Why is coercion bad?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
221

No, that’s not what you said. That’s what you’re imagining you said, because you would like to cast yourself as a bold hero who is fighting dogmatism and superstition. In reality, what you actually said was

You are saying Socrates was killed because he was found guilty of contradicting himself. I repeat, this is a self-evidently stupid accusation against me and should be withdrawn.

I “know” that the law of identity is a basic part of the world around us because, I repeat, the truth of it is confirmed I do anything. “All hippos are pink” is not confirmed everytime I do anything. “Everything that exists exists as itself” is so confirmed. There is no way a thing could not exist as itself, since it wouldn’t exist if it didn’t. You still haven’t addressed this.

I “know” we share the same reality because it seems highly likely, according to my sensory input, that I’m arguing with another conscious person and not a spambot. I rely on my sensory input because it’s the only access I have to the outside world and, as long as adequate information is being fed into it, it tends not to mislead me. (E.g. when I “sense” I am about to bump into a wall.) Asking me how my senses can be relied on when this could all be a dream is silly because it’s only by virtue of my senses that I know what it is to be “dreaming” to begin with.

Then you are asserting as true that nobody knows what is true.

Could I “define physical body”? I’ve already done that. Your physical body consists of your survival mechanisms.

222

This is somewhat off-topic, but errors like this always glare at me. Ad hominems do not need to be true. They only need to attack an argument by attacking a supporter of the argument.

Examples:

You are blond, so you can’t possible know what you are talking about.

You are a woman, so you you can’t possibly understand science.

You are a Christian, so you can’t understand Islam.

It doesn’t really matter if the first part of these statements is true or not; They could be said to a male athiest with red hair. They are still ad hominems. Further, it doesn’t matter if the attack is against one’s opponent. In fact, one of the most commonly used ad hominem, on the internet, at least, is the invocation of Hitler: “Hitler supported X, so X must be bad.”

223

I didn’t make an error. Argumentum ad hominem means “argument to the person”. It means bringing up some apparent characteristic about someone as evidence that their views are wrong.

Yeah, these are in themselves ad hominems. But said to an atheist with red hair, they would just be nonsense. They wouldn’t even qualify as a fallacy, since a fallacy is an invalid inference.

And argumentum ad Hitlerum is more guilt by association.

224

You’re three quarters of the way there. The referenced negative characteristic can be made by anyone supporting the argument. “Your argument is wrong because X agrees with you, and X has some negative attribute.”

Guilt by association is very often a form of ad hominem, depending on its use. The determining factor is the use of the negative association to actually attack the argument.

But that was besides the point. Ad hominems do not need to be true.

225

You’ve gotten ad hominem and guilt by association mixed up. One argues against the person’s qualities, the other argues against the company he keeps. And for something to qualify as an “ad hominem” in the actual context of a debate, the characteristic brought up does need to actually be possessed. Otherwise, it’s not really a “fallacy” (i.e. an invalid inference) but just nonsense.

226

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I “know” that the law of identity is a basic part of the world around us because, I repeat, the truth of it is confirmed I do anything.
[/quote]

OK, so it may well hold true for you (as far as you know), as it holds for me (due to the illusory distinctions I’ve created in my head). That doesn’t mean it holds for everyone. It’s called Enlightenment, and it is direct conflict with the concept you advocate. Ther’s no way to tell which of these concepts, if either is the “truth”.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
“Everything that exists exists as itself” is so confirmed. There is no way a thing could not exist as itself, since it wouldn’t exist if it didn’t. You still haven’t addressed this.
[/quote]

I’ve been trying to. The problem is, you keep dodging a central aspect of this contention. There may (or may not) “be” a reality, but the “things” you keep referring to are not discrete, seperate quanta as you keep treating them. Those distinctions are all in your head, which was demonstrated by the “plant” posts. That concept can be carried to our own “selves” as well, which I think you must be aware of given this lame-o response,

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Your physical body consists of your survival mechanisms.
[/quote]

What the hell does this even mean?

227

This is a stupid argument. Coercion is immoral because it’s already defined as immoral.

It’s like asking why object x is white; it’s because x appears to people whitely. Epistemology/linguistics 101.

228

This reminds me of a dialogue between Richard Dawkins and that noted philosopher Bill O’Reilly:

The point is, something is either “true” or “not true”. There’s no such thing as “true for you” or “true for me”. The laws of logic are confirmed as “true” anytime anyone does anything. If it were not true, absolutely and objectively, that everything exists as itself, then nothing could exist and no one could take any action of any kind.

It’s not that, if I reach for a soda, the statement is affirmed: “tunk exists as tunk”. If that was all that was being affirmed, there would be nothing for me to reach, no way for me to reach it, nothing for me to reach it with, no air to breath while I reach it, etc. There are an innumerable number of factors that make it possible for me to reach and drink the soda. So, ultimately, what is being affirmed is the statement: “everything that exists exists as itself.” If there were no fundamental reality undergirding me as I reached for the soda, then my attempt to drink and quench my thirst would be just as fruitless as if I were dead.

I think what you mean is that concepts and definitions are a product of the human mind. Sure, I don’t have any problem affirming that. The fact that human beings can debate about definitions is not really controversial and doesn’t disprove the law of identity. For example, I’m sure you would agree that you are someone who disputes the law of identity. If the law of identity weren’t true, however, then it would never be possible for you be someone who disputes the law of identity. So your denial, yet again, affirms the very truth you are attempting to deny.

What the hell does this even mean?
[/quote]

Well, if you want to be obtuse then you will not grasp what it means. Your physical body consists of those processes which are geared to maintain your life; blood flowing through your cardiovascular system, your lungs, liver, perception and pleasure-pain mechanisms to feed in input, etc.

229

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
The point is, something is either “true” or “not true”. There’s no such thing as “true for you” or “true for me”.
[/quote]

Supposing the existence of some ultimate, external Truth, I agree.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
The laws of logic are confirmed as “true” anytime anyone does anything. If it were not true, absolutely and objectively, that everything exists as itself, then nothing could exist and no one could take any action of any kind.
[/quote]

Given the existence of that same external Truth, I disagree that this statement is necessarily true.

You know, it’s funny you bring up that quote. I’m assuming you think I am O’reilly, which is funny because I feel like Dawkins, but instead of O’reilly (you) stopping at,

“it’s true for me”,

he’s so brazen as to say

“it’s true for me, and for you, and the rest of the universe, too!”

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
So, ultimately, what is being affirmed is the statement: “everything that exists exists as itself.” If there were no fundamental reality undergirding me as I reached for the soda, then my attempt to drink and quench my thirst would be just as fruitless as if I were dead.
[/quote]

I don’t think this is right, because there is some intellectual dishonesty here. What does “exists as itself” mean here? How tunk interprets a “soda”, how I do? Maybe the bottling company? A “soda” is a myth. A “soda” is an illusion. You’ve decided to name this phenomena you think you are experiencing, but that is a classification, a characterization, a mental fiction. A delusion of your own making.

If you think I’m nuts or stupid, take a look at the Planck scale, you will no longer find the formerly obvious “soda” you were so assured of the true nature of, as it pertained to the also obvious “reality” all around you.

And all of this completely ignores the temporal aspect of this obvious “thing”. The “soda” you mentioned is in a state of constant flux. Exchanging electrons, evaporation, expanding, contracting. Never the same thing for any length of time (because as you divide into smaller and smaller time periods, you will run into the Planck noise again, and your obvious “object” disappears once again).

That being said, I don’t think death is all we are left with when we are able to at least admit to ourselves that we are groping around relative to Truth. It’s really OK. Drink your “soda”, and enjoy it, there’s no need to have to be sure of it’s fundamental nature to do so!

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I think what you mean is that concepts and definitions are a product of the human mind.
[/quote]

What’s more important to the conversation is the habit of projecting these internal fabrications onto the perceptual world, which I am skeptical of.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Sure, I don’t have any problem affirming that.
[/quote]

Why do you consider it valid to project mental fabrications on what you are arguing is external and independent of the workings of your brain?

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
he fact that human beings can debate about definitions is not really controversial and doesn’t disprove the law of identity.
[/quote]

Ah, but it does expose the “law of identity” to be another fabrication you’ve built upon your previous, perceptual fabrications. It may not disprove it, but it does demonstrate its irrelevancy to an external, non-conceptualized reality.

[quoteuser=“tunk”]
For example, I’m sure you would agree that you are someone who disputes the law of identity.
[/quote]

I think my ignorance has led me to conclude I am “someone”, but I don’t think that is actually the case. I think that “I am” I bet I’ll be called a troll for that answer!

230

Thought this was a relevant quote,

[quoteuser=“Tao Te Ching”]
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
[/quote]

231

No matter how many times I try to explain my position, you repeat your talking points and accuse me of being delusional. You insist that there is no way to determine which of us is right, and yet you are convinced that people who disagree with you are delusional. You invoke quantum physics as if it disproves the law of identity, when there could not even be a quantum level if the law of identity didn’t hold. That the “soda” is made up of innumerable changing components is exactly what I said in my original post.

You refuse to see that you are asserting absolute truth just as much as I am, and that skepticism is self-refuting. And your last reply was unduly hostile and revealed far more about you than it did about me. It’s pointless talking to you.

232

You and I are standing on exactly the same ground when we started. At least we both seem to understand how baseless both of our claims are. If hostility was detected, it was not intended.

233

If you say so. Anyone can go over the thread and decide for themselves if that’s correct.

234

Heraclitus, is that you? As a side note, Buddhism has a strong following in the philosophy department at my college. Buddhism, it seems, is very adaptable, and these philosophers seem ready to glom onto workings in modern science. They are especially infatuated with quantum physics–it reminds me of the other spiritualists who attempt to incorporate positive quantum vibes(among other things) into their (ever-changing) frameworks to appeal to a larger crowd.

It’s all quantum vibes, maaaaaaaaaan. I’m not mocking, just making an observation.

235

LOL, I’ve never heard of him! After quick peek on Wikipedia, he seems very intriguing, though.

As in most religions/philosophies, Buddhism can be interpreted in any number of ways.

This is just me, but quantum physics seems to jibe so well with non-dualism becuase it utilizes materialistic, dualistic thinking, to arrive at non-dual conclusions.

These conclusions also have parallels in many religions. If you think of the biblical creation myth in this frame, you can see what I mean,

[quoteuser=“Genesis 1.1-2”]
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[/quote]

Nothingness, until God begins to define and therefore “create” the world around us.

[quoteuser=“John 1.1”]
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[/quote]

Only He had this ability, until we are tempted to take this ability himself by eating of the tree of Good and Evil,

[quoteuser=“Genesis 3.4-7”]
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
[/quote]

Thus they were able to begin to define the world for themselves, but since they did not also eat the fruit of the tree of life, they were only half-way to realizing the divine,

[quoteuser=“Genesis 3.22-23”]
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
[/quote]

So, we have the ability to “create the world” for ourselves, but we do not have the knowledge of eternal life, the gnosis, an understanding of the true nature of things, which equates to “eternal life”, since the concept of death itself assumes a dualistic, ego-centric reality.

[quoteuser=“John 17.3”]
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
[/quote]

I interpret “God” in this passage more as “Godhead” than a bearded man in the clouds. This is also the concept of enlightenment in the eastern schools, and “gnosis” in Neo-Platonism and Gnostic Judaism/Christianity.

236

Coercion, as in the armed robbery scenario, restricts freedom of choice. But to restrict abundance of choice is also a form of coercion. To restict the abundance to a single choice is in effect the removal of the freedom of choice.

Voluntary exchange will have some level of coercion if the abundance is removed. When the free-choice becomes a “no-brainer” there is no freedom of choice.

237

Can you expand a bit more on purposeful action then? In one case someone can decide “hey I’m going to open that door for that pretty lady”- but in another someone can just open the door for her out of force of habit. In that case an observer of these two similar actions would have no idea which one was involuntary and which one was voluntary.

Thoughts themselves can also arise involuntarily and people can react to that personal stimulus. . Let’s just say speaking for yourself- what criteria do you use to distinguish from your own purposeful thoughts- and thoughts of habit? Is it just whatever makes you feel like you’re more in control?

238

Un-purposful action can be more than habit due to cultural norms. Girard suggests that all desire is socially mediated in a sysrtem of mimesis. IOW there is no individual desire as the purpose which compels action. We are as a school of fish which act in unison. “The Joneses’” supply for us our desires and thus direct our actions.

239

That’s a bit silly in the context we care about here. In its base form, what compels your action is your desire to continue living, to survive. That’s determined by external realities and the internal realities that respond to them (such as a growling stomach or parched lips).

No one can choose anything for you. While a culture can affect your values, ultimately it is the individual who acts on those values. And if you choose to agress, you’re responsible for the outcome of that aggression, even if your society raised you with bad values.

240

“The ultimate goal of human action is always the satisfaction of the acting man’s desire.” Mises

This is the axiomatic a-priori premise on which Mises builds 900 pages of praxeology.

“what compels your action is your desire to continue living, to survive.”

Your axiom might be what Schopenhauer would counter to Mises based on “the will to live” and evolutionary psychology. I imagine That Rene Girard would finish Mises’ axiom like this:

“The ultimate goal of human action is always … to compete with one’s mimetic rival. All desire is merely the socially mediated rules of this competition."