|
| Thread: somebodies darling. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted June 13, 2010 07:55 PM |
|
|
@DD wrote:
Quote:
Would a system without coercion work? Would it not just descend into some form of anarchy?
My thoughts on the matter are that, if in a given society there exists no coercion at all [not even coerced to not coerce], no matter origin, then it will always be a better society.
However this in specific is about coercion made by society. As long as one can be coerced by something and to prevent it, it requires coercion by something with even more power, then coercion will be the only possible solution, and justified as long as a proper proportionality factor of coercion is applied.
The case of forced applying to military however, is not justified coercion. This is because I am not coercing anyone and thereby do not have to be prevented doing whatever I am doing.
About how long the process should take, I'd prefer it to be done right away, I can't see why it should be over several years, all I want is that change is well argumented for and through that, and real life tests, justified.
About the actual problem in this case, in my opinion, is that the state are doing things that are not within its purpose. I don't mind a country having a military as much as I don't mind the police, thourhg in both cases I'd prefer the best of the best techology, automated systems, in stead of humans, were applied to prevent the danger. I do however respect if people will risk the danger for bettering the world. What I can't respect, nor accept, is that some people are forced to take that risk, eventhough they don't want to.
In my opinion the purpose of the state goes for increasing freedom (and safety, though I'd say that's kinda defined within the word, freedom) of each and every individual to the limit defined by the available power [ressources and technology].
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 08:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Would a system without coercion work?
A system without coercion is impossible. When somebody has a gun and you have something they want, there will be coercion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 08:44 PM |
bonus applied by Mytical on 18 Jul 2010. |
|
No, it's far from impossible, it's just not possible with todays technology and ressources.
A gun doesn't matter, if a bullet will phase/tunnel/shift through you without affecting you, without any kind of reaction at all.
There won't even, from your perspective, be anyone trying to coerce you, if you don't observe the one trying to coerce you and said persons means of coercion in the first place.
Coercion is impossible, to the limit of the coercers possibilities, through the time span of which the coercer have any type of contact with the victim, if the defensively oriented technology is superior to the offensively oriented technology in the field of possible actions in the relevant moment of time (which i the time span of which the coercer have any type of contact with the victim). Making a general system of this, and from every coercers perspective, coercion is impossible.
In general there are two obstacles here. The one of making sure the coercer do not have enough power to coerce. The second of making sure no random coincidences (here random is not defined as 'unpredictable', but as 'not choosen by any consciouss being') can make coercion possible.
The most often met problem in this kind of matter is the "what if I just smash all energy available into your solution?".
Any type of solution that is like the knights armor, that through an equal, but opposite force and a system that can take a certain amount of force stops the incoming item that is needed for coercion, let it be a sword, an arrow, a bullet, some rope, whatever, will, I believe, always fail against random coincidences, because it's just a matter of sufficient energy randomly hitting and then coercion takes place (like a meteor). One could imagine a system designed so sufficient energy is pr. default transported to the needed location, and in a purely classical system where there's no limit of this transport, then yes that could be a valid solution, but with the limits presented by better descriptions of the universe, such a solution seems to be not sufficient.
I do however by far prefer a solution where it's not enough to simply target a ton of energy against the one you want to coerce (like the meteor example), this can also be called as fighting technology and ressources simply by pumping ressources into the system.
The obvious solution is for a technology that can make the system independently of non-properly targeted energy. Here's the idea of tunneling a good way, I think, because it doesn't matter if it's a meteor, a planet or a bullet that is about to hit you, as it's always the same amount of energy that needs to be tunnelled, the energy that defines the person.
It's not impossible to imagine through such a process that it's possible to have a sufficient flow of energy pr. time properly used to create a system that adapts the person to the environment, without harming the persons consciousness, free will and freedom.
Now this is only one part of it, the safety part, for it's still a type of coercion if someone puts a house on you, and your body then adapts, so you're unharmed, but someone just removed your view, or someone just forced you indoor, or someone just forced you to go several meters up because the house is solid, etc.
All of these kinds of problems, problems of complete freedom, can however be solved if one realise that reality is defined through perception and taking advantage of this by defining a personal reality for every person defined through their wants, however I am not going to continue out of that tangent.
Edit: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_Travels#Part_I:_A_Voyage_to_Lilliput]Give a person from Lilliput a club and he can coerce a person from Lilliput, but he'll neber be able to coerce upon a person from Brobdingnag through the use of a club alone.[/url]
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 09:14 PM |
|
|
@OhSake:
Your basic points are valid, but you're still wrong because the alternatives are worse. Democracy and constitutional republics suck, but they suck less than any other method.
A system without coercion invites anarchy, which is ironically among the most potent forms of tyranny, because it boils down to individuals bullying individuals. Until human nature is altered, anarchism or mini-anarchism isn't a feasible option. A coercive arbiter (the state) is a necessary evil.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 10:03 PM |
|
|
Hey bliz
I think you missed that in one case I was talking about coercion by the system [government], and in another coercion by society (the sum of all individuals). Rereading it, I see I did not make the difference clear.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 11:00 PM |
|
|
in anarchy, people are free to organize themselves as they want, and create their own communities and rules, instead of a small group deciding for everyone else (here in France, people never get to vote to say if they are for or against laws, so it's not even the choice of the majority)
I think it might be the best possible system as it is seems it is the one which respects the most the liberties.
when it comes to a significant number of people being egoistic, it's a problem with every system anyway. but most systems expect people to act in specific way (in democraty you are expected to vote for example) while in anarchy you do what you want. but make no mistake, that doesn't mean you can steal, or kill, or rape and be unpunished, each communities will have its own rules, and it's sure that most people will be willing to punish such acts.
it is even possible that in the long run, anarchy leads to more order than any other system. since it limits coercition, people have less reasons to rebel themselves.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 13, 2010 11:20 PM |
|
|
Just to note:
I do believe the state can be a great asset for every individual being. If it just focuses on how to help the individual the best way possible, that's safety and freedom. Focus on hospitals, protection, food, transport, education, shelter, stuff like that and don't coerce other people. The only place where coercion, sadly, is needed, of todays standards, is when someone is being coerced by something [limited freedom] and then the state can protect, by coerce whatever is coercing, to not coerce anymore, but always apply coercion only to at most what is necessary.
An example: Some guys wants to tie you up, they're together like 25 people and so eventhough you're the strongest man in the world, this is no move, they won't attack you one at a time, so if you fight, you'll end up being tied up. Here the states job is to offer protection in the form that you can't be tied up. The coercion would be to make it impossible for these guys to tie you up, most likely through having more power in the form of police, and hopefully, in the future, there'll be no coercion at all, so the way of protection would go something like this: You simply can't be tied, the ropes won't hinder your movement, you won't even know about the ropes.
So I do not talk for anarchy, but I would by far prefer that the state would operate like an association, where you either pay and are a member, or don't pay and aren't a member [and then don't get the advantages]. There's problems with this model, and I think we talked about it in some other thread, so I'm not really up for talking about it again, as that'd most likely only be a repitition, and interesting as this may be, if I'd repeat stuff, I'd prefer it to be from text books.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2010 01:10 AM |
|
|
the police doesn't have to be under the orders of the states.
each community can have his own police
|
| |
|
|
