Political Crossfire Forums

[Kindred]

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

Yes, pretty much:

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.

[Kindred]

Gus wrote: 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.

You are wrong. The definition of the word is central to debate, I agree, but it is not the role of small groups to redefine those words to fit with political debate; the word has a meaning that is benchmarked- presented in a dictionary. If a party does not agree to the dictionary definition, they are simply ill-informed, especially with such a clear-cut example as the one we are discussing here. You don't see scientists changing definitions of words in formal debate, why should we? It creates more uncertainty, when the point of debate is to create less.

[Æ]

Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: 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.

You are wrong. The definition of the word is central to debate, I agree, but it is not the role of small groups to redefine those words to fit with political debate; the word has a meaning that is benchmarked- presented in a dictionary. If a party does not agree to the dictionary definition, they are simply ill-informed, especially with such a clear-cut example as the one we are discussing here. You don't see scientists changing definitions of words in formal debate, why should we? It creates more uncertainty, when the point of debate is to create less.
There is no contract between people as to the precise meaning of all words. Dictionaries do not own the language; they merely provide a fallible guide to it. You are doing a fantastic job of avoiding the real debate. :roll:

[Fido]

Aereus wrote: Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: 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.

You are wrong. The definition of the word is central to debate, I agree, but it is not the role of small groups to redefine those words to fit with political debate; the word has a meaning that is benchmarked- presented in a dictionary. If a party does not agree to the dictionary definition, they are simply ill-informed, especially with such a clear-cut example as the one we are discussing here. You don't see scientists changing definitions of words in formal debate, why should we? It creates more uncertainty, when the point of debate is to create less.
There is no contract between people as to the precise meaning of all words. Dictionaries do not own the language; they merely provide a fallible guide to it. You are doing a fantastic job of avoiding the real debate. :roll:

To look at the word for etymology, it does not imply actual force or violence explicitly. Only a common restraint, that is to say: a restraint all accept, or a restraint of the few by the many without which there would be no community as the ancients knew it.. If I give you an example from engineering, buildings are built with restraint. That is, for every force, like wind or gravity or momentum the building has resistance. You can see the similarity of the words restraint, and resistance. Moral consideration can restrain an intelligent person as well as chain can restrain an idiot. Children are coerced by candy sometimes, and by the threat of violence at other times. People are positively coerced and negatively coerced, and it is as possible to coerce people for an ideal purpose as for a disgraceful one.
The issue dovetails into morality because each is a facet of community. We have lost our sense of community, but at one time communities were founded on genetic relationships. What a person might do outside of his community was either a blessing or a curse upon his community. There was group responsibility, and group rights. There was great freedom within community that ended beyond community property. Everyone knew that to step outside of ones community and to commit some outrage was an invitation to war or vengeance that might be slow in coming, and might be proportional; but would most certainly fall on those least able to defend themselves. Coercion was felt by everyone because the price of one standing outside of ones community was likely to be paid by all. Morality is perhaps a restatement of this in more positive terms. One must accept the common morality to be a member, and expect coercion if they stray too far from the rules of community.

[Babylon_Horuv]

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

This looks like a functioning definition of coercion. And in my opinion it is sometimes neccessary.

[Fido]

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

This looks like a functioning definition of coercion. And in my opinion it is sometimes neccessary.

It may well be necessary; but first, who shall decide? I am willing to believe that the more it is found necessary the sooner it will be resorted to, and the more it is resorted to the sooner it will be found necessary, again. It is contrary to the use of reason, which means one has abandoned a reasonable society for an orderly society, which in turn means that if reason is not necessary -justice is not a primary concern. If justice is not primary it has no meaning, and so every concern is reduced to a level of expedience. Coercion leads to injustice, and injustice to power on one side, and impotence on the other side, and this is a situation like we have to day that is beyond internal correction. Those who suffer injustice are powerless, and those who are powerful promote injustice. Short of the sky falling on the situation, nothing will change. Coercion may be necessary; but only as a last resort, and under the full attention of society.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: who shall decide?

Certainly not those who seek to deconstruct the term for political reasons.

:lol:

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Those who suffer injustice are powerless, and those who are powerful promote injustice.

This is a logical fallacy.

[Fido]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Those who suffer injustice are powerless, and those who are powerful promote injustice.

This is a logical fallacy.

Then show me some one who is powerful enough to escape injustice who puts up with it? And while you are at it show me anyone who has power who does not hold it at the expense of one, or others less powerful? It is said that power is a zero net gain. People do not have power because they invent it , but rather because they take it. You don't seem to know how teeter totters or balance scales work. Are you suggesting that these as part of closed systems are illogical? Figure it out, or get on life support. Your noggin is foggin.

[Fido]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: who shall decide?

Certainly not those who seek to deconstruct the term for political reasons.

:lol:

Perhaps you would rather have people decide who use coercion for the most impolite of political reasons?

[Kindred]

Aereus wrote: Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: 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.

You are wrong. The definition of the word is central to debate, I agree, but it is not the role of small groups to redefine those words to fit with political debate; the word has a meaning that is benchmarked- presented in a dictionary. If a party does not agree to the dictionary definition, they are simply ill-informed, especially with such a clear-cut example as the one we are discussing here. You don't see scientists changing definitions of words in formal debate, why should we? It creates more uncertainty, when the point of debate is to create less.
There is no contract between people as to the precise meaning of all words. Dictionaries do not own the language; they merely provide a fallible guide to it. You are doing a fantastic job of avoiding the real debate. :roll:

The debate is:

Is it ever justifyable to use force to change someones behaviour

The answer is clearly yes.

[Atlas Bergeron]

People people. Lets all just stop and look at what we are really arguing.

On one side (Katsumoto's side), coercion is held to almost religious significance, since the definition of capitalism is held to be a "non-coercive" state.

On the other side (jawsome), coercion is held to be any use of physical force.

What is the point of this argument? You are not gaining any philosophical knowledge by bickering as to the referent of the term "coercion." Everyone knows that when ppl say "capitalism is a non-coercive form of government", they do not mean there is no police, millitary, or prisons. They mean that the government does not use force unless in retaliation. Obviously such force could be deemed "coercive", but that is outside of the intended definition and anybody who believes they have an argument against capitalism based on such a definition is incredibly thick.

So please, get to the point.
If you define coercion as "the use of force", then it is sometimes justified (it is justified in response to force). If you define it as "the initiation of force" then it is never justified. Stop bickering over its definition and start debating which referent is justified and which one is not.

[anselfir]

In a just world there is no coercion, thus, no.

However "justified" is used as acceptable by certain people, which is rather distasteful.

[Fido]

oneofthem wrote: In a just world there is no coercion, thus, no.

However "justified" is used as acceptable by certain people, which is rather distasteful.

I agree with you. Yet, to put the idea into some perspective is necessary. Coercion is like justice, and like morality in being an appendage of society, and society as we know it is defined by those within and by those without. It is friends and family that make communities, and enemies that make them unite. We are be living in a different sort of community, that is: one that justifies the injury to, and the exploitation of some within by others within, and the use of violence and coercion to accomplish this fact. This is not the classical sort of community of which most of us know some thing in our families. When one lived in a distinct group surrounded by enemies it was perfectly natural and good that the group exercised some authority over individuals through coercion to prevent wars and feuds from developing that would not take the guilty so much as harm the innocent. But coercion has changed in its nature. Rather than to protect the people from enemies it is practiced by class against class within the same society, technically the same community, though in comparison to a true community not a community at all. We still make war on people outside, and practice coercion on them if only to perfect it against our own. But we have lost our soul. We have lost our common soul. We suffer under the rule of law. What in the hell is the rule of law if not an excuse for inhumanity? One might appeal to even a human tyrant, but how does one ask a law book for mercy? Law has not made coercion less necessary, but more so. It has not made injustice more rare, but more common. In breaking down traditional communities, and community rights and authority over their own in favor of a leveling equality it has taken the last and first defense of every people against injustice. We have been made individuals for the specific purpose of individual exploitation. Law has ruined us even while making the state great at our expense.

[Babylon_Horuv]

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

This looks like a functioning definition of coercion. And in my opinion it is sometimes neccessary.

It may well be necessary; but first, who shall decide? I am willing to believe that the more it is found necessary the sooner it will be resorted to, and the more it is resorted to the sooner it will be found necessary, again. It is contrary to the use of reason, which means one has abandoned a reasonable society for an orderly society, which in turn means that if reason is not necessary -justice is not a primary concern. If justice is not primary it has no meaning, and so every concern is reduced to a level of expedience. Coercion leads to injustice, and injustice to power on one side, and impotence on the other side, and this is a situation like we have to day that is beyond internal correction. Those who suffer injustice are powerless, and those who are powerful promote injustice. Short of the sky falling on the situation, nothing will change. Coercion may be necessary; but only as a last resort, and under the full attention of society.

I can agree with that.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: People people. Lets all just stop and look at what we are really arguing.

On one side (Katsumoto's side), coercion is held to almost religious significance, since the definition of capitalism is held to be a "non-coercive" state.

On the other side (jawsome), coercion is held to be any use of physical force.

What is the point of this argument? You are not gaining any philosophical knowledge by bickering as to the referent of the term "coercion." Everyone knows that when ppl say "capitalism is a non-coercive form of government", they do not mean there is no police, millitary, or prisons. They mean that the government does not use force unless in retaliation. Obviously such force could be deemed "coercive", but that is outside of the intended definition and anybody who believes they have an argument against capitalism based on such a definition is incredibly thick.

So please, get to the point.
If you define coercion as "the use of force", then it is sometimes justified (it is justified in response to force). If you define it as "the initiation of force" then it is never justified. Stop bickering over its definition and start debating which referent is justified and which one is not.

The initiation of forceis never justified? What if someone is destroying your home? They are not using force against you, but it may be justified to initiate force against them.

[cap'n queasy]

Fido wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Those who suffer injustice are powerless, and those who are powerful promote injustice.

This is a logical fallacy.

Then show me some one who is powerful enough to escape injustice who puts up with it? And while you are at it show me anyone who has power who does not hold it at the expense of one, or others less powerful? It is said that power is a zero net gain. People do not have power because they invent it , but rather because they take it. You don't seem to know how teeter totters or balance scales work. Are you suggesting that these as part of closed systems are illogical? Figure it out, or get on life support. Your noggin is foggin.

Pfftt. More sophistry.
Power does not automatically inoculate you from the effects of injustice.

Certainly weak people are the victim of injustice more often than powerful people, but to infer that this means it is impossible for a person who is in a position of power cannot be victim of injustice is ridiculous.

[anselfir]

Fido wrote: oneofthem wrote: In a just world there is no coercion, thus, no.

However "justified" is used as acceptable by certain people, which is rather distasteful.

I agree with you. Yet, to put the idea into some perspective is necessary. Coercion is like justice, and like morality in being an appendage of society, and society as we know it is defined by those within and by those without. It is friends and family that make communities, and enemies that make them unite. We are be living in a different sort of community, that is: one that justifies the injury to, and the exploitation of some within by others within, and the use of violence and coercion to accomplish this fact. This is not the classical sort of community of which most of us know some thing in our families. When one lived in a distinct group surrounded by enemies it was perfectly natural and good that the group exercised some authority over individuals through coercion to prevent wars and feuds from developing that would not take the guilty so much as harm the innocent. But coercion has changed in its nature. Rather than to protect the people from enemies it is practiced by class against class within the same society, technically the same community, though in comparison to a true community not a community at all. We still make war on people outside, and practice coercion on them if only to perfect it against our own. But we have lost our soul. We have lost our common soul. We suffer under the rule of law. What in the hell is the rule of law if not an excuse for inhumanity? One might appeal to even a human tyrant, but how does one ask a law book for mercy? Law has not made coercion less necessary, but more so. It has not made injustice more rare, but more common. In breaking down traditional communities, and community rights and authority over their own in favor of a leveling equality it has taken the last and first defense of every people against injustice. We have been made individuals for the specific purpose of individual exploitation. Law has ruined us even while making the state great at our expense. Saying morality is an appendage of society is a very unclear statement. THe most i can make otu of it is that people sometimes do not care about morality, which is another moral statement. Morality thus defined is pretty fluffy, no?
Let's rather say coercion causes a disruption in the harmony of each individual perfection, and thus coercion is bad to at least one person's eyes. That is enough for me to say coercion is never justified.

Law, even enforcing the perfect optimal harmony, is still coercion. It is certainly a yoke.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: People people. Lets all just stop and look at what we are really arguing.

On one side (Katsumoto's side), coercion is held to almost religious significance, since the definition of capitalism is held to be a "non-coercive" state.

On the other side (jawsome), coercion is held to be any use of physical force.

What is the point of this argument? You are not gaining any philosophical knowledge by bickering as to the referent of the term "coercion." Everyone knows that when ppl say "capitalism is a non-coercive form of government", they do not mean there is no police, millitary, or prisons. They mean that the government does not use force unless in retaliation. Obviously such force could be deemed "coercive", but that is outside of the intended definition and anybody who believes they have an argument against capitalism based on such a definition is incredibly thick.

So please, get to the point.
If you define coercion as "the use of force", then it is sometimes justified (it is justified in response to force). If you define it as "the initiation of force" then it is never justified. Stop bickering over its definition and start debating which referent is justified and which one is not.

The initiation of forceis never justified? What if someone is destroying your home? They are not using force against you, but it may be justified to initiate force against them.
...
do you have any understanding of what "initiation" means?

...





apparently not.
If someone is destroying your home, and you shoot them, that is the use of force in retaliation, not initiation.

...


That was the whole point with me distinguishing between them.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Fido wrote: oneofthem wrote: In a just world there is no coercion, thus, no.

However "justified" is used as acceptable by certain people, which is rather distasteful.

I agree with you. Yet, to put the idea into some perspective is necessary. Coercion is like justice, and like morality in being an appendage of society, and society as we know it is defined by those within and by those without. It is friends and family that make communities, and enemies that make them unite. We are be living in a different sort of community, that is: one that justifies the injury to, and the exploitation of some within by others within, and the use of violence and coercion to accomplish this fact. This is not the classical sort of community of which most of us know some thing in our families. When one lived in a distinct group surrounded by enemies it was perfectly natural and good that the group exercised some authority over individuals through coercion to prevent wars and feuds from developing that would not take the guilty so much as harm the innocent. But coercion has changed in its nature. Rather than to protect the people from enemies it is practiced by class against class within the same society, technically the same community, though in comparison to a true community not a community at all. We still make war on people outside, and practice coercion on them if only to perfect it against our own. But we have lost our soul. We have lost our common soul. We suffer under the rule of law. What in the hell is the rule of law if not an excuse for inhumanity? One might appeal to even a human tyrant, but how does one ask a law book for mercy? Law has not made coercion less necessary, but more so. It has not made injustice more rare, but more common. In breaking down traditional communities, and community rights and authority over their own in favor of a leveling equality it has taken the last and first defense of every people against injustice. We have been made individuals for the specific purpose of individual exploitation. Law has ruined us even while making the state great at our expense.

Im sorry but this is way to dense for my eyes.

What is the use of so many words? You keep on going around my post like it is ring around the rosey with absolute statements that make no sense whatsoever.

Please clarify.