From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Coercion, what is it?
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:45:58 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct5.160147.17610@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>Subject: Coercion, what is it?
>Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:01:47 GMT

>In article <1ann40INNd4q@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>    >There is a very fine line here about your statement "ALL
>    >WITHOUT any initiation of coercion".
>    >
>    >Coercion means with force- engaging in efforts to isolate
>    >someone- sounds like a type of coercion to me. You are using
>    >a type of force, mental persausion to convince or brainwash
>    >others into your thinking.

Coercion, or the use of physical violence or threat of physical violence,
is an entirely different thing from, and actually logically contrasts with,
"rational pursuasion".  Even brain-washing, assuming it isn't a "rational"
process but is free of physical interference [no brain-tampering], is not
a use of force in the sense in which this word is used in 
political discussions.


>Coercion is the attempt or actuality of forcing another person to do
>something via physical force or the implication of physical force.
>The physical force does not have to apply to you directly, i.e., send
>us the ransom or the kid dies etc.


>When person A, controlling only person A, decides to NOT have intercourse
>with person B, there is no coercion. Person A is controlling only his or
>her own behaviour. This explicitly applies ONLY to cases where person A
>is acting ONLY with person's A property, or property legally controlled by
>person A. Thus, person A can't withhold persons B property without
>coercion, as person B has a right to control it.

>If person A does NOT do something person B wants person A to do,
>and person A is totally within his/her property rights, there is no
>coercion.

>If person A, decides to NOT have sex with person B, is THAT coercion?
>By your definition, it is. Person A is using mental persausion, saying
>"no thanks, I don't want to have sex with you" to person B. Does person
>B have a right to something from person B, in this case, sex?

>Of course not.

>Did person A, by saying no to sex, and he/she may have said no in a very
>persuavive way, as person A may not have wanted sex right now, but still
>wanted to reserve the option to have sex with person B in the future, use
>persuasion on person B?

>Sure -- he/she said no in a very nice way.

>Did person A, by use of complex persuasion, coerce person B?

>Of course not.



>Or when I see the Ronco watermelon slicer & dicer on TV, and the ad has
>mentally persuaded me to buy it, have I been coerced?

>Of course not.



>A simple test -- ask the person if he/she/it felt coerced.



>But in the meantime, your use of words is very very sloppy.


>    >Again you are not defining the word 'right', if giving to you
>    >inherently then we have problems- becuase each of us will
>    >have our own agenda when it comes to inherent rights, again
>    >let me stress that the area of inherent rights is also
>    >clouded with uncertainty. I do not retract my position that
>    >'you nor I have the right, call it what you will, inherent,
>    >society granted, to "talk bad" (degrade, defile, belittle)
>    >about someone. What does it produce in the end- nothing of
>    >any value.

>So, I don't get to criticize Caligula, Hitler, Napolean, Saddam, etc?
>Sorry, I have that right. it is called freedom of speech. Feel free
>to censor yourself, but don't dare assume you can censor others.




>    >I will agree with you in this sense- If you (by yourself) or
>    >with other consenting adults (that understand and know the
>    >scope of what they are involved in) on your property or
>    >theirs, may do what you wish- and as long as what you do on
>    >or with your property in no way causes damage to anything
>    >that in the short or long term effects other people. Case in
>    >point, you own a tract of land, you dump toxic chemicals on
>    >this land, I will go even so far as to say that, it does not
>    >even leach into the ground down to the water tables shared by
>    >adjoining lands, but in the long term when you are not
>    >around, other people without their knowledge may be effected
>    >by what you have done. What is intresting if we look hard, is
>    >that if we are dealing with private property, we must realize
>    >that even if we think that what we are doing, is not
>    >bothering or harming anyone else, may very well not be the
>    >case. The range that are activities have is quite large.

>This is very vague. You accept the case that what I do doesn't hurt
>anybody, i.e., the waste doesn't go out of my property, yet you
>assert that somehow, sometime, it may hurt somebody.


>I can play this game too. Drugs shouldn't be legal, even if you
>only use them in private, because, somehow, sometime, in the long
>run, it may! (BTW -- I don't believe the preceding, just using
>your logic).


>    >Coercion as a fuller definition; To force to act or think in
>    >a given manner by pressure, threats, or intimidation; to
>    >compel.

>So, when person A does not wish to have sex with person B, and threatens
>to call the police if person B persist in attempting to initiate sex, person
>A has just coerced person B!!??!!


>    >I will assume that you have childern... and if you don't well
>    >I will use it as a hypothetical argument. Your child has just
>    >been sent home from school because they hit another student
>    >(first act of coercion, school sent child home) You and your
>    >spouse, scold your child, punish your child, and send a basic
>    >message in a somewhat threatening tone that it better not
>    >happen again. (compel to act or think in a given manner) Now
>    >will you agree that you use coercion in this situation?

>Children are not adults. You'll note that I almost always qualify
>my FOA statements with adult. This is a false example. What if the
>person in question is 21 years old, an adult.

>Nobody would think of spanking the 21 year old student.


>    >You see coercion no longer means to simply physical beat on
>    >someone or even beat on someone mentally. It comes in many
>    >subtle flavors- (with big smile) if you do this you will be a
>    >good person, so please think this way, or it will be
>    >unpleasant for you. So if I remember so time ago, I made a
>    >statement that under many circumstances we are all using
>    >coercive measures to make gains and/or change thinking.

>So convincing someone not to rape you is using coercion.


>    >>old coercive shit. I am intolerant of coercion, fascists,
>    >>murder, child molestation, and a lot of other such shit. How
>    >>about you?
>    >>
>    >You should look very carefully at your everyday activities
>    >when you say you are intolerant of coercion. Since there are
>    >probably many cases where you have used it, in order to gain
>    >sometime for yourself, or making an attempt to make others
>    >act in a manner to your liking.

>I do not coerce.

>If you feel compelled to distort the meaning of coercion, please choose
>a nonsense word for it -- as otherwise, according to you refusing to
>be raped and being persuasive with the rapist, including the threat of
>calling the police, is coercion.

>And that is utter nonsense.




>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

>"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
>"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics