n') was correct.

[Æ]

This is not about what a dictionary says. Dictionaries do not have control over reality.

Coercion is the unjustified initiation of force against another person. One can make the argument that self-defense is forceful, although it is not coercive. Since each person has a right to his own property, the minimum amount of force necessary to defend that property can be justified because he has a right to that property; however, it cannot be more than the minimum amount necessary to defend that property because he doesn't have a right to coerce the coercer.

[FinnMacCool]

This whole thread is basically an argument on semantics, and rather pointless in my opinion.

If one could consider self-defense to be coercion then yes coercion is justified in those cases.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Aereus wrote: This is not about what a dictionary says. Dictionaries do not have control over reality.

Coercion is the unjustified initiation of force against another person. One can make the argument that self-defense is forceful, although it is not coercive. Since each person has a right to his own property, the minimum amount of force necessary to defend that property can be justified because he has a right to that property; however, it cannot be more than the minimum amount necessary to defend that property because he doesn't have a right to coerce the coercer.

Defining coercion as only unjustified force or threat of force automatically means that coercion is never justified and nullifies the basic question of the thread. In my opinion whether force is justified or not is not what defines it as coercion.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: In my opinion wether force is jsutified or not is not wat defines it as coercion.

That only defines whether it is unjustified or not.

Coercion is coercion.

[Kindred]

Aereus wrote: This is not about what a dictionary says. Dictionaries do not have control over reality.

Coercion is the unjustified initiation of force against another person. One can make the argument that self-defense is forceful, although it is not coercive. Since each person has a right to his own property, the minimum amount of force necessary to defend that property can be justified because he has a right to that property; however, it cannot be more than the minimum amount necessary to defend that property because he doesn't have a right to coerce the coercer.

Making up definitions to fit narrow ideologies. Jeesh, what is the world comming to.

[FinnMacCool]

I'm not going to lose any sleep if self-defense just so happens to fit the dictionary definition of coercion. I don't think anyone else should either.

[Gus]

The definition is simply whatever you agree upon...a word doesn't have a set definition, it is defined by its use. I asked how ya'll defined coercion so we could get on the same page; it's obviously not very useful if we are using different definitions.

[Kindred]

Gus wrote: The definition is simply whatever you agree upon...a word doesn't have a set definition, it is defined by its use. I asked how ya'll defined coercion so we could get on the same page; it's obviously not very useful if we are using different definitions.

It is defined by common use agreed upon by experts on such matters(lexicographers), not by esoteric ideologically motivated use. The definition of the word is freely available in a little book we call the dictionary.

[Gus]

Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: The definition is simply whatever you agree upon...a word doesn't have a set definition, it is defined by its use. I asked how ya'll defined coercion so we could get on the same page; it's obviously not very useful if we are using different definitions.

It is defined by common use agreed upon by experts on such matters(lexicographers), not by esoteric ideologically motivated use. The definition of the word is freely available in a little book we call the dictionary.
Yeah but the dictionary is not some sort of absolute definer of words or something--it is just a mediatory measure. If one party does not accept its definition, then the discussion cannot go on. It doesn't matter what the definition is, so long as it is agreed upon. That is my point. If one of you doesn't cede to the other's definition, then it's a draw and the discussion is over.

[Revenant]

Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: The definition is simply whatever you agree upon...a word doesn't have a set definition, it is defined by its use. I asked how ya'll defined coercion so we could get on the same page; it's obviously not very useful if we are using different definitions.

It is defined by common use agreed upon by experts on such matters(lexicographers), not by esoteric ideologically motivated use. The definition of the word is freely available in a little book we call the dictionary.

You are wrong.




























































































































































































































































The dictionary is not a little book.

[Kindred]

Gus wrote: Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: The definition is simply whatever you agree upon...a word doesn't have a set definition, it is defined by its use. I asked how ya'll defined coercion so we could get on the same page; it's obviously not very useful if we are using different definitions.

It is defined by common use agreed upon by experts on such matters(lexicographers), not by esoteric ideologically motivated use. The definition of the word is freely available in a little book we call the dictionary.
Yeah but the dictionary is not some sort of absolute definer of words or something--it is just a mediatory measure. If one party does not accept its definition, then the discussion cannot go on. It doesn't matter what the definition is, so long as it is agreed upon. That is my point. If one of you doesn't cede to the other's definition, then it's a draw and the discussion is over.

The definitions of words are not to be decided in debates about politics. They are decided according to their common-usage, which is explicated by lixicographers in dictionaries. If one side believes the definition is wrong, then it's probably a case of their mis-use of the word, and not some general debate about the words meaning.
How ironic though that the one group who hide their beliefs behind that word are found out to be the ones who have the least understanding of its meaning.

[Kindred]

Quote: The dictionary is not a little book.

mmmm, quite right.

[Gus]

Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: The definition is simply whatever you agree upon...a word doesn't have a set definition, it is defined by its use. I asked how ya'll defined coercion so we could get on the same page; it's obviously not very useful if we are using different definitions.

It is defined by common use agreed upon by experts on such matters(lexicographers), not by esoteric ideologically motivated use. The definition of the word is freely available in a little book we call the dictionary.
Yeah but the dictionary is not some sort of absolute definer of words or something--it is just a mediatory measure. If one party does not accept its definition, then the discussion cannot go on. It doesn't matter what the definition is, so long as it is agreed upon. That is my point. If one of you doesn't cede to the other's definition, then it's a draw and the discussion is over.

The definitions of words are not to be decided in debates about politics. They are decided according to their common-usage, which is explicated by lixicographers in dictionaries. If one side believes the definition is wrong, then it's probably a case of their mis-use of the word, and not some general debate about the words meaning.
How ironic though that the one group who hide their beliefs behind that word are found out to be the ones who have the least understanding of its meaning.
Hehe this is turning into a linguistics discussion. Common-usage is not the decider of definitions, either...the only decider of a definition is you. Though if you want a productive discussion, it certainly would be worthwhile to agree on definitions. Definitions in politics is just as important as everywhere else--if someone is arguing politics with you, with a different definition of "coercion," then the discussion is just as stuck as if you were arguing trigonometry and your discussion partner defines pi as Euler's number. There is no "misuse" with words, only varying uses.

In this case, some (the libertarians presumably) are tying "coercion" in with morality (e.g. coercion is unjust force) while others are using coercion to mean any use of force. Until this discrepancy is cleared, any arguments by the aforementioned groups using "coercion" are uselessly ambiguous. Hell, you can agree on both definitions, just note it (coercion-A and coercion-B, for example).

Anyway, the point is that citing the dictionary as a definition doesn't do anything useful...if your discussion partner doesn't agree with the definition, then you're still stuck just like you were before invoking the dictionary. Invoking "common-use" is the same thing.

[cap'n queasy]

Coercion only refers to making someone do something against their will.

[Fido]

cap'n queasy wrote: Coercion only refers to making someone do something against their will.

I think coercion goes around the will out of a certain contempt for the reasoning ability of those one coerces. It is not just driving one to a certain behavior, but drawing them as well. You can beat a child to attain a goal, or offer them a bribe of candy in recognition that children are reasonable only in regard to the short term avoidance of pain or the benefits of a near by goal. Society will always contain some people who are not on the same track as everyone else. If this is okay in the short run, care should still be taken that differences do not break down the whole of society or become anti socially violent. Society should motivate people by the good it offers to them. but, the less good it offers to people the more it must rely upon violent coercion to control them.
What we have is a fact, that coercion is always going to be a part of the dynamic relationship between the individual and society, and will always be a positive motivation, or a negative disincentive to behaviors society finds desirable or repulsive. In a society such as ours, that has a long tradition of law and coercion teamed with a contempt for the individual's ability to reason, and accept education there is no doubt that coercion will be a quality we will all have to endure. Reason is not taught, nor history, nor sociology, nor philosophy and ethics to any great degree. Much of what children are taught is financial in nature to support an economy that is not economical in it use of people. Since we are not educated in the skills necessary to make us masters of ourselves we find ourselves driven this way and that, and drawn here and there by various forms of coercion.