Herodotus: liberty student: Way too long for me to read. Is there a short version? A fine display of the need for coercive education.
liberty student: Way too long for me to read. Is there a short version?
Way too long for me to read. Is there a short version?
A fine display of the need for coercive education.
Right, because people should be forced to read what you write, no matter how long, or well written. Great point.
An attitude like this wouldn't cut it in a market situation where one had to create value to my satisfaction in order to capture my attention.
Good thing public school teachers work in a paradigm of aggression. Makes it easier to serve themselves, while claiming they are serving the needs of children.
That makes me wonder:
The standard "conservative" or Fox News complaint about the Wisconsin protests is that the teachers are not teaching.
I wonder how many of us in this forum think that is a bad thing.
Come on Wisconsin children, time to go on a long biking trip, reading some excellent books you always wanted to read, or just chilling with friends with some good quality music. This is your chance to raise both your intellectual standards and happiness with life. Let 'em strike!
Prateek Sanjay:Let 'em strike!
Just replace 'em all with random people at half the cost. Just tell those striking teachers they aren't needed any more. Oh, that would be so awesome.
Filc:tighten up your critique's...It's becoming difficult to follow.
Herodotus:Coercion is necessary for the survival, education, and maturation of the immature, especially children. Second, it is necessary for the survival and prosperity of family, without which human life cannot exist. A society without "mass" education--via family, mythical rites, church, public schools, home schooling, private schools, whatever; "education" broadly defined--would soon revert back to painting itself blue, howling at the moon, and eating its neighbor for lunch. Therefore, voluntarism is no more than an abstract theory that no one can, does, or will ever practice in a world inhabited by humans. More concretely, some voluntarists can talk about permitting a five year old "of his own free will" deciding to move into the pedophilic neighbor's house, except when it is your own five year old.
More concretely, some voluntarists can talk about permitting a five year old "of his own free will" deciding to move into the pedophilic neighbor's house, except when it is your own five year old.
Ok I see 4 different topics of concern here.
Do you have any one in particular you would like to focus on, or are you just ranting?
LadyPhoenix
Well, that's the condensed version of the issue I tried to raise in the OP, on the advice of someone who thought the discussion had gotten off track. I have been told that my posts are too long to be worth reading, and now, I take it they are too short.
I have already described the kinds of coercion that I use in class--and in response to an allusion above by someone else--in private schools.
But, take the example of one's five year old son who decides to go live with the pedophilic neighbor, which I offered, after Micah first raised the issue, as a way to make the issue much more concrete and succinct, since some "voluntarists" insist on making the issue one about "state vs anarchy" when the issue is "coercion vs anarchy".
Are there any people who regard themselves as voluntarists who believe that their son should be allowed to move in with the pedophilic neighbor? As for myself, I can only imagine the amounts of coercion I would use, some aggressive (towards the pedophile) and some not (towards my child), in order to prevent that from happening. That is a very stark example, but the matter of education is a more mild form of the same conundrum.
If you can let your child move in with that neighbor, well, congratulations, you are a pure voluntarist, although I don't think there's much value left in that label anymore. Or, perhaps, you can bribe your child with more candy than the neighbor does, as a "free market" solution. I would hope that I could reason with my child not only once this danger arose, but I hope I could have prepared him in some fashion for those kinds of dangers before they arose. For example, I could tell him, "Don't talk to strangers" or "Don't take candy from strangers", but would that be a command or advice? Supposing one day I saw him taking candy from that neighbor, am I going to risk relying on the strength of my son's undeveloped reason? Or, will I try to think of a bribe? Or, will I give him a "reason" he will not soon forget as a way to hold the line?
That the majority of people here cannot consider this problem without conjuring up the words "market" is, I guess, not surprising, but I had thought that Misesians were voluntarists first, rather than materialists. I think that the Austrian insights into economics and value are unsurpassed, and I am all in favor of extending the economic truths as far as possible, but the market cannot deal with every facet of life.
I am fully aware that coercion is not identical to aggression. Aggression is always coercive, but coercion is not always aggressive. In fact, that is my point. In the classroom, I coerce not as an act of retributive justice, but merely as a means to force students to learn things they may or may not be interested in learning. I thought I had made that very clear in the OP.
As for,
Ladyphoenix: Herodotus:A fine display of the need for coercive education.Really? How do you propose "coercively" educating him?
Herodotus:A fine display of the need for coercive education.
Let it never be said that a voluntarist had a sense of humor. Since students regularly say or think things such as LS said, I thought it rather witty to point out the need for coercion in such an instance. But, since you asked, I would utilize as much non-aggressive coercion as I could muster. Surely, nobody could object?
Herodotus:In the classroom, I coerce not as an act of retributive justice, but merely as a means to force students to learn things they may or may not be interested in learning.
If the students aren't interested in learning them, I personally would consider your coercion of them to be aggressive.
I also consider enforcement of mandatory-attendance laws in general to constitute aggressive coercion.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Filc,
Bad things that could allegedly happen to children absent coercion.
That's the issue. Obviously, aggression is bad. Ought one coerce a child into doing something for their own good?
I believe that it is both right and inevitable. Perhaps a voluntarist parent or teacher can explain how they have never used any form of coercion with their child.
BTW, my definition of coercion is this:
Persuasion (of an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
I borrowed that from Dictionary.com. Since the emphasis is on will, just as in voluntarism, which holds that one cannot force another person against his or her will, I would like someone to explain how that ideal can possibly be applied to children.
Herodotus:But, take the example of one's five year old son who decides to go live with the pedophilic neighbor, which I offered, after Micah first raised the issue, as a way to make the issue much more concrete and succinct, since some "voluntarists" insist on making the issue one about "state vs anarchy" when the issue is "coercion vs anarchy". ...Snipped... I am fully aware that coercion is not identical to aggression. Aggression is always coercive, but coercion is not always aggressive. In fact, that is my point. In the classroom, I coerce not as an act of retributive justice, but merely as a means to force students to learn things they may or may not be interested in learning. I thought I had made that very clear in the OP.
...Snipped...
You are misrepresenting the "voluntaryist' position, or you are taking what seems to be a very rare/unpopular position of a single person calling hismelf "voluntaryist" and saying that all voluntaryists principles are flawed as a result. This is hardly a logical progression.
Rather than "coercion vs. anarchy" the "voluntaryist" position is "aggression vs. anarchy." You are still chasing a position which is not held by any "voluntaryist" that I'm aware of.
Herodotus:Let it never be said that a voluntarist had a sense of humor. Since students regularly say or think things such as LS said, I thought it rather witty to point out the need for coercion in such an instance. But, since you asked, I would utilize as much non-aggressive coercion as I could muster. Surely, nobody could object?
Your answer is lacking in necessary details. Coercion falls into two categories, much like violence. It is either aggressive or non-aggressive. To my knowledge, there really is no such thing as "neutral violence" or "neutral coercion." For "coercion" or "violence" either to be called "defensive" (i.e. "non-aggressive") it must be in direct response to an aggressive act. Please explain how LS's refusal to read your post is "aggressive" such that you could respond with any sort of "coercion" other than the "aggressive" kind.
Autolykos,
Using your distinction, could you give an example of coercion (in the classroom) that was not aggressive? By your definition, it seems that coercion=aggression.
Herodotus:Obviously, aggression is bad. Ought one coerce a child into doing something for their own good?
Who's to say what "their own good" really is?
Herodotus:BTW, my definition of coercion is this: Persuasion (of an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats. I borrowed that from Dictionary.com. Since the emphasis is on will, just as in voluntarism, which holds that one cannot force another person against his or her will, I would like someone to explain how that ideal can possibly be applied to children.
I think your understanding of voluntarism is flawed. If voluntarism really held that one cannot force another person against his or her will, then voluntarism would equate to pacifism - defense against a thief, for example, would be forcing him to do something (not steal) against his will. As I understand it, voluntarism has no problem with non-aggressive/defensive coercion.
Herodotus:Autolykos, Using your distinction, could you give an example of coercion (in the classroom) that was not aggressive? By your definition, it seems that coercion=aggression.
Sure. One example of non-aggressive coercion in the classroom would be breaking up a fight between two students. Another example would be forcing a disruptive student out of the classroom.
Ladyphoenix,
I am not a voluntarist, so I do feel reluctant to tell you what your position is, but I am troubled by your definition because of the word "voluntarist". The very word means "one's free will". A voluntarist must be against coercion, which is about breaking the will of another in some fashion.
If you are opposed to "aggression", especially if you are puritanical about it, that would make you a "pacifist".
I think maybe the point we are getting stuck on is the initiation of coercion. Is there no such thing as a kind of coercion that is both non-defensive and non-aggressive? I believe that in the classroom, there is such a thing, and I believe and hope that is what I practice. I issue commands: Write this, say that, sit down, stop talking, stop playing, etc. I cannot see that that is aggressive or defensive, but it is certainly coercive.
I still cannot see any flaw in my definition of voluntarism (free will) or in my definition of coercion (the violation of free will).
Even under your definitions, however, voluntarism (anti-aggression) and aggression (non-defensive coercion), would raise the same problems: can you boss around children? By your definition of voluntarism, the answer would be no. And, still I hold, until I can be convinced otherwise, that in the real world, bossing kids around is both necessary and inevitable, and so, voluntarism is invalid.
Of one thing I am certain, though. You cannot convince me that voluntarists have a sense of humor. :)
So, voluntarism accepts coercion that is neither non-aggressive nor non-defensive? That is, benevolent coercion?
Sorry, I meant "neither aggressive nor defensive"!
Herodotus:That's the issue. Obviously, aggression is bad. Ought one coerce a child into doing something for their own good?
I thought we already hashed this out several pages prior? Does it need to be revisited?
Herodotus: Autolykos, So, voluntarism accepts coercion that is neither non-aggressive nor non-defensive? That is, benevolent coercion?
Correct. The NAP is against the initiation of force, not against force.
In children there have been a number(many) explanations to the unique situation between parent and child. I would suggest starting a new topic. Even if we concede that a certain level of guidance is necessary for children, that doesn't mean children are without options when they are placed into abusive situations.
Herodotus:I still cannot see any flaw in my definition of voluntarism (free will) or in my definition of coercion (the violation of free will).
What you're describing is actually "pacifism." To hold that any violation of free-will is, in all cases, immoral would necessarily include those acts of violation which were intended to defend one's life or property from violation by others. That is what you're suggesting in the section I have quoted above. You are arguing against radical pacifism, not the philosophy to which "voluntaryists" (at least in this thread) adhere.
Herodotus, although you addressed this post to Ladyphoenix, I hope you don't mind me taking a stab at a response to it.
Herodotus:Ladyphoenix, I am not a voluntarist, so I do feel reluctant to tell you what your position is, but I am troubled by your definition because of the word "voluntarist". The very word means "one's free will".
I am not a voluntarist, so I do feel reluctant to tell you what your position is, but I am troubled by your definition because of the word "voluntarist". The very word means "one's free will".
How does "voluntarist" mean "one's free will", etymologically speaking?
Herodotus:A voluntarist must be against coercion, which is about breaking the will of another in some fashion.
I don't think one's will is ever broken. Even when it appears that way, I'd say what's really going on is that one is choosing to go along with "the breaker of his will".
Herodotus:If you are opposed to "aggression", especially if you are puritanical about it, that would make you a "pacifist".
How is that necessarily the case? What definition of "aggression" are you using?
Herodotus:I think maybe the point we are getting stuck on is the initiation of coercion. Is there no such thing as a kind of coercion that is both non-defensive and non-aggressive? I believe that in the classroom, there is such a thing, and I believe and hope that is what I practice. I issue commands: Write this, say that, sit down, stop talking, stop playing, etc. I cannot see that that is aggressive or defensive, but it is certainly coercive.
I guess I need to provide further clarification of my stance on coercion. To me, coercion is necessarily physical - it is the use or threat of physical force (violence).
Telling someone to do something isn't coercion IMO unless there's an explicit or implicit threat of physical force behind it. "Complete this assignment or I'll give you an F in the class" thus isn't coercion, because there's no threat of physical force involved. "Complete this assignment or I'll whip you" certainly is, however.
Likewise with parents bossing around their children - compare "Do you homework or I'll withhold your allowance" with "Do your homework or I'll spank you".
Herodotus:Autolykos, So, voluntarism accepts coercion that is [neither aggressive nor defensive]? That is, benevolent coercion?
So, voluntarism accepts coercion that is [neither aggressive nor defensive]? That is, benevolent coercion?
As I hopefully indicated in my last post, I don't see how there can be "neutral" coercion. But to me, the essence of coercion is physical force (violence).
Herodotus:Bad things that could allegedly happen to children absent coercion.
Sure, we're not Utopians.
Herodotus:Ought one coerce a child into doing something for their own good?
Who has the moral authority to decide that? Do you?
You continue to conflate coercion and aggression, they are two different things. Compulsory education is aggression.
Herodotus:So, voluntarism accepts coercion that is neither non-aggressive nor non-defensive? That is, benevolent coercion?
It is absolutely amazing to me that people are not able to understand the simplest of positions.
Aggression is the initiation of force. Voluntarism is for non-aggression. Period.
Coercion isn't relevant at all. If coercion is aggressive, it is bad to a voluntarist. If coercion is defenseive, it is not.
The word coercion has nothing to do with libertarianism or voluntarism or ancap at all. Something is either aggressive or not. Period, end of story.
Herodotus:Even under your definitions, however, voluntarism (anti-aggression) and aggression (non-defensive coercion), would raise the same problems: can you boss around children? By your definition of voluntarism, the answer would be no. And, still I hold, until I can be convinced otherwise, that in the real world, bossing kids around is both necessary and inevitable, and so, voluntarism is invalid.
After reading Autolykos's reply to this post, I realized I should take the time to reply more thoroughly here. You are misrepresenting my "definitions" of these words. So let me lay them out for you, since they seem to be causing us problems here.
1) Violence = Use of physical force against the body or property of another 2) Coercion = The threat of violence in an attempt to ensure compliance 3) Aggression = The initiation of violence or coercion (see above) 4) Defense = The act of employing violence or coercion (or any other means) in order to end an act of aggression
Can you accept these definitions for these words?
@Herodotus: "A voluntarist must be against coercion, which is about breaking the will of another in some fashion."
I'm not sure about voluntarists, but I think many libertarians would restrict "coercion" to physical coercion (or the threat thereof) directed against another person's body or property. E.g., if Mrs. Smith tells Mr. Smith, "Do what I say, or else I'll leave you," this might well "break Mr. Smith's will," but it's not coercion in this sense.
"I issue commands: Write this, say that, sit down, stop talking, stop playing, etc. I cannot see that that is aggressive or defensive, but it is certainly coercive."
I think it depends. Do you threaten to hit your pupils in case they don't obey your commands? If so, then you coerce (and, what is more, aggress against) them. Do you threaten to give them detention? If so, what would you do if one of your students simply tried to leave? Would you physically prevent him from leaving? If so, then you would coerce (and aggress against) him. If not, your behavior probably doesn't amount to coercion.
I have certainly wondered about whether coercion is necessarily an act of force or violence, but when speaking of a child, I am not sure that really holds water. What about, do this or I will belittle you? Or, what about, do your homework or I will withhold food or clothing from you in some manner? What if I say, if you do your homework, you will become rich, famous, happy? Or, since that never works anyway, what if I construct a kind of myth to give the child the impression that doing his/her homework or otherwise obeying me is somehow "good"? What if I tell him/her stories about people who didn't do their homework and ended up in jail? Parents and teachers do those things (to one degree or another) all the time, and it is easy to slip into the habit of it. Is brainwashing a child coercion? I can see how somebody could argue themselves into holding that it wasn't, but the intent behind the action is to get the child to do something they would otherwise be unwilling to do, so I think it is coercive.
As for the etymology of voluntarism, assuming that it stems from the word "voluntary", you can look up the word at (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=voluntary). It says that "voluntarius" means "of one's free will".
As for "aggression", I regard it as an assault or attack, often hostile and for the advancement of one's own interests. That is my take of the definition at (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression).
Also, you said that ther is no such thing as "heutral coercion", but what then is breaking up a fight?
Herodotus:Autolykos, I have certainly wondered about whether coercion is necessarily an act of force or violence, but when speaking of a child, I am not sure that really holds water. What about, do this or I will belittle you?
I have certainly wondered about whether coercion is necessarily an act of force or violence, but when speaking of a child, I am not sure that really holds water. What about, do this or I will belittle you?
I wouldn't say that's coercion - for children or adults.
Herodotus:Or, what about, do your homework or I will withhold food or clothing from you in some manner?
I'm honestly not sure about this one - at this point, I think it could go either way.
Herodotus:What if I say, if you do your homework, you will become rich, famous, happy? Or, since that never works anyway, what if I construct a kind of myth to give the child the impression that doing his/her homework or otherwise obeying me is somehow "good"? What if I tell him/her stories about people who didn't do their homework and ended up in jail?
My answer here is the same as my answer to your first question.
Herodotus:Parents and teachers do those things (to one degree or another) all the time, and it is easy to slip into the habit of it. Is brainwashing a child coercion? I can see how somebody could argue themselves into holding that it wasn't, but the intent behind the action is to get the child to do something they would otherwise be unwilling to do, so I think it is coercive.
For one thing, it depends on how you're defining "brainwashing". For another, I think a distinction should be made between coercion and persuasion. Motivating someone to do something that he was unwilling to do beforehand is persuasion IMO if it doesn't involve the use or threat of physical force. Otherwise, if it does involve that, it's coercion.
Herodotus:As for the etymology of voluntarism, assuming that it stems from the word "voluntary", you can look up the word at (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=voluntary). It says that "voluntarius" means "of one's free will".
Right, but my point was that "voluntaryist" doesn't itself mean literally "one's free will".
Herodotus:As for "aggression", I regard it as an assault or attack, often hostile and for the advancement of one's own interests. That is my take of the definition at (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression).
I think "aggression" can be defined as "unjustified coercion" for the purposes of our discussion. Do you agree?
Herodotus:Also, you said that ther is no such thing as "heutral coercion", but what then is breaking up a fight?
I'd say it's technically an instance of helping the victim ward off the attacker.
I appreciate your taking the time to make plain your meaning. I dealt with some of the issues you raise here in my response to Autolykos, but my initial reaction to your definitions is that I could only agree with the first one. In a nutshell, I cannot confine coercion to violence, particularly in regards to children. I haven't thought about it much in this context, but blackmail comes to mind in the case of adults.
To take a more off the wall case, what about the stranger who knocks on your hotel door in the middle of the night and says, "I'm not packin', I'm not packin'"? He wasn't, but I certainly regarded that as a threat, and that's how it was meant.
Also, I am not sure the emphasis in the word "aggression" is on initiation. I think that it is possible for one not to be the initiator and yet still be aggressive. The issue in that case, I think, would be proportionality. If I stepped on your foot, and you then went about killing my dog, smashing my car windows in, having 20 pizzas deliverd to my house, etc, I would probably consider that aggressive. I guess you could say that that is initiating a new level of violence or something, but as far as I can tell, the key point in aggression is intent, and is always negative whereas coercion has benevolent, defensive, and malevolent (or aggressive) forms.
Herodotus:I appreciate your taking the time to make plain your meaning. I dealt with some of the issues you raise here in my response to Autolykos, but my initial reaction to your definitions is that I could only agree with the first one.
1) Alice = Use of physical force against the body or property of another 2) Betty = The threat of Alice in an attempt to ensure compliance 3) Carol = The initiation of Alice or Betty (see above) 4) Denise = The act of employing Alice or Betty (or any other means) in order to end an act of Carol
It's not the labels that matter to me. The labels are shortcuts. What matters to me is that you get the ideas. Since I'm no longer using the words you claim to have sole dominion over the definitions of, we should no longer have a problem. Do you understand, at the very least, the concepts I'm trying to convey to you here?
Herodotus:If I stepped on your foot, and you then went about killing my dog, smashing my car windows in, having 20 pizzas deliverd to my house, etc, I would probably consider that aggressive. I guess you could say that that is initiating a new level of violence or something, .
There is no point in continuing the discussion of painting when you cannot accept the concepts of color and texture. What I mean is, you have alot more wrong going on here then accepting voluntaryism. You have to figure out how you percieve the world around you first, and your understanding of reality first. You just seem at large confused about a number of things.(No offense)
Herodotus:but as far as I can tell, the key point in aggression is intent
This is where your understanding of aggression differs from the accepted understanding of aggression when discussing voluntaryism. This has already been mentioned to you before but you continue to admit this strawman into your argumentation. (The same strawman that has been pointed out a number of times)
If a man driving a car hits and kills someone in a voluntarysitic society then the culprit would be responsible for paying restitution to the family that lost the loved one. Intent doesn't even have to enter into the equation. your responsible for yourself and your property, more often then not intent is not malacious but that doesn't mean your not responsible when you make mistakes.
This is something children learn growing up, it shouldn't be something we're discussing as adults.
"Unjustified coercion" sounds like a good definition of aggression to me, although I wonder what we're packing in the word "unjustified". I also agree that voluntaryism/t doesn't mean "one's free will". I was doing a poor job of trying to argue that voluntaryism is about will rather than aggression.
Autolykos: Herodotus:Also, you said that ther is no such thing as "heutral coercion", but what then is breaking up a fight? I'd say it's technically an instance of helping the victim ward off the attacker.
But, like me, I assume you'd break up the fight even without knowing who the "attacker" and "victim" were, which is not at all uncommon. Usually, both students are attacker and victim.
As for the persuasion/coercion distinction, let's go back to the pedophilia. If I tell a kid, perform this favor for me, or you grandmother will die of her cancer, is that "persuasion"? In any case, when I refer to the dictionary, I don't see any reason to confine coercion to physical force or threat of physical force.
Well, then, I think Carol sounds like a lot of fun, and Denise sounds pretty wild, too, but Alice and Betty sound a bit too crazy for me.
You guys are now telling me that voluntaryists have their own definitions for words. I agree that we shouldn't get lost in semantics and should worry about the underlying meaning, but it was the lot of you who have accused me of conflating words and confusing meanings. I think I have disproven that claim, and so I certainly understand if you want to move beyond that, as I have for some time now, but I cannot see how referring to Alice, Betty, Carol, or Denise will solve these issues for us, nor do I believe I have to conform to your sect's definitions of words in order to attain the truth.
I saw in this thread or another the claim by an anarchist-socialist (or whatever they call themselves) that ancap was a kind of Marxism of the Right. I grew up a fundamentalist, and all those same bells are ringing.
Pity we poor people who wander into a Newbie forum here without having conformed to your church's prefabricated definitions. I think it ironic that a clique of you on a website think you have the authority to dictate the meaning of words for voluntarism. This is the exact same route the Marxists and Jacobins and every secular fundamentalism goes down. Positively Orwellian.
...
Edit - above post got screwed up somehow, can't be bothered to fix it...
All I will do is to reassert my market leanings and non-socialist beliefs
Herodotus:Pity we poor people who wander into a Newbie forum here without having conformed to your church's prefabricated definitions.
We ofcoarse encourage you to read up on the topic prior to making arguments and assertions. Given that nearly all of the material needed to understand this position(Including its flaws) is free there is little excuse to remain in ignorance. However if you do choose to remain in ignorance, then stop arguing against or about positions you do not understand. Especially if you do not understand your own position.
Otherwise take the words given to you here as something to contemplate, then go do some homework and read up on the points we've raise.
:)
liberty student:Then why did you say you were playing Devil's advocate?
I don't think you understood my stance at all.
However, rather than participating in the usual standard of nauseating argumentation with anonymous antagonists on the internet I shall learn the true voluntaryist stance on child rearing myself through personal reading time.
Have fun.
@OP:
Yes, I agree with you that the human family entails some coercive elements. However, I think the mistake is in thinking that an ideal society is completely devoid of coercion rather than that it achieves a minimum of coercion. Parents have a completely legitimate interest in coercing their children and the delegation of that coercion to a teacher, tutor, governess, etc. is also completely legitimate. What makes this legitimate are the following considerations. First of all, children may complain about what they have to do (eat your vegetables!) but they generally don't complain about having to do things. In other words, children themselves are wired by nature to generally accept the coercion of their parents. If there's no complaint, then what's the problem? Second, where coercion is pushed too far, i.e. where parents become abusive, Nature has provided a first line of defense in the form of grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. who care about the welfare of the child and can intervene. Usually, this intervention is handled through social peer pressure within the family... the abusive parent is forced to stop being so lazy in child-rearing and scale back the abusive behavior by their desire to not be ill-perceived by their own family members. But when push comes to shove, this can erupt into litigation and this is the proper channel for child welfare to be protected, that is, by family advocacy, not State advocacy or nosy-neighbor advocacy.
The problem I've run into is that the same reason we should say that normal coercion within the family context is legitimate (namely, children don't complain about it) leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that coercion within the social context is also legitimate for the same reason, namely, people don't complain about it. People generally accept that they "have to" pay taxes. They generally accept the prerogative of the State to override laws with its legislation and to monopolize courts, police, defense, roads, utilities and other goods and services. I still think there is a defining distinction between these two forms of coercion and I'm still in the process of trying to tease them apart.
Clayton -
Herodotus:Pity we poor people who wander into a Newbie forum here without having conformed to your church's prefabricated definitions. I think it ironic that a clique of you on a website think you have the authority to dictate the meaning of words for voluntarism. This is the exact same route the Marxists and Jacobins and every secular fundamentalism goes down. Positively Orwellian.
I think we're done here.
Herodotus:Autolykos, "Unjustified coercion" sounds like a good definition of aggression to me, although I wonder what we're packing in the word "unjustified".
"Unjustified coercion" sounds like a good definition of aggression to me, although I wonder what we're packing in the word "unjustified".
Nothing, as of yet. :)
Herodotus:I also agree that voluntaryism/t doesn't mean "one's free will". I was doing a poor job of trying to argue that voluntaryism is about will rather than aggression.
Ah, I see. I'd say that voluntaryism is certainly not about letting everyone do whatever he wants, period. So it is more about aggression than about will per se - after all, it can be one's will to commit aggression.
Herodotus:But, like me, I assume you'd break up the fight even without knowing who the "attacker" and "victim" were, which is not at all uncommon. Usually, both students are attacker and victim.
Only one person ever starts a fight, IMO. You have a valid point, though - a third party often (usually?) doesn't see how the fight starts, so he's not sure which person started it.
Herodotus:As for the persuasion/coercion distinction, let's go back to the pedophilia. If I tell a kid, perform this favor for me, or you grandmother will die of her cancer, is that "persuasion"? In any case, when I refer to the dictionary, I don't see any reason to confine coercion to physical force or threat of physical force.
I'd say it's certainly an attempt at persuasion - it depends on whether you're defining "persuasion" to include the result (i.e. the person does end up motivated to do what you want).
Do we have to rely on a dictionary (which one?) for definitions of words used in our discussion? If not, it doesn't really matter what the definition is that we use for "coercion", as long as we agree to it. But if you insist on adhering to the "dictionary definition" of "coercion", I can simply distinguish between "physical coercion" and "non-physical coercion". It doesn't really matter to me - the underlying concepts stay the same.
Clayton:Second, where coercion is pushed too far, i.e. where parents become abusive, Nature has provided a first line of defense in the form of grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. who care about the welfare of the child and can intervene. Usually, this intervention is handled through social peer pressure within the family... the abusive parent is forced to stop being so lazy in child-rearing and scale back the abusive behavior by their desire to not be ill-perceived by their own family members. But when push comes to shove, this can erupt into litigation and this is the proper channel for child welfare to be protected, that is, by family advocacy, not State advocacy or nosy-neighbor advocacy.
I have a question for you; what if a small family (e.g. nuclear family unit) lives in an isolated geographical area or if they simply do not live near aunts, uncles, grand parents, etc. How do you prevent child abuse then without some form of intervention?
Cheers.
Why is it constantly the task and responsiblility of anarcho-capitalism to accomplish the impossible? Meanwhile people's own political philosophies fall far shorter?
I really dislike double standards.
Herodotus:You guys are now telling me that voluntaryists have their own definitions for words. I agree that we shouldn't get lost in semantics and should worry about the underlying meaning, but it was the lot of you who have accused me of conflating words and confusing meanings. I think I have disproven that claim, and so I certainly understand if you want to move beyond that, as I have for some time now, but I cannot see how referring to Alice, Betty, Carol, or Denise will solve these issues for us, nor do I believe I have to conform to your sect's definitions of words in order to attain the truth.
Keep in mind that there are no correct definitions for words, only different definitions. Of course, you don't have to conform to "the voluntaryist sect's" definitions of words in order to attain the truth, but if you want to understand what voluntaryists talk about in their own terms, I think it would help to understand the terms they use and how they use them. :)
Herodotus:I saw in this thread or another the claim by an anarchist-socialist (or whatever they call themselves) that ancap was a kind of Marxism of the Right. I grew up a fundamentalist, and all those same bells are ringing. Pity we poor people who wander into a Newbie forum here without having conformed to your church's prefabricated definitions. I think it ironic that a clique of you on a website think you have the authority to dictate the meaning of words for voluntarism. This is the exact same route the Marxists and Jacobins and every secular fundamentalism goes down. Positively Orwellian.
I agree with you that it seems belittling of "non-members'" intelligence to demand they conform to certain word usages. I think it's better to find a way to explain the underlying concepts that one holds to be true in terms another can best understand. In other words, I think it's important to look past the semantics and find common conceptual ground.