Global Capitalism

[Immanuel Can]

That's fine that you don't know the "point" of my question. What I'm interested in is your answer before you know find out where I'm going with it. But you should be able to guess, I would think, so in that case you would have an idea what the point of the question is.

Well, if I had to guess, I think you'll probably broaden your definition of "force" to include all sorts of things...such as speaking any contrary truth. And then you'll try to tell me that if Jesus Christ spoke of things like a "road to destruction," then he was, at least, threatening force, if not actually using any. And you'll try to convince me it's all the same ball of wax.

Of course, that would mean that anybody who, say, contradicted somebody else's prejudices or received beliefs, and told them there would be unfortunate consequences, was "using force." And it would fail to recognize the very crucial distinction between merely persuading the mind and actually employing force. It would reduce to the silly utterance, "Don't force me to accept your beliefs," which occasionally appears whenever some relativist finds you don't agree with him. At which point one always has to point out to the utterer that free speech is not abuse or "force." It's just dialogue. And that no choice we ever make in life is consequence-free, so he should probably grow up and settle down.

But for me to imagine this was your intended road would surely be uncharitable, and would attribute to you a kind of mendacity you'd find insulting. So it's hard for me to answer your query directly without also implying something dishonourable about your character.

Or maybe there's another explanation, and you're a better man than I'm imagining. And in hope of that, I'm open to a better supposition, if you can tell me where you were going with that.

So is a fine for not complying with a law a form of "political coercion" or use of "force"? Or are all means of intimidation "coercion"?

You'll have to show me where God imposes fines. I can find no such reference.

[Gary Childress]

Well, if I had to guess, I think you'll probably broaden your definition of "force" to include all sorts of things...such as speaking any contrary truth. And then you'll try to tell me that if Jesus Christ spoke of things like a "road to destruction," then he was, at least, threatening force, if not actually using any. And you'll try to convince me it's all the same ball of wax.

Of course, that would mean that anybody who, say, contradicted somebody else's prejudices or received beliefs, and told them there would be unfortunate consequences, was "using force." And it would fail to recognize the very crucial distinction between merely persuading the mind and actually employing force. It would reduce to the silly utterance, "Don't force me to accept your beliefs," which occasionally appears whenever some relativist finds you don't agree with him. At which point one always has to point out to the utterer that free speech is not abuse or "force." It's just dialogue. And that no choice we ever make in life is consequence-free, so he should probably grow up and settle down.

But for me to imagine this was your intended road would surely be uncharitable, and would attribute to you a kind of mendacity you'd find insulting. So it's hard for me to answer your query directly without also implying something dishonourable about your character.

Or maybe there's another explanation, and you're a better man than I'm imagining. And in hope of that, I'm open to a better supposition, if you can tell me where you were going with that.

So is a fine for not complying with a law a form of "political coercion" or use of "force"? Or are all means of intimidation "coercion"?

You'll have to show me where God imposes fines. I can find no such reference.

I don't think God fines people for money, no. Now back to the question: Is a fine for not complying with a law a form of political coercion (which you defined is use of force). Are all means of intimidation "coercion"?

[Immanuel Can]

Now back to the question: Is a fine for not complying with a law a form of political coercion (which you defined is use of force).

No, it's the police who will arrest you that are the use of force. The fine would be a kind of punishment for your speeding. But you're not "forced" to pay a fine. If you don't, however, force will be used, presumably.

Are all means of intimidation "coercion"?

Well, is "intimidation" being judged by a feeling felt, or by some actual danger? I've met people who are intimidated by things like loud voices, or public speaking, or the backfiring of a car, or harmless spiders. I wouldn't say their feelings were informing their judgment, in such cases.

I still can't see where this is supposed to go, or how it helps you in any way.

[Gary Childress]

I still can't see where this is supposed to go, or how it helps you in any way.

Just trying to determine how rational and consistent your beliefs are.

[Immanuel Can]

I still can't see where this is supposed to go, or how it helps you in any way.

Just trying to determine how rational and consistent your beliefs are.

Well, that shouldn't be too hard. I can't see that any of these questions are helping you with that, though. They seem to be about concepts like "force," not about my beliefs and the grounding for them.

[Gary Childress]

I still can't see where this is supposed to go, or how it helps you in any way.

Just trying to determine how rational and consistent your beliefs are.

Well, that shouldn't be too hard. I can't see that any of these questions are helping you with that, though. They seem to be about concepts like "force," not about my beliefs and the grounding for them.

Do you think threatening people with Hell because they don't read the Bible or go to church and then eventually sending them to Hell if they don't counts as "forcing" them to read the Bible or go to church?

[Immanuel Can]

Just trying to determine how rational and consistent your beliefs are.

Well, that shouldn't be too hard. I can't see that any of these questions are helping you with that, though. They seem to be about concepts like "force," not about my beliefs and the grounding for them.

Do you think threatening people with Hell because they don't read the Bible or go to church and then eventually sending them to Hell if they don't counts as "forcing" them to read the Bible or go to church?

I wouldn't say it does, because if that worked, everybody would be in church, wouldn't they? But the fact that relatively few people do so is testimony to the fact that nobody feels "forced" or even "threatened." Or else, one might more astutely say, they recognize the danger but prefer some incentive much greater to do something else. Perhaps, then, it is that other alternative that is successfully employing some kind of "force," since it's obviously much more successful in producing behaviour than whatever it is you think Christians are saying.

So that would seem to be a very weak argument.

But in point of fact, nobody's "threatening" anything. And nobody is "sending" anybody anywhere they're not choosing to go. Rather, people are being informed of what rejection of God amounts to being. And it's an act of pure kindness, if somebody is driving off a cliff, to warn him there are specific outcomes of his recklessness, is it not? Or is it more kind to let him find out at the cliff?

[Gary Childress]

Well, that shouldn't be too hard. I can't see that any of these questions are helping you with that, though. They seem to be about concepts like "force," not about my beliefs and the grounding for them.

Do you think threatening people with Hell because they don't read the Bible or go to church and then eventually sending them to Hell if they don't counts as "forcing" them to read the Bible or go to church?

I wouldn't say it does, because if that worked, everybody would be in church, wouldn't they? But the fact that relatively few people do so is testimony to the fact that nobody feels "forced" or even "threatened." Or else, one might more astutely say, they recognize the danger but prefer some incentive much greater to do something else. Perhaps, then, it is that other alternative that is successfully employing some kind of "force," since it's obviously much more successful in producing behaviour than whatever it is you think Christians are saying.

So that would seem to be a very weak argument.

But in point of fact, nobody's "threatening" anything. And nobody is "sending" anybody anywhere they're not choosing to go. Rather, people are being informed of what rejection of God amounts to being. And it's an act of pure kindness, if somebody is driving off a cliff, to warn him there are specific outcomes of his recklessness, is it not? Or is it more kind to let him find out at the cliff?

So relatively few people go to church therefore God is not "forcing" them to go to church, but according to your interpretation of the divine they will all go to hell. If relatively few people followed tax law and they were eventually sent to prison for it, would that mean that since relatively few people followed it, that the government was not "forcing" them to pay taxes since they would NOT be immediately sent to jail but only after they stopped paying taxes and their cases faced trial?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think threatening people with Hell because they don't read the Bible or go to church and then eventually sending them to Hell if they don't counts as "forcing" them to read the Bible or go to church?

I wouldn't say it does, because if that worked, everybody would be in church, wouldn't they? But the fact that relatively few people do so is testimony to the fact that nobody feels "forced" or even "threatened." Or else, one might more astutely say, they recognize the danger but prefer some incentive much greater to do something else. Perhaps, then, it is that other alternative that is successfully employing some kind of "force," since it's obviously much more successful in producing behaviour than whatever it is you think Christians are saying.

So that would seem to be a very weak argument.

But in point of fact, nobody's "threatening" anything. And nobody is "sending" anybody anywhere they're not choosing to go. Rather, people are being informed of what rejection of God amounts to being. And it's an act of pure kindness, if somebody is driving off a cliff, to warn him there are specific outcomes of his recklessness, is it not? Or is it more kind to let him find out at the cliff?

So relatively few people go to church therefore God is not "forcing" them to go to church,

If God were "forcing" it, do you not think He would succeed? If you suppose that, then you have no idea what the word "God" refers to.

but according to your interpretation of the divine they will all go to hell.

If they want to. Nobody HAS to.

If relatively few people followed tax law and they were eventually sent to prison for it, would that mean that since relatively few people followed it, that the government was not "forcing" them to pay taxes?

Yes, certainly. If they are able to choose not to pay taxes, and even being sent to prison fails to correct the problem, then the government hasn't "forced" them to pay taxes. When somebody is "forced," they have no choice. These mythical people of yours are simply choosing the road they want, and having the consequences visited upon them. If they were "forced," they'd pay taxes.

But if jail's some sort of natural consequence of not paying taxes, and they're warned it is, then who's fault is it if they end up in jail?

Their own, obviously. They just weighed the consequences, and decided that "three hots and a cot" is a good deal, rather than paying taxes.

[Gary Childress]

I wouldn't say it does, because if that worked, everybody would be in church, wouldn't they? But the fact that relatively few people do so is testimony to the fact that nobody feels "forced" or even "threatened." Or else, one might more astutely say, they recognize the danger but prefer some incentive much greater to do something else. Perhaps, then, it is that other alternative that is successfully employing some kind of "force," since it's obviously much more successful in producing behaviour than whatever it is you think Christians are saying.

So that would seem to be a very weak argument.

But in point of fact, nobody's "threatening" anything. And nobody is "sending" anybody anywhere they're not choosing to go. Rather, people are being informed of what rejection of God amounts to being. And it's an act of pure kindness, if somebody is driving off a cliff, to warn him there are specific outcomes of his recklessness, is it not? Or is it more kind to let him find out at the cliff?

So relatively few people go to church therefore God is not "forcing" them to go to church,

If God were "forcing" it, do you not think He would succeed? If you suppose that, then you have no idea what the word "God" refers to.

but according to your interpretation of the divine they will all go to hell.

If they want to. Nobody HAS to.

So if I don't read the Bible and don't want to go to Hell, will God "force" me to go to Hell regardless of my not wanting to go to Hell?

[Immanuel Can]

So relatively few people go to church therefore God is not "forcing" them to go to church,

If God were "forcing" it, do you not think He would succeed? If you suppose that, then you have no idea what the word "God" refers to.

but according to your interpretation of the divine they will all go to hell.

If they want to. Nobody HAS to.

So if I don't read the Bible and don't want to go to Hell,

Really, Gary, you should go back and read what I wrote. Your paraphrase is once again, wrong.

will God "force" me to go to Hell regardless of my not wanting to go to Hell?

Will the cliff kill you if you decide to drive over it? Will your death then be the cliff's fault?

[Gary Childress]

If relatively few people followed tax law and they were eventually sent to prison for it, would that mean that since relatively few people followed it, that the government was not "forcing" them to pay taxes?

Yes, certainly. If they are able to choose not to pay taxes, and even being sent to prison fails to correct the problem, then the government hasn't "forced" them to pay taxes. When somebody is "forced," they have no choice. These mythical people of yours are simply choosing the road they want, and having the consequences visited upon them. If they were "forced," they'd pay taxes.

But if jail's some sort of natural consequence of not paying taxes, and they're warned it is, then who's fault is it if they end up in jail?

Their own, obviously. They just weighed the consequences, and decided that "three hots and a cot" is a good deal, rather than paying taxes.

So if the popular vote was to fund social programs through a progressive tax program (the more a person makes the more they would pay, however, not without being able to keep some of their extra income--with the poorest possibly not having to pay taxes at all) would it be OK to you to have social programs, even though a lesser portion of citizens didn't want to pay their share of those taxes?

[Immanuel Can]

If relatively few people followed tax law and they were eventually sent to prison for it, would that mean that since relatively few people followed it, that the government was not "forcing" them to pay taxes?

Yes, certainly. If they are able to choose not to pay taxes, and even being sent to prison fails to correct the problem, then the government hasn't "forced" them to pay taxes. When somebody is "forced," they have no choice. These mythical people of yours are simply choosing the road they want, and having the consequences visited upon them. If they were "forced," they'd pay taxes.

But if jail's some sort of natural consequence of not paying taxes, and they're warned it is, then who's fault is it if they end up in jail?

Their own, obviously. They just weighed the consequences, and decided that "three hots and a cot" is a good deal, rather than paying taxes.

So if the popular vote was to fund social programs through a progressive tax program (the more a person makes the more they would pay, however, not without being able to keep some of their extra income--with the poorest possibly not having to pay taxes at all) would it be OK to you to have social programs, even though a lesser portion of citizens didn't want to pay their share of those taxes?

Relevance? Not seeing it.

[Gary Childress]

If God were "forcing" it, do you not think He would succeed? If you suppose that, then you have no idea what the word "God" refers to.


If they want to. Nobody HAS to.

So if I don't read the Bible and don't want to go to Hell,

Really, Gary, you should go back and read what I wrote. Your paraphrase is once again, wrong.

will God "force" me to go to Hell regardless of my not wanting to go to Hell?

Will the cliff kill you if you decide to drive over it? Will your death then be the cliff's fault?

So if someone doesn't pay taxes and they were required to, then it would be their fault for not paying them. Is that correct?

[Gary Childress]

Yes, certainly. If they are able to choose not to pay taxes, and even being sent to prison fails to correct the problem, then the government hasn't "forced" them to pay taxes. When somebody is "forced," they have no choice. These mythical people of yours are simply choosing the road they want, and having the consequences visited upon them. If they were "forced," they'd pay taxes.

But if jail's some sort of natural consequence of not paying taxes, and they're warned it is, then who's fault is it if they end up in jail?

Their own, obviously. They just weighed the consequences, and decided that "three hots and a cot" is a good deal, rather than paying taxes.

So if the popular vote was to fund social programs through a progressive tax program (the more a person makes the more they would pay, however, not without being able to keep some of their extra income--with the poorest possibly not having to pay taxes at all) would it be OK to you to have social programs, even though a lesser portion of citizens didn't want to pay their share of those taxes?

Relevance? Not seeing it.

Answer the question and maybe the "relevance" will become apparent.