From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: What is coercion?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:26:59 GMT

In article <12715@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1) writes:
>Phil: 1: Coercion is the use of force to influence a person.
>      2: Coerce - to compel by force or threats of force.
>
>Al: To coerce is to *compel* someone to do something. 


Perhaps some of you read an article in the paper in the last two days
about a man acquited of rape -- because the women he was raping asked
him to use a condom.

It was decided (by our wonderful legal "system") that because the woman
asked the man to use a rubber, she agreed to the sexual intercourse
and hence was not rape.

The woman, of course, was trying avoid possible disease/pregnancy
aspects of forcible sexual intercourse.

Outrageous.

And sadly, an example of use to illustrate coercion.


How do two (or more) people agree to something?

When is it persuausion, when is it coercion?



The boundary line is the individual and his/her property.


For an example:

If a person (person A) is persuaded to do something by the promise of sexual
intercourse from a beautiful partner (person B), that is not coercion.

Person B has offered person A something from person B. If person A declines,
then person A has the same amount property, in the same state, as before.

Person A doesn't get laid, but loses no property, suffers no property
injury, isn't murdered or assaulted, etc.

Person A DECLINES the offer of person's B property (which includes mind,
ideas, sexual intercourse, etc.), and suffers NO INJURY to his/her property.



Now, if person B told person A to do the exact same thing, but threatens
to use a gun on person A if person A declines, NOW we have coercion.


If person A declines, person A now has injury to person's A property (mind,
ideas, body, etc.).



And THAT's the difference -- in a NON-COERCED exchange, person A has suffered
NO loss to person's A property if person A declines.

In effect, the question is of "Want to trade?", and an outcome of "thanks"
or "no thanks". In either response, person A will choose what he/she thinks
is the best -- to trade or not to trade.

It is a win-win situation for BOTH parties.


In a coerced exchange, person A now has gone froma win-win situation
to a lose-lose situation. Either alternative is viewed as a loss.

"Do I give up my wallet" or "do I get shot from a thugs gun?". A choice,
but each choice involves a loss, from person's A viewpoint.


Only when the situation results in the transaction being viewed as a win
by BOTH parties is there no coercion.

Note of course that a "win" situation is mixed as being both subjective
and objective in value. You can't objectively feel "no win" if someone
refuses to exchange you a $20 bill for a $1 bill, although subjectively
of course, if you are a collectivist (communist, socialist, fascists,
leftist), you may "feel" this way subjectively.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics