Political Crossfire Forums

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Can coercion ever be justified?

[jawsome]

Yes and no. It is inescapable, though; your actions always result in lesser freedom and some form of coercion on every one else, just in varying degrees.

[Katsumoto]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Can coercion ever be justified?

NO.

[Kindred]

Katsumoto wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Can coercion ever be justified?

NO.

So, you oppose punishing people for violating others rights?

[Fido]

Sure, Coercion can be justified within reason and short of violence. Like violence or torture violent coercion also finds many to justify it. I trust these defenders of coercion love violence better than any possible beneficial result. Support of coercion only recognizes that we are social animals, and that what is good for the many usually is good for most. However, many, many advancements for humanity have also required a resistance to coercion. We might well speculate that as many more great advancements were at some point halted in the face of coercion. The obvious fact is, that a large and modern society must delegate authority to a small and hopefully representative body of individuals to avoid the waste of confusion and disorganization. These governments soon take powers unto themselves that in the beginning they only exercised in the name of the community. The coercion they then demonstrate becomes self serving and self preserving in nature, and odious to all who must bear it. And then after an interminable seeming period were society spreads more pain than joy, enough are injure to incite rebellion. In periods of rebellion there is a suspension of law and a breakdown in the mechanisms of coercion.
On a side note let me mention that a Black man's life expectancy is greater in penitentiary than without. His life not only seems longer, it is longer. If society cannot guarantee that particular class of individual a better life outside of the scrutiny of law then clearly society is crumbling. Since the price of humane treatment under incarceration is extreme, would it not be better to reward bad behavior with a grant of money so people might fund their own destruction, or soon commit some crime so great that immediate execution is demanded? If there is some good economy involved in keeping such great numbers penned up, it is not in the coercion that is practiced upon them, but for the fact that it throws a little dose of honest fear into the hearts of joe workingmen all across the country. From the root of the word I gather it is to restrain everybody. Clearly those who practice coercion believe they are above the law themselves. Certainly, no law can fully justify what is immoral or unethical, and nothing is more unethical than unnecessary control over ones fellow human being.

[Katsumoto]

Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Can coercion ever be justified?

NO.

So, you oppose punishing people for violating others rights?

No.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Can coercion ever be justified?

NO.

So, you oppose punishing people for violating others rights?

Prehaps this raises an important question.

Is justified punishement actually coercion?

[Katsumoto]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Can coercion ever be justified?

NO.

So, you oppose punishing people for violating others rights?

Prehaps this raises an important question.

Is justified punishement actually coercion?

It is not. Just punishment is consequence, not coercion.

[jawsome]

Katsumoto wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Can coercion ever be justified?

NO.

So, you oppose punishing people for violating others rights?

Prehaps this raises an important question.

Is justified punishement actually coercion?

It is not. Just punishment is consequence, not coercion.

Coercion is coercion regardless of the consequence or what caused the coercion.

If we accept that coercion is never justified, how can the state's (or whatever's/whomever's) coercive response in the name of justice be justified with the same premise in mind?

[Katsumoto]

jawsome wrote: Katsumoto wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Can coercion ever be justified?

NO.

So, you oppose punishing people for violating others rights?

Prehaps this raises an important question.

Is justified punishement actually coercion?

It is not. Just punishment is consequence, not coercion.

Coercion is coercion regardless of the consequence or what caused the coercion.

If we accept that coercion is never justified, how can the state's (or whatever's/whomever's) coercive response in the name of justice be justified with the same premise in mind?

A coercive response is not justified. Unless you are speaking of self defense, in which case, that is the antithesis of coercion.

[jawsome]

So punishment isn't coercion then......?

And how is self-defense not inherently coercive? It is attempting to use physical force of some sort to sway another's actions. Of course, I think this is wholy justified, but it is still coercion, nonetheless.

[Katsumoto]

jawsome wrote: So punishment isn't coercion then......?

And how is self-defense not inherently coercive? It is attempting to use physical force of some sort to sway another's actions. Of course, I think this is wholy justified, but it is still coercion, nonetheless.

Punishment can be coercive. Just punishment is not. Self defense is not coercive because your attacker is voluntarily engaging you. What ever you do to defend yourself is simply the consequence of that engagement. To call that coercion is equivalent to walking into a restaurant, placing an order, and then claiming that the resulting bill is coercive.

[Fido]

Katsumoto wrote: jawsome wrote: So punishment isn't coercion then......?

And how is self-defense not inherently coercive? It is attempting to use physical force of some sort to sway another's actions. Of course, I think this is wholy justified, but it is still coercion, nonetheless.

Punishment can be coercive. Just punishment is not. Self defense is not coercive because your attacker is voluntarily engaging you. What ever you do to defend yourself is simply the consequence of that engagement. To call that coercion is equivalent to walking into a restaurant, placing an order, and then claiming that the resulting bill is coercive.

Punishment is not coercive, but the threat of punishment is. Any thing in the nature of a threat delivered with the object of changing behavior is coercion. That may be justly done, or not, and when the method is used justly it has the same object as reason, only expedited, and exercised without patience and respect for those one attempts to change.
Punishment is never delivered for the benefit of those punished except by those imbued with faith and drunk with doctrine. For most it is a return of injury for injury. Punishment is not rehabilitation, and if it were there would be an effort toward equality of punishment with damages. Rather, most punishment is excessive to act as a coercive to those contemplating or engaged in illegal activity.
At its heart coercion is paternalistic, because coercion of a positive or negative sort is how one deals with children who are yet incapable of reason. It does not matter that most adults act like children in many respects, because a society with an honorable goal should make a good faith effort to reason with its fellow citizens before resorting to coercion. Reason is not much used because governments are more damned by it than individuals. The economic system is built on faith, and the government is elected on confusion and prejudice, and fear; and it survives by baffling every sincere effort at change, so there is no precedent for the common use of reason rather than coercion, and there is a great deal of trembling for the day when coercion will no long control the masses.

[Katsumoto]

Fido wrote: Katsumoto wrote: jawsome wrote: So punishment isn't coercion then......?

And how is self-defense not inherently coercive? It is attempting to use physical force of some sort to sway another's actions. Of course, I think this is wholy justified, but it is still coercion, nonetheless.

Punishment can be coercive. Just punishment is not. Self defense is not coercive because your attacker is voluntarily engaging you. What ever you do to defend yourself is simply the consequence of that engagement. To call that coercion is equivalent to walking into a restaurant, placing an order, and then claiming that the resulting bill is coercive.

Punishment is not coercive, but the threat of punishment is. Any thing in the nature of a threat delivered with the object of changing behavior is coercion. That may be justly done, or not, and when the method is used justly it has the same object as reason, only expedited, and exercised without patience and respect for those one attempts to change.
Punishment is never delivered for the benefit of those punished except by those imbued with faith and drunk with doctrine. For most it is a return of injury for injury. Punishment is not rehabilitation, and if it were there would be an effort toward equality of punishment with damages. Rather, most punishment is excessive to act as a coercive to those contemplating or engaged in illegal activity.
At its heart coercion is paternalistic, because coercion of a positive or negative sort is how one deals with children who are yet incapable of reason. It does not matter that most adults act like children in many respects, because a society with an honorable goal should make a good faith effort to reason with its fellow citizens before resorting to coercion. Reason is not much used because governments are more damned by it than individuals. The economic system is built on faith, and the government is elected on confusion and prejudice, and fear; and it survives by baffling every sincere effort at change, so there is no precedent for the common use of reason rather than coercion, and there is a great deal of trembling for the day when coercion will no long control the masses.

Wow. Nice post. I agree. 8:)

[LostSoul3412]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Can coercion ever be justified?

Depends on your definition of "coercion".

As stands, yes.

[Gus]

What is coercion?

[Katsumoto]

Gus wrote: What is coercion?

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

[jawsome]

Katsumoto wrote: Gus wrote: What is coercion?

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

So that would then apply to self-defense or any form of punishment.

And can force only be physical?

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: force or the power to use force in gaining compliance

I think this is a good definition of the word.

I guess violence when used for self-defence could fall under this but I doubt it.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Katsumoto wrote: Gus wrote: What is coercion?

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

IN that case, yes coercion is sometimes justified. In defense of oneself, one's family, etc. Sometimes the threat of force is the only possible response to a potential agressor.