SWMA Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Hello everybody. I am a German native speaker. As I wrote here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43637-yet-another-real-life-newspeak-equivalent/ there are three different subconcepts which in the English language are all subsummated in the word "force". To reiterate: "force" in the English language can be used as "physical force"(in the sense of violence), "scientifical physical force"(eg what Newton's axioms talk about) and "coercive force"(what one applies to another human to make him do something against his [initial] will without resorting to open violence, may include the threat of violence however). In the German language we have different words for all these concepts(which do overlap in some fringe cases, not of interest here). The Non-Agression Principle (NAP) states "no one may initiate the use of force". However, it doesn't specify in which sense the word should be read. If you read it as "physical force"(as said, in the sense of violence) then it is absolutely agreeable for everyone, just by one glance at it. In talking to other native German people I have found that all agree "Gewalt"(physical force) may not be initiated by anyone*. I personally am of the opinion that also no one is allowed to initiate "Zwang"(coercive force) against another human. But, and that's what perplexed me, many other people are not. It seems to be the case this nuance is completely lost in the English debates -and I dare say in Stefan's videos- as 'the proof'/'explanation' for the NAP is just done with the "physical force" interpretation and it then is just asserted that it is true for "force" in general. The 'cases' for why coercive force would be permissible seem to boil down to "keeping the social peace" and similar. After noting that this sounds like a highway robber who says "well I don't have a pistol but my companion here does so please give me your money", which obviously is still robbing just the same, the conversations mostly ended in that area, much to my dismay. What are your thoughts on this? Have you thought about this in detail before, have you had conversations about it? What have you come up with? Are you aware of anything on the NAP that covers these issues, or even a general derivation of the NAP that's more than just "this looks good to me let's have it as a principle"? cheers
TheRobin Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 I don't really see the difference. Do they think that coercion doesn't require physical force? I mean, it either a rule has a threat of force to back it up or it's just a freindly suggestion. And I doubt they claim that friendly suggestions are what they mean with coercive force.as for justifications: Stef has written "Universally Preferable Behaviour" that makes the case for rational ethics.There's also Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics that makes a similar case.
SWMA Posted April 27, 2015 Author Posted April 27, 2015 I don't really see the difference. Do they think that coercion doesn't require physical force? I mean, it either a rule has a threat of force to back it up or it's just a freindly suggestion. And I doubt they claim that friendly suggestions are what they mean with coercive force. as for justifications: Stef has written "Universally Preferable Behaviour" that makes the case for rational ethics. There's also Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics that makes a similar case. as I understand you right now you do not see the difference between "coercion" and "violence". Is that correct? I strongly suspect I am misreading you here, could you please elaborate?
SWMA Posted April 30, 2015 Author Posted April 30, 2015 I don't really see the difference. Do they think that coercion doesn't require physical force? I mean, it either a rule has a threat of force to back it up or it's just a freindly suggestion. And I doubt they claim that friendly suggestions are what they mean with coercive force. as for justifications: Stef has written "Universally Preferable Behaviour" that makes the case for rational ethics. There's also Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics that makes a similar case. I already wrote this once but after a few days it's not here so I'll try again... as I understand you right now you do not see the difference between "coercive force" and "violent force", is that correct? Think of them as "what one applies in" - and then either coercion or violence. You surely see the difference between violence and coercion, do you not? And yes, the problem that native english speakers don't readily see the differences are exactly what this is about. I think the inherent conflation of different concepts into one word limits the ability to differentiate for native speakers of said language, unless they dive deep enough into the material to spot the differences which are inherently conflated by the language they are used to. And then make up new words, or qualifiers like I am doing here. Or use a different language.
TheRobin Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Yes, I don't see the difference, since you need violence to coerce someone. You can't have coercion without violence. And I'm Swiss (german part), so I understand the german language quite well and I don't see how it's a language thing at all either
SWMA Posted May 1, 2015 Author Posted May 1, 2015 so here are a few things which are most clearly not violence but can be used to coerce someone: (threat of) (social) ostracization - fear of being ostracized (which resides in most humans) can be used to make someone conform - it coerces him to conform. (Freedom of Association) temper tantrum (usually by a child) - uses a feeling of shame that arises in the parents in order to coerce them into giving the child what it wants (doesn't work on all parents of course) (threat of) slander - (the threat of) making public some bits of (possibly incorrect) information which would, for example, make people not want to buy in a certain store (Freedom of Association) blackmail - (the threat of) releasing (correct) information which would, for example, make people not want to buy in a certain store (Freedom of Association) You're right, it probably has nothing to do with the language barrier in your case. And of course this list is not meant to be exhaustive or anything, just a few pointers...
SWMA Posted May 2, 2015 Author Posted May 2, 2015 And another one: peer pressure Why is it taking so long for my comments to appear here? Makes having a conversation hard. I already wrote a big comment ... why is it not here?
TheRobin Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 Okay, I see what you mean. Not sure what any of that would have to do with the NAP though. If anything that affects people negatively would fall under the NAP then it would be practically impossible to do anything anymore. And as you pointed out in three of the examples, people are free to associate with whomever they like. (And they can have whatever standards they like that they want people to meet with whom they want to associate with)Also slightly off-topic: I don't think I ever heard/saw any evidence that children are that devious unempathic plotters as you make it sound here. And temper tantrums are especially not a calculated move but when the child is overwhelmed by anger/sadness.
Recommended Posts