From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Coercion, Freedom of Association,  and Voting???
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:04:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Oct7.145117.8474@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.040248.24701@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>    >In article <1992Oct2.163842.7950@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
>    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >>In article <1992Oct2.011020.23107@clipper.ingr.com>
>    >>ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>    >>>Coercion comes in too many forms to be argued as a simple
>    >>>matter of freedom of association. My boss coerces me, I
>    >>>coerce my kids, my wife coerces me, we all coerce each other
>    >>>to some degree, on the freeway, in social settings. But
>    >>>perhaps we have a semantic problem here. The definition of
>    >>>"coerce" which seems most universal is: "to compel to an act
>    >>>or choice." Coercion is not necessarily the use of force, in
>    >>>other words, so it cannot automatically be classified as
>    >>>immoral, and again, the connection to the FOA seems remote.
>    >>>
>    >>Do you have a choice with respect to boss and wife? Can you
>    >>not say, "Sorry, but this is not for me. Let's not associate
>    >>anymore."?
>    >>
>    >>You can't say that to the State now can you? Hey boss, I'm
>    >>not going to work here anymore, and you of course won't pay
>    >>me anymore.
>    >>
>    >>Hey State, I'm not using your services anymore (like, say,
>    >>the Amish) so let's not associate anymore ...
>    >>
>    >>
>    >Well, you may certainly choose to join the underground
>    >economy, go live in the hills, or start your own country in
>    >the South Pacific. But you may find that you are being
>    >coerced to an even greater degree than you are now.
>    >
>    >Certainly one may exercise one's freedom of association if
>    >one feels that one is overly coerced in a given relationship.
>    >But one would exercise one's freedom of association for a
>    >million other reasons as well. The link between the FOA and
>    >coercion is only incidental inotherwords. I suppose enough
>    >coercion could be applied that your FOA would be rendered
>    >useless (as if you were chained in the Gulag) but this is a
>    >moral abomination for other reasons than the denial of FOA.
>
>Huh?
>
>Freedom Of Association (FOA) exists ONLY WITHOUT coercion.
>

Please define your terms.  I gave my definition of the verb
"coerce" above.  It does not just equate to "use of force." 
One may exercise FOA within a wide range of societal
coercion, it just becomes progressively more difficult.

>You post is meaningless.

If you have a problem with meanings, I suggest more dictionary time.

>
>How can you "exercise FOA" if one "feels" that one is "overly coerced"?
>

One chooses to find what one thinks might be less coercive surroundings.

>Tell me -- how does your wife "coerce" you?

She tells me that she wont do this or that if I dont fix this or that,
just for example.  This compels me to certain actions.  It is a
good healthy form of coercion, the same as the kind I apply to my
kids to get them to go to bed, or to practice piano.

>
>I don't coerce you.

Never honked your horn or blinked your lights at someone on the road?
From some of your postings I get the impression that you might be
a rather rude driver.  But I have no first hand knowledge of course.

>Just WHAT is this initiation of force that your wife enages in? And
>have you considered calling the police the next time she does this?
>

Like I said, coercion is not necessarily the use of force.
If you want to talk about use of force, do so, but most coercion
does not involve the use of force, it is much more subtle.  

Stoplights are a form of societal coercion, one which none of us
challenges.  

The problem with Ayn Rand was that she latched onto "fringe" definitions
of words like "coercion" and "altruism" and tried to re-write the accepted
meanings of these words.  I suppose this would be OK if the
entire world went Objectivist, but since this is unlikely, Randites need
to check their semantic premises.


--Al Date