coercion

[James]

coercion; when do you think it is justified?

I was going to provide a definition. Whilst typing my definition though i realised that people will no doubt define it differently. Perhaps only slightly, but such slight differences can have rather significant implications. Thus i leave the defining of coercion up to the individual poster.

I have to dash now but i'll come back to this a bit later on...

[rouchambeau]

I lean towards that idea that it is justified whenever it is practical.

I'm not set on that, though.

[James]

I lean towards that idea that it is justified whenever it is practical.

I'm not set on that, though.

When is it pratical? Surely you have just given an excuse to use it whenever someone wants to use it>?

"it was practical..."

please expand a little.

[Guest1]

When the movement decides to use it, it is justified.

[rouchambeau]

When is it pratical?

When it fulfills a particular goal.


Surely you have just given an excuse to use it whenever someone wants to use it>?

"it was practical..."

I said I think it is justified when it is practical, not necissarily when someone believes it is practical.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:43 AM
I said I think it is justified when it is practical, not necissarily when someone believes it is practical.
Now that's the question: objective 'practical' versus subjective

[James]

When the movement decides to use it, it is justified.

So is it a case of the ends will justify the means?
You don't think that there should be some form of conditions before it's use?

[apathy maybe]

As an anarchist I have to say that coercion is a bit nasty. But I'm not a pacifist and I can think of scenarios where the greater good and all that.

But I think that it should be used minimally and only when necessary. Not just when some authoritarian decides the movement needs it.

What I mean by "only when necessary", really it is going to have to be up to the person or peoples making the decision at the time. With no hierarchy, no one else can take responsibility. If they go ahead and use it, well they will answer to the rest if it was used "unnecessarily".

Coercion is more then just violence. It can be the threat of violence, against a person or a person's loved ones. It can be blackmail, or whatever. Whatever it is, it is nasty. But sometimes the person against who it is being used is scum. In such cases, well...


Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana)When the movement decides to use it, it is justified.[/b]What movement? How does the movement decide? The leaders in the movement? Does it need a majority to support it? Who decides?


rouchambeau
I said I think it is justified when it is practical, not necissarily when someone believes it is practical.
But who decides?

[James]

Apathy Maybe,

As an anarchist I have to say that coercion is a bit nasty. But I'm not a pacifist and I can think of scenarios where the greater good and all that.

I agree. I think that as a rule coercion is a "negative" thing. Thus the norm should be to avoid it. Therefore it's use, in my view, needs to be justified.


But I think that it should be used minimally and only when necessary. Not just when some authoritarian decides the movement needs it.

Exactly. This is what shocked me about earlier posts. As you highlighted, no description was offered regarding what is "the movement", and how such a decision should be arrived at.

I think the danger of simply saying that it is justified whenever "the movement" deems it, is that of slipping into the arbitary rule of the will of a few. Especially when a minority lay claim to knowing what is in the common good.

[James]

hmm i guess Berlin's negative and positive liberty/freedom makes an appearence here. For example Hayek believed freedom/liberty was the absence of coercion; a Negative perception of liberty/freedom.
Whereas, hayek/berlin would argue, acting in accordance to "positive liberty" leads to the destruction of individual liberty.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Surely, instead of asking when is coercion justified, we should ask why we need to justify coercion in the first place? <_<

[James]

do you mean as in;
- "why do we need to justify us doing this?"
or
- "this is how it is justified...[explanation]"?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Surely, instead of asking when is coercion justified, we should ask why we need to justify coercion in the first place?
You need to justify coercion because it is "nasty". Just like capitalists often try to justify their acts. You don&#39;t need to justify "good" acts, only "bad" ones.

If you do not think that we need to justify "bad" acts, then why someone could murder you and just walk away.

Coercion is not only used by the left, it is also used (predominantly/predominately (please tell me which of these words is the more correct in the situation. It is very annoying and I can&#39;t find something that tells me which one to use. Are they in fact equal? Fuck the English language is annoying.) in fact) by reactionaries, statists, and other scum.

[Delta]

Well, I think the exact nature of the situation is pretty important here and what types of coercion is being considered. So I would hate to write a recipe for it. But maybe in a rough sense, coercion could be justified when the outcome of the coercion (adding in the negative effects associated with the use of coercion itself) is more positive (again, this is also tricky to determine) than if coercion had not been used. That&#39;s not a very useful definition, but I don&#39;t know that it&#39;s possible to be more specific than that.

[Guest1]

So who was it that had a problem with this thread being in learning? No one but "anarcho-capitalists" and liberals have a problem with coercion, which is absolutely necessary as no capitalist will give power willingly.

Hence, this is a debate about basics, and belongs in learning.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 14 2006, 02:23 PM
which is absolutely necessary as no capitalist will give power willingly
From my understanding we weren&#39;t talking about coercion during the revolution. I thought we were talking about in a post-revolutionary society.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by James+--> (James)do you mean as in....[/b]

To be honest, it was meant as a rather cryptic remark....which, hopefully, is how it was seen. <_<

The remark itself, could pose multiple questions. It could be a purely rhetorical question; it could be a question that asks why there is coercion in the first place, never mind whether it can be justified or not; it could be taken as a point against ethical arguments, as in what is the point of justifying something anyway; it could ask why we need to justify our actions to certain organisations, like the Police....and so on.

I mean, I chose to respond in that way because the question, in and of itself, was rather cryptic. Mainly because there are distinct degrees of coercion and you didn&#39;t specify what forms you wished to discuss here. There is, for instance, parental coercion and there are a range of arguments that could be used to "justify" that. There&#39;s also societal coercion and, again, there are arguments that can be used to "justify" that. Then there&#39;s Governmental coercion, Educational coercion and so on.

And, really, before you ask "when do you think it [coercion] is justified", you need to specify what kind of coercion you are referring too. Because if the definition you&#39;re using is "the practice of compelling a person to involuntarily behave in a certain way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force" (or something similar), then, essentially, coercion is present in all aspects of human society....and, realistically, all we can do is limit it. We, as in collective society, simply wouldn&#39;t be able to eradicate it.

Indeed, possibly the best thing to do is to try to balance the coercive forces; creating an equation that is equal almost all of the time. And, really, that whole discussion exists outside the realms of justification....and within the practical atmosphere. That is, the comment about philosophy, masturbation and sex springs to mind. <_<


Originally posted by apathy [email protected]
You need to justify coercion because it is "nasty".

Really?

Is societal coercion against the practices of rape and murder "nasty"? Or perhaps societal coercion against drunk driving? What about societal coercion against poor working practices?

Coercion is far too broad a field to "pigeon hole" as "nasty". And that&#39;s before we even begin to discuss how to define "nasty" and why we should be concerned about things being "nasty".


Che y Marijuana
So who was it that had a problem with this thread being in learning? No one but "anarcho-capitalists" and liberals have a problem with coercion, which is absolutely necessary as no capitalist will give power willingly.

Actually, as Delta alluded too, this thread isn&#39;t about any specific form of coercion....so your chest-beating is really pointless. This thread probably belongs in Philosophy rather than Theory, but just because your subjective judgement is that you don&#39;t think the topic is worthy of in depth discussion, doesn&#39;t make it so. Indeed, I imagine the Kettle should talk to the Pot about Moderating "maturity". <_<

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana)So who was it that had a problem with this thread being in learning? No one but "anarcho-capitalists" and liberals have a problem with coercion, which is absolutely necessary as no capitalist will give power willingly.

Hence, this is a debate about basics, and belongs in learning.[/b]It is not about coercion, but it is rather about when is it justified. Your initial answer was sorely lacking in detail, but predictable enough. It was moved out by TAT I believe who responded to a request by James. So I guess you&#39;re just being arrogant again.


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected]
Is societal coercion against the practices of rape and murder "nasty"? Or perhaps societal coercion against drunk driving? What about societal coercion against poor working practices?

Coercion is far too broad a field to "pigeon hole" as "nasty". And that&#39;s before we even begin to discuss how to define "nasty" and why we should be concerned about things being "nasty".OK, I guess I was taking the narrow view and thinking of coercion as threats or violence made at an individual level. Thus societal coercion is not included (in fact I would not even use the word in the circumstances, rather pressure would be a more accurate word I feel). So coercion at an individual level (by individuals or against individuals), involving some threat or violence is what I was talking about. It is "nasty" as it where because it involves the use of power by one or more people over one or more other people. As an anarchist this is something I oppose. I really don&#39;t like people using power over others. However, as I said above, I recognise that there exist times where it is needed, and such situations needed to be justified. Hence why I thought we were attempting to have a debate (at least I was).


Armchair Socialism
Actually, as Delta alluded too, this thread isn&#39;t about any specific form of coercion....so your chest-beating is really pointless. This thread probably belongs in Philosophy rather than Theory, but just because your subjective judgement is that you don&#39;t think the topic is worthy of in depth discussion, doesn&#39;t make it so. Indeed, I imagine the Kettle should talk to the Pot about Moderating "maturity".Funny really, I thought it was about a specific form of coercion, as I explained above I think we should have the debate in theory. But I agree with the last sentence.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 14 2006, 10:23 PM
So who was it that had a problem with this thread being in learning? No one but "anarcho-capitalists" and liberals have a problem with coercion, which is absolutely necessary as no capitalist will give power willingly.

Hence, this is a debate about basics, and belongs in learning.
The debate was not about whether coercian was necessary or "right", it was about when it is justified.

You are talking specifically about "revolutionary coercion." I&#39;m not sure that&#39;s what James is specifically wanting to discuss.

Coercian could be justified within pre-revolutionary tactics or in a post-revolutionary society.

This topic is not about "basics", it&#39;s about a specific theoretical concept and for that reason, belongs in Theory.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
It is "nasty" as it where because it involves the use of power by one or more people over one or more other people.

Are you sure that you can even call all coercion on an "individual level" a practice that is "nasty"?

For example, say you had a little brother and someone a few years older than them was bullying them constantly. Hitting them, calling them names, pinching their dinner money (does that really ever happen?) and so on. Perhaps, to stop this, you decide to tell this older boy that if he touches your brother again, you&#39;ll beat the living shit out of him. Now that is coercion on an "individual level", but I wouldn&#39;t call it "nasty"....in fact I&#39;d say it was a rather nice thing to do.

Likewise, say there&#39;s a fella&#39; who likes to casually use racial slurs. For instance, he calls Henry the African-American whom he works with a "spear chucking"....on a regular basis. Now, say Joe the racist one day says one of these racial slurs in front of John, who happens to be African-American and also one big bastard with arms like tree trunks. Now, John, in a polite manner characteristic of the Gentleman he is, says to Joe that if he ever hears him use one of these slurs again, he&#39;s going to rip his head off. Now that is coercion, but is it "nasty"? Not really.

I could go on and use more examples here of coercion on an "individual level" that we would consider "justified". Indeed, I suspect someone would say that said coercion is only "justified" because it has a "positive" effect. However, the "positive" effect is one that is understood by purely subjective thinking. None of us would object to John&#39;s actions because we are all anti-racists....and, likewise, none of us would feel sorry for Joe because he&#39;s a racist prick.

The point to all this, is that we can&#39;t just say that coercion, in and of itself, is "nasty"....no matter what form of coercion we are talking about. The best thing we can do, is try to, as best we can, base the use of coercion on objective criteria. For instance, societal coercion against rape is beneficial, because rape is objectively detrimental to society. And the same case could be made with regards racism and so on.

Additionally, and this is where I think you have a point, we should aim to transfer coercion on an "individual level" to coercion on a societal level. That is why, for instance, crime and punishment should be dealt with societally....and not just by the victims and the people close to them.

But, really, as I said in my last post, in order to do this we need to take coercion out of the abstract ethical realm and place it within the context of real world events. In other words, the nitty gritty arena.

[James]

Che y m,


So who was it that had a problem with this thread being in learning? No one but "anarcho-capitalists" and liberals have a problem with coercion, which is absolutely necessary as no capitalist will give power willingly.

Hence, this is a debate about basics, and belongs in learning.


It was me. Actually it is probably more correct to simply state that it is only totalitarian fascists who don&#39;t ever have a problem with coercion.

You hear a knock on your door and there are armed men there. They tell you to become their slave, you refuse. So they shoot you dead. According to you this is all fine and dandy.
Perhaps you are a social darwinist?
....before you say "o but the people didn&#39;t decide", assume that the vast majority of your village/town have consented [and here we can go off again... perhaps it is simply tacit consent? hence why i asked how the people decide] to such action.


I&#39;m glad that the majority do not agree with your views regarding the nature of the topic. Someone said it should be philosophy... yes i did consider this, as it is political philosophy. However i thought theory was more appropriate. Feel free to move it though to philosophy if you wish.

EDIT:

Armchair,
Yes i see where you are coming from regarding the different forms and types of coercion. As i rather poorly (was in a rush) stated in my first post, i wasn&#39;t prepared to limit the opening discussion to one specific form. I can see the arguments for having done so though. For example it would have focused the debate and perhaps avoided some of the confusion that has arisen.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)Are you sure that you can even call all coercion on an "individual level" a practice that is "nasty"?[/b]Yes.

Now your examples are good. And I would say that coercion is justified in these situations, but as you said it is subjective.


And this is what I tried to say in an earlier post. The value or not of an action is subjective. It is up to the person (or people&#39;s) at the time to decide if coercion is justified. Then later, if enough people feel strongly about it, it can be taken up with the town council (assuming a post revolutionary society). In some circumstances (known criminal or what have you), it might go straight to the town council, but not in the examples given.



Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)The point to all this, is that we can&#39;t just say that coercion, in and of itself, is "nasty"....no matter what form of coercion we are talking about. The best thing we can do, is try to, as best we can, base the use of coercion on objective criteria. For instance, societal coercion against rape is beneficial, because rape is objectively detrimental to society. And the same case could be made with regards racism and so on.[/b]We can say that coercion in and of it self is nasty, but sometimes it is justified. I think that what you talked about in a previous post (societal pressure not to do an act) is not coercion, and it only becomes coercion when it becomes open and obvious. And then it has to be by specific individuals, either acting on their on behalf, or with authority from the society. But just a general rule is not coercion.

And I use the same rule of thumb as above, if it is thought justified, then it is either going to be later ratified or has already been ratified by some group (perhaps all) of the local population.


Armchair [email protected]
Additionally, and this is where I think you have a point, we should aim to transfer coercion on an "individual level" to coercion on a societal level. That is why, for instance, crime and punishment should be dealt with societally....and not just by the victims and the people close to them.Yes, but ultimately someone has to take action, and either they will do that action with consent or not, and if not, then they will have to justify it later. Society doesn&#39;t take action, individuals or groups do.


Armchair Socialism
But, really, as I said in my last post, in order to do this we need to take coercion out of the abstract ethical realm and place it within the context of real world events. In other words, the nitty gritty arena.Yup. My rule of thumb, if you think it (coercion, violence etc.) is justified then fine, but be ready to justify it to someone else.

I actually think we are not too far apart on this issue, just a little disagreement on definitions.

[liberationjunky]

In my opinion if coercion is used to bring about peace, happiness, or equality for all people and is not focused on your own personal gain it is justified, or at least justifiable.

And when coercion is used for greed, like buisnesses use it to gain more profit, or how are government often uses it so we invest more trust in them, it is deffently wrong and cannot be justified.

[Redcarpet]

When democratically authorised.

[rouchambeau]

When democratically authorised.

So the majority is always right?

[Ol' Dirty]

Coercion is justified only when people are harming other themselves and others. In the case of violent coercion, if someone is threatening another, holding a gun to their head might be a good idea. Psycologicaly, it is justified when someone is threatening someone else, or you, or themself. Culturaly, you can subvert the aggressor into reneging their harmful ideology (e.g. Fascism, Capitalism).