Why is coercion bad?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
21

Ok, let me put it this way. “Aggression” is the initiation of the use of physical force against someone. “Coercion” is only the threat of aggression.

Suppose Joe is faced with a machine with 3 buttons on it, A, B, and C. If Pete comes along, grabs Joe’s hand, applying enough force to make him push C, this is a clear case of aggression (i.e. initiation of the use of physical force) and his rights have been violated. Joe was deprived of the ability to freely choose.

But if Pete instead puts a gun to Joe’s head and demands he choose C, all that has changed are the options with which Joe is faced. He can still take his pick of whatever button he likes. If that button is not C, he will simply get plugged. Joe is still free to choose his fate.

What I’m hearing is that coercion is bad because it changes the options with which you are faced to a set of options that would not otherwise prevail. But literally everything does this. I mean, hurricanes also do this. Should we outlaw hurricanes?

I guess one response is just to say that, if aggression is wrong (assuming Rothbard’s arguments hold), then obviously aggression should not even be threatened. And I guess that solves the problem, but it isn’t as satisfactory as I would like.

22

I would like to help relieve your mental unease, just tell me what is unsatisfactory to you about saying “aggression is wrong therefore threatening aggression is also wrong”

23

“Why would aggression be wrong if not for the fact that aggression is wrong? The “axiomatic” and “it just is” are merely my semantics for expressing the truth that A=A.”

A must equal A. Man cannot imagine a world in which this is not the case. Does this mean that we can express everything as an axiom? No, that’s ridiculous and that’s exactly what you’re doing. With this line of reasoning we can argue anything. Morality doesn’t exist. That’s axiomatic. Fun logic isn’t it? What you have is not a reason it’s an excuse. until you tell me why this is not the case then I have to treat you the same why I would treat someone who claimed that water running up hill was axiomatic.

“To me it just seems like you are anti-simplicity.”

Socialism is axiomatically the best economic system

Altruism is axiomatically the true system of objective morality

Kings are axiomatically appointed by gods.

Do you disagree with these things? I can’t back them up, but it seems to me that if you disagree with them and you demand an explanation then you’re anti simplicity.

“No, I’d instantly accept those rules if they were Non-Aggression, and as a principled man, I would instantly reject any “rules” that were Aggressive.”

Why? All of them are just as sensible.

“Why would you do that when discussing with someone who actually understands the difference between the two?”

They’re used in the same context and equally fallacious for similar reasons.

“As objects of perception, all abstract theories are objective.”

False premise. simply because something is percievable does not mean that it is not affected by human emotions or feelings. Quite the contrary. Furthermore it would seem that, depending upon one’s logic, describing abstract theories as objects of perception would appear contradictory.

“Morals are abstract theories.”

The concept of morality inherently implies that morality is subjective.

“Every man has a right to his own, from which is derived that no man may aggress upon another or his property.”

Why not? In “For a New Liberty” Rothbard backed up this assertion with a reducto ad absurdum to other types of morality. He did not claim that it was an axiom in and of itself. Rothbard’s entire problem arose from the incorrect idea that morality must actually exist. That’s the entire problem, it doesn’t. Morality is a subjective concept based off of personal value judgements. Claiming that this actually has some “objective” or “universal” bearing upon the external world is just ridiculous.

24

Tunk,

In the second example, the “choice” of getting plugged for pushing button A or B was introduced by Pete. Pete is forcing that choice in by his aggression.

Aggression and coersion are actions chosen by individuals. Hurricanes are not.

25

Until you tell me why this is not the case then I have to treat you the same why I would treat someone who claimed that water running up hill was axiomatic.

Water runs downhill. That’s true because it’s true, just like the Non-Aggression Axiom. You’re the guy who thinks water may or may not run up hill.

Socialism is axiomatically the best economic system

That’s false because non-aggression is true.

Altruism is axiomatically the true system of objective morality

Kings are axiomatically appointed by gods.

Those are just personal preferences, presuming that we are talking about a Voluntary King, in which I do actually believe. Now if the King was head of a State, then that would be universally wrong, going against the NAA.

As for religion, the only sensible belief is agnosticism, as proposed by Thomas Huxley, so gods may or may not have appointed the Voluntary King.

He did not claim that it was an axiom in and of itself.

Ha, yes he did, he claimed that Non-Aggression was an Axiom, hence Non-Aggression Axiom. He may have used ancillary evidence to prove this point, but he would certainly agree with me that non-aggression is in and of itself axiomatic.

26

“Water runs downhill. That’s true because it’s true, just like the Non-Aggression Axiom. You’re the guy who thinks water may or may not run up hill.”

No. You’re the person closing your eyes and shouting that it’s running uphill and claiming that’s an axiom.

“That’s false because non-aggression is true.”

Lol

“Those are just personal preferences”

That’s what morality is.

“Now if the King was head of a State, then that would be universally wrong”

Why? Oh, I bet I can predict the answer to this: deus ex machina the non-agression principle (oh wait principle is something that can be attacked…) axiom

“As for religion, the only sensible belief is agnosticism, as proposed by Thomas Huxley”

No. The christian god is an axiom.

“He may have used ancillary evidence to prove this point, but he would certainly agree with me that non-aggression is in and of itself axiomatic.”

An axiom, by definition, should not need to be proven.

Make an actual argument please.

27

No. You’re the person closing your eyes and shouting that it’s running uphill and claiming that’s an axiom.

No, I am closing my eyes and shouting that it is running downhill, and believing that anyone who even thinks that it might be running uphill is an idiot.

Lol

For the record I was presuming you were talking about State socialism.

No. The christian god is an axiom.

No, it’s axiomatic that men should not pretend to know that which cannot be known (at least for now). That is agnosticism.

An axiom, by definition, should not need to be proven.

It does not need to be proven, but that does not mean ancillary evidence cannot be provided. You’re right, though, that I should not have used the word prove. Revision: “He may have used ancillary evidence to illuminate this point.”

28

“I am closing my eyes and shouting”

I’m glad we can agree on this much

“that it is running downhill”

No, you’re not because morality is subjective

“and believing that anyone who even thinks that it might be running uphill is an idiot.”

I think the idiot is the person who doesn’t bother to open his eyes and stop shouting/cowering behind his axioms and calms down and has a reasonable discussion about the way that the water is flowing.

"For the record I was presuming you were talking about "

My statement still stands

“No, it’s axiomatic that men should not pretend to know that which cannot be known (at least for now). That is agnosticism”

False. The love of the almighty god as spoken by the lord savior Jesus christ is an axiom. I will now repeat over and over that this is true, but remember, those who believe anything else for any other set of reasons are the idiots.

“It does not need to be proven, but that does not mean ancillary evidence cannot be provided.”

Why would you rely on assumption when evidence can be provided? That’s against reason itself.

“You’re right, though, that I should not have used the word prove. Revision: ‘He may have used ancillary evidence to illuminate this point’”

Fair enough, an understandable verbal slip up.

29

Also, if you could provide any literature recommendations on your nihilistic point of view, I would be quite interested indeed. Even if I disagree.

30

Whilst I have slight grudges against all of these writers the best in this instance are definitly

Nietzsche (best of the whole lot but the most difficult reading by far and the most important part of his writings are in the midst of less important and now semi-obsolete works)

Stirner (A good source when critiquing other moralities but still falls into the trap of “might makes right” and assuming that just because something is, that this actually breaks the is-ought gap)

Mises (Praxeology when taken to its logical extent results in subjectivity of morality. A lot of Mises’ chapters in both theory and history and human action can be inserted straight into any argument about moral judgements)

31

No, you’re not because morality is subjective

It is objective; I already proved this in an easy-to-comprehend syllogism. Even if non-aggressive morality is not universal (which I am at least willing to ponder), then moral codes are still objective. A moral code that says “killing people is the ultimate aim in life” is still objective, even though it is also universally wrong.

I think the idiot is the person who doesn’t bother to open his eyes and stop shouting/cowering behind his axioms and calms down and has a reasonable discussion about the way that the water is flowing.

Water is running downhill because it is axiomatically true that water runs downhill in the natural world. Why is that true? Because it is running downhill. Can you give me an actual reason why? It’s running downhill.

32

Thanks for the suggestions Neo. =) I’ll make sure to get to some of those books and tell you what I think.

33

“I already proved this in an easy-to-comprehend syllogism.”

Which I critiqued

“A moral code that says “killing people is the ultimate aim in life” is still objective, even though it is also universally wrong.”

No because a statement of right and wrong is a value judgement, it is a statement of quality of good and bad and therefore it is subjective and based upon the feelings and emotions of the observer. Nothing on this earth can break the is-ought gap. You can argue that it is still wrong according to said morality, but then it is irrelavent, a side note without value and “right” and “wrong” become empty words with no meaning.

“Water is running downhill because it is axiomatically true that water runs downhill in the natural world.”

No it’s not. That’s not how science works. No one can know a prori anything about the natural world without making assumptions. If you had never seen the external world then could you say with any certainty that water would flow downhill? No, no you could not. Therefore it is something proven by experience, it is not an axiom. Your method of doing things would destroy science as we know it and would be laughed if critically looked at by others.

34

It is a statement of quality of good and bad and therefore it is subjective and based upon the feelings and emotions of the observer.

Ha, no, it is the abstract object of your perception (on your computer screen) and therefore objective.

As Agalloch, a friend of mine on UK Libertarian Forum, said:

Objectivity is the default position for any theory. Interestingly, people tend to think of Objective meaning Physical, and Subjective meaning Abstract. Infact, it’s almost 99% of the time, the other way around.. The Physical tends towards the Subjective, because we experience the Physical world Subjectively (though the world itself is of course Objective). The Abstract is by default, Objective. Come up with any Abstract theory, regardless of it’s application to reality, and communicate it to another. I’m willing to bet anything they’ll reduce the same results as you from the axioms of that theory. Have them eat the same food as you, and chances are likely you’ll both derive (mildly, the actual chemical reactions are Objective after all) different sensations, and definetly different enjoyment about many foods.

So the Objectivity of the theory is not important. It’s focused on because so many causes - mostly the Statist one - need Morality to be Subjective (an invalid opening proposition). So create any theory of morality, and it will be Objective. The problem then is Validating it’s axioms against human action, Universal laws (if two people can’t do two things at once, and your theory validates statements saying they can, then your theory is invalid, for example) and the common understanding of Good as contrasted with Evil - Which generally encompasses basic tenants like choice, and the ability for everyone to be validated good. A theory that required some people’s action to be invalidate or categorised negatively is clearly false, for example.

35

“Thanks for the suggestions Neo. =) I’ll make sure to get to some of those books and tell you what I think.”

No problem. If you want any help surrounding those books then I’d be happy to provide it. I’d start with the first few sections of Theory and History (you should read the whole book anyway, but the first sections are the ones relevant to the conversation) then read the brunt of Stirner. Nietzsche is criptic and hard to pick out so an abridgement or a book simplifying his philosophy might actually be better.

36

“I’m willing to bet anything they’ll reduce the same results as you from the axioms of that theory.”

This is disproved empirically a thousand times over. Furthermore even if they did come to the same conclusions then not even this would not even constitute something being objective. True objectivity is beyond human capabilities, and finally moral issues are the things which people disagree on the most.

“So the Objectivity of the theory is not important.”

Yes it is.

“So create any theory of morality, and it will be Objective.”

No, see my statement that you quoted.

“The problem then is Validating it’s axioms against human action”

Something that no non-subjectivist moral standard can do.

“Universal laws (if two people can’t do two things at once, and your theory validates statements saying they can, then your theory is invalid, for example) and the common understanding of Good as contrasted with Evil - Which generally encompasses basic tenants like choice, and the ability for everyone to be validated good. A theory that required some people’s action to be invalidate or categorised negatively is clearly false, for example.”

Molyneuxvian logic that falls apart as soon as we apply it consistently or bother to split up the theory.

For instance: I think that it’s a good thing that I drink at a certian time

Aha! So you think that it’s good for all men to drink at that time!

No, I think that it’s good when I drink at that time.

Expressing a value system need not apply to all men. It can still be objective according to the way you’re using it. Despite what some libertarians like to believe titles, persons, instances matter. The statement that “when one person is starving it is acceptable for him to steal food from others” is both universal and objective.

37

The statement that “when one person is starving it is acceptable for him to steal food from others” is both universal and objective.

What? Stealing is always wrong in any scenario…People (including myself) should rather die than commit aggression.

38

Dammit RD, don’t be that guy who makes me look up a list of logical fallacies.

“What? Stealing is always wrong in any scenario…”

Begging the question This is something that you’ve been doing the entire time, however it is more true to say that you never proved the premise itself.

“People (including myself) should rather die than commit aggression.”

Begging the question: Implicit, you still have never once said why this is the case that people should avoid agression, it’s simply based on the fact its an axiom

Appeal to belief Simply because many people do believe this, it does not mean that it is the case. Even if they did this fallacy would still apply

Appeal to common practice Same as above.
Appeal to popularity Same as above.
Red Herring My statement still applies, the above ethic is universal and objective in the way you’re using objective which is to deal with application instead of motivation which is the opposite of the way I employ the term.

39

@OP: First of all, I don’t agree with Rothbard’s views on this - I don’t think we need to resort to moral opinions to resolve interpersonal conflicts… we simply need a free market in arbitration and the production of security. Speculation about the metaphysical categories of “right” and “wrong” is not tied to its property consequences, this is why it is not useful in settling real disputes. The issue of personal moral progress and enlightenment is a separate, unrelated topic.

Second, your illustration is flawed - a man holding a gun to another man is committing armed assault, unjustified detention and possibly kidnapping. Those, in themselves, are torts with property consequences - armed assault is unilateral imposition of risk onto an individual’s body, unjustified detention and kidnapping impede the detained individual from acting (property rights are legally significant precisely because they are a necessary component of action).

Mises resolves this problem in Human Action by noting that murder or robbery are actually examples of “autistic exchange”, that is, exchanging one set of circumstances for another set of circumstances without the expectation of participation by anyone else.

Clayton -

40

Begging the question: Implicit, you still have never once said why this is the case that people should avoid agression, it’s simply based on the fact its an axiom.

Right, if you accept non-aggression as an axiom, you will see that my logic is sound. Obviously your stance is that you do not consider it axiomatic, which I disagree with. Again, the NAA is a singular truism, so “circular reasoning” does not apply. A=A, so my guitar=guitar. Since the identity axiom is true, the above reasoning is not circular. The same applies to all my statements on morality, since they all stem from an axiom. You are asking me to prove an axiom, which is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The whole point of an axiom is being a self-evidently true statement. It’s really hard to explain why A=A, but A does equal A. The identity axiom is a fact, the non-aggression axiom is a fact, and it does not seem like I should have to prove either.

Appeal to belief Simply because many people do believe this, it does not mean that it is the case. Even if they did this fallacy would still apply

As an individualist, I don’t really care what anyone thinks besides myself, save for Rothbard. I did reference Agalloch, whom I largely agree with, but I was merely providing another reference for my case.

The above ethic is universal and objective in the way you’re using objective which is to deal with application instead of motivation which is the opposite of the way I employ the term.

I agree that your statement on stealing is objective. But it is not universal, seeing that it violates the NAA.