Political Crossfire Forums

[Atlas Bergeron]

oneofthem wrote: 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.

You say 'coercion is wrong'

First, define coercion.

Did you read my post?

[Babylon_Horuv]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: 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.

Force is always used in retaliation against something. However you seem again to be using the justificaiton arguement. Another example, in Iraq force was used in retaliation for the actions of Saddam Hussein in hampering weapons inspections and not being quick enough to cooperate with US demands for change. In my opinion the US initiated force, however it was still initiated as a retaliaiton for Saddam's actions. Or another, you walk down a dark alley, I request that you give me your money, you refuse to give it to me and in retaliation for your refusal I shoot you in the stomach. Although I used force in retaliation for your action it is far from justified.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: 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.

Force is always used in retaliation against something. However you seem again to be using the justificaiton arguement. Another example, in Iraq force was used in retaliation for the actions of Saddam Hussein in hampering weapons inspections and not being quick enough to cooperate with US demands for change. In my opinion the US initiated force, however it was still initiated as a retaliaiton for Saddam's actions. Or another, you walk down a dark alley, I request that you give me your money, you refuse to give it to me and in retaliation for your refusal I shoot you in the stomach. Although I used force in retaliation for your action it is far from justified.

I meant in "retaliation of force", not simply "in retaliation." Appologies, but if you had read my previous posts, you would have seen what I meant.

As for Saddam, he had used force against his own people (he was, after all, a dictator), so the US was justified in going against him, although, I wouldn't say it was the best of options.

[anselfir]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: oneofthem wrote: 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.

You say 'coercion is wrong'

First, define coercion.

Did you read my post? No I have not, and I do not want to.

Coercion is wrong if wrong is defined as not good. Now words can be bent in whatever shape, but when i say wrong i definitely refer to a definable situation with measurable standards, which are quite simply individual desires/wants/ideals/etc.

[Fido]

oneofthem wrote: 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.

Some one, and I can't say who, said: Civilization is Sin. When we can identify an act as detrimental to society it becomes morally wrong, and if the authority in society is divorced from the people such an act becomes a target of law, and coercion, while before, when democracy was the rule persuasion was used for those within society, and coercion for those without.
Law takes as its predicate the notion that the wealthy, and the intelligent must enforce order on the disorderly of society. I believe that if there were any money on it I could prove this from philosophers representing the three western faiths, beginning with Augustine. And I will admit that I have this from a single source on history in as many as three separate volumes. Law is also an institution as well as a formulation of behavior. Like all institutions it is resistant to change, and yet is also a form of relationship. We relate through the medium of law, and lawlessness breaks that relationship. The problem is not with law exactly, but what law presumes, and that is the necessity of protecting order before liberty or justice, and also the separation of society into law enforcers and law abiders, in other words, the haves and have nots. Western law does not do a very good job of protecting peace, because the more peace is held at the expense of justice the sooner injustice will spill out into war or revolution. In taking justice and vengeance out of the hands of each community law has made great nation states a reality, and made great wars a reality and a certainty.

[anselfir]

now now regardless of what historical sentiments led to law as it is now, we can all observe law in action, and this should be enough.

[Fido]

oneofthem wrote: now now regardless of what historical sentiments led to law as it is now, we can all observe law in action, and this should be enough.

Enough to have contempt for it? It does not work. It is not lack of faith that is keeping it from working, but lack of community control. When there was group responsibility, and group authority there may have been some incidental violence and revenge, but mostly peace, and mostly justice. If we cannot control our children because law does not give us that authority that does not mean that law will not slap them on the wrist when it is too late, and put them behind bars forever when it is later still. We have more law than anyone, and people cannot resolve their own conflicts nor hardly talk without a lawyer in their pockets. And after the thousand years of effort do we not have group responsibility? Do people not blame Arabs and Blacks en mass for the crimes of their own even while they are powerless to control their own? That is the terrible irony of law, that it removes authority and leaves responsibility so that people powerless over their own must still suffer discrimination as the result of other people's crimes.

[J. Reiner]

Fido wrote: oneofthem wrote: now now regardless of what historical sentiments led to law as it is now, we can all observe law in action, and this should be enough.

Enough to have contempt for it? It does not work. It is not lack of faith that is keeping it from working, but lack of community control. When there was group responsibility, and group authority there may have been some incidental violence and revenge, but mostly peace, and mostly justice. If we cannot control our children because law does not give us that authority that does not mean that law will not slap them on the wrist when it is too late, and put them behind bars forever when it is later still. We have more law than anyone, and people cannot resolve their own conflicts nor hardly talk without a lawyer in their pockets. And after the thousand years of effort do we not have group responsibility? Do people not blame Arabs and Blacks en mass for the crimes of their own even while they are powerless to control their own? That is the terrible irony of law, that it removes authority and leaves responsibility so that people powerless over their own must still suffer discrimination as the result of other people's crimes.

Is this the fault of law, or those who write, distribute and enforce it. Is law as a concept truly such a terrible thing?

[Babylon_Horuv]

J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote: oneofthem wrote: now now regardless of what historical sentiments led to law as it is now, we can all observe law in action, and this should be enough.

Enough to have contempt for it? It does not work. It is not lack of faith that is keeping it from working, but lack of community control. When there was group responsibility, and group authority there may have been some incidental violence and revenge, but mostly peace, and mostly justice. If we cannot control our children because law does not give us that authority that does not mean that law will not slap them on the wrist when it is too late, and put them behind bars forever when it is later still. We have more law than anyone, and people cannot resolve their own conflicts nor hardly talk without a lawyer in their pockets. And after the thousand years of effort do we not have group responsibility? Do people not blame Arabs and Blacks en mass for the crimes of their own even while they are powerless to control their own? That is the terrible irony of law, that it removes authority and leaves responsibility so that people powerless over their own must still suffer discrimination as the result of other people's crimes.

Is this the fault of law, or those who write, distribute and enforce it. Is law as a concept truly such a terrible thing?

As long as it is enforced by fallible humans, yes.

[J. Reiner]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: J. Reiner wrote:

Is this the fault of law, or those who write, distribute and enforce it? Is law as a concept truly such a terrible thing?

As long as it is enforced by fallible humans, yes.

That's my point. As a concept law is beautiful. It brings equality, prevents harm, and allows civilization to be civil. But then you add in the natural greed and lust for power inherent in so many human beings. These are the people why law was needed in the first place, to prevent tyranny and chaos. So that innocents would not be struck down, enslaved. Those with these desires however, will find a way to act upon them. They take advantage of the very system meant to prevent there cruelty.

So what is the answer? Regardless of what you choose 'evil', and I use the term loosely, men will subject others to their whims. I can't say that one is truly better than the other, though my personal preference tends to law.

[Fido]

J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote: oneofthem wrote: now now regardless of what historical sentiments led to law as it is now, we can all observe law in action, and this should be enough.

Enough to have contempt for it? It does not work. It is not lack of faith that is keeping it from working, but lack of community control. When there was group responsibility, and group authority there may have been some incidental violence and revenge, but mostly peace, and mostly justice. If we cannot control our children because law does not give us that authority that does not mean that law will not slap them on the wrist when it is too late, and put them behind bars forever when it is later still. We have more law than anyone, and people cannot resolve their own conflicts nor hardly talk without a lawyer in their pockets. And after the thousand years of effort do we not have group responsibility? Do people not blame Arabs and Blacks en mass for the crimes of their own even while they are powerless to control their own? That is the terrible irony of law, that it removes authority and leaves responsibility so that people powerless over their own must still suffer discrimination as the result of other people's crimes.

Is this the fault of law, or those who write, distribute and enforce it. Is law as a concept truly such a terrible thing?

As Abelard pointed out Jus is the Genus, and Lex a species of it. Law is a recognition that in peace there is much justice, and even if justice is the prize from which peace comes, peace, as a measure of self restraint and self control is a prize as well that gives time for people to think and for tempers to cool. If the Muslims believe they have a absolute right to justice, and that honor is lost when justice is denied, this is no more than the situation once shared throughout Europe, and pre colombian America. Western law as we know it is the result of an effort spread across centuries up to the present that has required for its success the breakdown of communities, and the disruption of the currency of honor that were our heritage. And the process continues. Peace is a fine object. Justice is better. Law without Justice brings neither peace nor happiness. In fact it has brought us to the point of world destructive wars. It has ended petty feuding violence, but in broadening the notion of community to nation states it has made conflicts more wide spread and terrifying. The need for justice is still there, but people denied it in their daily affairs will look for it across their borders. And people still have the right to justice. The social contract comes from this period of imposition of law. People give up their immediate claim to justice through violence for the promise, that is usually unfulfilled, of the whole society making the cause of the injured their own. That is law. Good in theory, bad in practice, dis-empowering the very people necessary to make society work, and empowering an institution of law that treats the subject of justice like a business.

[Fido]

J. Reiner wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: J. Reiner wrote:

Is this the fault of law, or those who write, distribute and enforce it? Is law as a concept truly such a terrible thing?

As long as it is enforced by fallible humans, yes.

That's my point. As a concept law is beautiful. It brings equality, prevents harm, and allows civilization to be civil. But then you add in the natural greed and lust for power inherent in so many human beings. These are the people why law was needed in the first place, to prevent tyranny and chaos. So that innocents would not be struck down, enslaved. Those with these desires however, will find a way to act upon them. They take advantage of the very system meant to prevent there cruelty.

So what is the answer? Regardless of what you choose 'evil', and I use the term loosely, men will subject others to their whims. I can't say that one is truly better than the other, though my personal preference tends to law.

Equality is the problem with law. Equality is a legal fiction. In days gone by it was easy enough to say that I was the equal of another in my community, and perhaps easy enough to agree that two particular communities were equal. It is very difficult to prove equality among individuals, but for legal equality to exist the community membership and control that actually did make people equal to others had to end. Look at the trouble we have in Iraq where we are reshuffling in a violent sense, all of the community structure that once gave people place and power. The thought that one person might be the equal of another is crazy. Rather, one tribe, even if larger or smaller than another is equal to another. Rights are not the result of an individual existence but are an inherited status and an already worked out relationship based upon kin and kind. Now we know a rich man does not get the same justice as the poor. Nor does the rich man get the same representation as the poor. We know that blacks are damned with prejudice against group, even though none of them has any particular control. So equality as a practical matter is a myth. People with more property have more rights. It is not fair, because fair would be equal. It is a fact that law gives people of means precedence. The equality granted by law strips people of hereditary rights so they may be made victims without recourse under law, since law demands first that representation only money can afford. Not all people are stripped of the groups. Corporations and institutions still have theirs. Without the unity of community every individual is a victim.

[Raskolnikov]

Katsumoto wrote: using force or the threat of force to compell a person to do something.

no. coercion is using force or threats to compel. coercion is the creation of artificial penalties for people's actions. if Jim does A, he'll probably be poisoned, but if he does B, he will be fired from his job. Jim's second option is modified by his boss' coercion to make his first option more desirable.

[Fido]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote: oneofthem wrote: now now regardless of what historical sentiments led to law as it is now, we can all observe law in action, and this should be enough.

Enough to have contempt for it? It does not work. It is not lack of faith that is keeping it from working, but lack of community control. When there was group responsibility, and group authority there may have been some incidental violence and revenge, but mostly peace, and mostly justice. If we cannot control our children because law does not give us that authority that does not mean that law will not slap them on the wrist when it is too late, and put them behind bars forever when it is later still. We have more law than anyone, and people cannot resolve their own conflicts nor hardly talk without a lawyer in their pockets. And after the thousand years of effort do we not have group responsibility? Do people not blame Arabs and Blacks en mass for the crimes of their own even while they are powerless to control their own? That is the terrible irony of law, that it removes authority and leaves responsibility so that people powerless over their own must still suffer discrimination as the result of other people's crimes.

Is this the fault of law, or those who write, distribute and enforce it. Is law as a concept truly such a terrible thing?

As long as it is enforced by fallible humans, yes.

The human end of law is not nearly so frightening to me as the institutional end because institutions grow larger and more imposing than people, and the people forget that it is all for the living, and by the living, and should be alive, vibrant, and fluid. When we lock everything into concrete and granite we lose the human touch, and even the humility of knowing we might be wrong enough to be both hopeful and forgiving.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Katsumoto wrote: Just punishment is consequence, not coercion.

"Just" as defined by whom? Who decides when punishment is just, and when it may be applied?

[Katsumoto]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Just punishment is consequence, not coercion.

"Just" as defined by whom? Who decides when punishment is just, and when it may be applied?

That is THE questions isn't it? My position at present is that once guilt has been determined, Just punishment is whatever is negotiated between the guilty party and the victim (or victims advocate). Perhaps based on past punishments.

But it is a good question, and I don't know the answer definitively.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Fair enough.

I tend to view it that "justice", like all moral concepts, is in the eye of the beholder-- and thus will be defined differently by the perpetrator/enforcer and the victim/guilty.

Frankly, I think the difference between "justice" and the cold-blooded, self-interested actions taken by a government or other armed gang is primarily whether or not I agree with the justification for it.

[Katsumoto]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Fair enough.

I tend to view it that "justice", like all moral concepts, is in the eye of the beholder-- and thus will be defined differently by the perpetrator/enforcer and the victim/guilty.

Frankly, I think the difference between "justice" and the cold-blooded, self-interested actions taken by a government or other armed gang is primarily whether or not I agree with the justification for it.

Whether or not you agree with the justification is going to be largely based on your worldview. Some world views are more evolved than others.

[Raskolnikov]

K-man wrote: Some world views are more evolved than others.

what's the criteria for a more 'evolved' world view?

oh, and i still want to discuss this definition of coercion:

Quote: coercion is using force or threats to compel. coercion is the creation of artificial penalties for people's actions. if Jim does A, he'll probably be poisoned, but if he does B, he will be fired from his job. Jim's second option is modified by his boss' coercion to make his first option more desirable.

[Katsumoto]

Raskolnikov wrote: Quote: Some world views are more evolved than others.

oh yeah? and what's the criteria for a more 'evolved' world view.

that I hold it... :lol:

Seriously. It just has to trancend and include the view underneath it in the spiral.