From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Coercion
Summary: A rather ridiculous argument about semantics
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:14:48 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA


It is probably stupid of me to respond to this post, but I feel sorry for
Mr. Ronzone, caught as he is in his tangled and tortured web of Randian
semantic confusion.  My heart goes out to him.  

In article <1992Oct7.150621.22776@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Recently, a very stupid post asserted that coercion happens in
>every interaction between people where a choice is made.
>No, the poster didn't use that language, but that was the implication
>of his "thoughts". He claimed that his wife coerces him all the time,
>apparently under the impression that his decision making with
>regards to his wife was coercion.

Sometimes we coerce each other to do things, yes.  Usually we dont.

>Coercion is the use of force to influence a person.

No.  To coerce is to *compel* someone to do something.  It does
not have to be violent.  If I or my wife were violent to each other
that would be an entirely new ballgame.

>
>Coercion is not trade, nor is it voluntary, mutually desired (note
>the word mutual) transaction(s).

Wrong again.  VIOLENCE is not trade, nor is it voluntary nor mutually
desirable.  But you cannot equate coercion to violence.   Actually,
violence is an indication that coercion has failed.   Coercion is
usually a strong variant of persuasion.  It can become violent,
I admit, but this is not the rule in our society.  Violence is
violence, and that is what is a violation of someone else, not
coercion.

>
>If John wishes to have sex with Mary, Mary makes a decision based
>upon her values. She may say yes based on looks, personality, money,
>fear of loneliness, her current level of sexual desire, or combinations
>of these and other factors.
>
>Her decision is based on the pursuit of happiness -- whether she feels,
>at that moment, whether she will be happier if she says yes.

Or maybe she is afraid that she will be rejected by some peer group.
It is a mistake to assume that the decision is a simple rational
decision, but for legal purposes we must assume that it is.

>Note that in it being a voluntary decision, the transaction is based
>upon mutual agreement. And at the conclusion, BOTH parties are happy
>about the transaction.

I think this is a bit of a leap, but for legal purposes one has to
assume that mentally capable adults take responsibility for their decisions.  
But there may indeed be some coercion involved up to the decision.
There certainly are varying levels of mental capability as well.

>
>If Mary says no, and John pulls out a firearm and coerces mary into
>a sexual act (rape), then Mary has been coerced.

Well, more importantly, she has been violently assaulted.  There is no
law against coercion, but against violent acts: assault, rape.

>
>Mary now makes a decision on how to avoid losing as much "happiness"
>as possible. Note that Mary is no longer pursuing happiness, she is
>avoiding death by the horrid alternative of submitting to rape.
>At the conclusion of this transaction, Mary is certainly not happy
>about the transaction.

She may also not be happy in the other case.   The only question is
"was she violated."

>
>The transaction was not mutual, nor was it voluntary.

But the key to a violation of someone is violence.

>To make the obnoxious, stupid, and morally repugnant case that agreeing
>to do something with one's spouse (say, to agree to not cheat) is being
>"coerced" is evil.

It is only stupid if we accept your premise that all coercion is
a form of violence, which it is not.  


>Alas, this is a common mode of fascist argument -- seen often by
>radcial feminists, who equate nearly all forms of sexual congress
>to rape.

The error of the radical feminists is to equate persuasion and coercion
with violence.  The abhorrent punishable act is violence, not any sales
pitches or threats of social ostracization.

>
>If a women is sexual aroused and desirous of a man, and seeks sex to
>have fun, the women's desire to NOT be lonely, to NOT be sexually
>frustrated, has been "used" by the man to "coerce" the women.
>
>More importantly, per Andrea Dworking, the women has been "raped" and
>didn't even know it!

Let's see. According to Ronzone, coercion is *also* the same as violence.  
If so, then that means that Dworkin is correct (!)   Strange bedfellows.

>
>Get real, and stuff this type of ill-logic into the trash.
>

Yes, I would do so if I were you (or Dworkin).  
You might also try to polish your
tone when addressing ideas which you disagree with.

>
>If you still think you wife is coercing you, get a divorce or call
>the police.

I enjoy a little coercion now and then.  In fact, my kids would be
insufferable if I didnt practice it a little myself.  I believe Mr.
Ronzone has stated that he uses coercion on his children (one hopes
he is not too violent).  Why is it not appropriate for my wife to
lay a little on me if I act like a child in a momentary lack
of self-discipline?

>In the meantime, ask yourself if you feel happy to take out the garbage
>while your wife does the dishes. If you feel this transaction has
>coerced you, well, tell us about it in detail ....

As I have said, coercion is not the general rule in our relationship.
It is reserved for those moments when one or the other is acting 
insufferably.  That is married life--happily married ten years.


--Al Date

June Genis for Senate --  Spread the Word!
Newsgroups: ba.politics