4 ms·

I agree, man should never coerce man. The coercer’s group affiliation and reasons are irrelevant. I define coercion as initiating physical violence against ano

I agree, man should never coerce man. The coercer’s group affiliation and reasons are irrelevant. I define coercion as initiating physical violence against another man. * And I am suspicious of market cartels (wage collusion, price fixing, labor unions, etc), but as they are freely made contracts between private individuals I can’t in good conscience support government intervention. (I heavily edited this message)

a1369209993 6y ago
> I define coercion as initiating physical violence against another man. That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's home and waiting for them to starve to death to qualify as physical violence? (Assume for the sake of argument that noone else interferes with this, perhaps because you're in a isolated rural area.) (I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.)
- burrows 6y ago
  > That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's home and waiting for them to starve to death to qualify as physical violence? Yes, the barricader has “initiated force” because “man” owns his body and his possessions. Vandalizing the possessions is analogous to assaulting the body. (My language is clumsy.) > I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.) Noted.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    Fair point. How about if they're in some public or abandoned building and the barricader locks or obstructs the exits to the same effect?
    - burrows 6y ago
      It’s analogous to a stranger tackling me and pinning me until I starve to death. The use of wood and nails is immaterial. You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? The friend owns the home so the vandal-argument doesn’t make sense.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? That it's a type of attack (and potentially coercion) relevantly distinct from physical violence. Hence why I found your definition of coercion as initiating physical violence oddly narrow.
        burrows 6y ago
        Ok. I am not happy with my definition of coercion. I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man’s body or property. Punching someone is coercion. Advertising is not coercion. Threatening to punch someone is maybe coercion. Stealing a wallet is coercion. Firing someone (and reducing his income) is not coercion. An uninsured bank going bankrupt is probably not coercing its customers. Maybe I mean “violate natural rights” rather than “coerce”.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        > I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man's body or property. Ah, yes, this makes significantly more sense. > Maybe I mean "violate natural rights" rather than "coerce". Well, "coerce" obviously has a "or threaten to do so" and a "in order to cause or prevent certain behaviour" tacked onto it's definition, but "violate natural rights" otherwise seems like a plausible definition in and of itself; the question that immediately follows being what qualifies as a natural right. Absence of unprovoked physical violence certainly sounds like it would be included in that, but short of contrived and circular definitions of "violence" and "physical", it isn't really sufficient.

a1369209993 6y ago

> I define coercion as initiating physical violence against another man. That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's home and waiting for them to starve to death to qualify as physical violence? (Assume for the sake of argument that noone else interferes with this, perhaps because you're in a isolated rural area.) (I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.)

burrows 6y ago
> That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's home and waiting for them to starve to death to qualify as physical violence? Yes, the barricader has “initiated force” because “man” owns his body and his possessions. Vandalizing the possessions is analogous to assaulting the body. (My language is clumsy.) > I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.) Noted.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  Fair point. How about if they're in some public or abandoned building and the barricader locks or obstructs the exits to the same effect?
  - burrows 6y ago
    It’s analogous to a stranger tackling me and pinning me until I starve to death. The use of wood and nails is immaterial. You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? The friend owns the home so the vandal-argument doesn’t make sense.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? That it's a type of attack (and potentially coercion) relevantly distinct from physical violence. Hence why I found your definition of coercion as initiating physical violence oddly narrow.
      - burrows 6y ago
        Ok. I am not happy with my definition of coercion. I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man’s body or property. Punching someone is coercion. Advertising is not coercion. Threatening to punch someone is maybe coercion. Stealing a wallet is coercion. Firing someone (and reducing his income) is not coercion. An uninsured bank going bankrupt is probably not coercing its customers. Maybe I mean “violate natural rights” rather than “coerce”.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        > I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man's body or property. Ah, yes, this makes significantly more sense. > Maybe I mean "violate natural rights" rather than "coerce". Well, "coerce" obviously has a "or threaten to do so" and a "in order to cause or prevent certain behaviour" tacked onto it's definition, but "violate natural rights" otherwise seems like a plausible definition in and of itself; the question that immediately follows being what qualifies as a natural right. Absence of unprovoked physical violence certainly sounds like it would be included in that, but short of contrived and circular definitions of "violence" and "physical", it isn't really sufficient.