From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Coercion, Freedom of Association,  and Voting???
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 19:03:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.190417.13969@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >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.

I have. Repeatedly. What is your problem?

You have not defined coercion at all in your example.

You have taken the word coercion and have attempted to twist it
in some very weird connotations.

Seriously, if you wife is coercing you, get out now. I think there
may be a shelter for battered men, but I'm not sure.





-- 
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