The Fundamental Political Question

[RCSaunders]

Is the initiation of coercive force, or the threat of it, ever right in one's relationship with other human beings?

Oddly enough there is not a single political view that does not assume that force is sometimes necessary or justified in human relationships. The question has nothing to do with defense, which assumes force has already been initiated, else there would be nothing to defend against.

In all human relationships, whether cooperating in some mutual interest, doing business with one another, or simply enjoying each other's company, unless some coercive force is used, every individual is free to participate in such relationships or not, which means, every individual may choose to socially interact with any other human beings in which all parties to that relationship regard it beneficial to themselves, and are free to evade all relationships they regard as harmful to themselves. Since every individual is different and will have different views and values, every individual would be free to seek and enjoy those relationships that benefit all parties to those relationships.

The question is not whether or not such a society that excludes coercive force is possible. It is doubtful that it is. The question is about the principle, itself, not the practicality of applying it. Force either is or is not a proper means for human beings to interact with one another. So long as it is tacitly assumed that coercive force is ever a right way for human beings to deal with one another, there are no political solutions. If force is justified the whole of politics is reduced to a mad scramble to decide who may use force to make others be and do what they like.

If force is never justified the purpose of politics becomes the search for the means by which human beings can be truly benevolent toward one another without coercively interfering in one another's lives.

[Skepdick]

Effective communication mandates a shared language.

Violence/domination is the only language some people speak.

[RCSaunders]

Effective communication mandates a shared language.

Violence/domination is the only language some people speak.

True! But irrelevant.

Is it your only language?

[Skepdick]

True! But irrelevant.

Is it your only language?

I speak many languages including violence.

It is always my last option, but it is always an option.

One example where I am perfectly fine with force is anti-vaxer parents denying vaccines to children without valid medical reasons. Fuck em - it's child abuse in my books.

[RCSaunders]

True! But irrelevant.

Is it your only language?

I speak many languages including violence.

It is always my last option, but it is always an option.

One example where I am perfectly fine with force is anti-vaxer parents denying vaccines to children without valid medical reasons. Fuck em - it's child abuse in my books.

Thanks for the warning. Thugs always resort to force when they've exhausted their limit ability to reason.

[Skepdick]

Thanks for the warning. Thugs always resort to force when they've exhausted their limit ability to reason.

You seem to know much more about thuggery than me. First hand experience?

I resort to force when reason wastefully fails on the unreasonable.

It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. -Bill Murray

[commonsense]

In order for diplomacy to work, there must be the possibility of the use of force as a final resort.

[RCSaunders]

In order for diplomacy to work, there must be the possibility of the use of force as a final resort.

Are you saying it is right for some human beings to initiate the use of force against other human beings or are you illustrating what is wrong with the concept of diplomacy.

[RCSaunders]

Thanks for the warning. Thugs always resort to force when they've exhausted their limit ability to reason.

You seem to know much more about thuggery than me. First hand experience?

I resort to force when reason wastefully fails on the unreasonable.

It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. -Bill Murray

That's true!

[commonsense]

In order for diplomacy to work, there must be the possibility of the use of force as a final resort.

Are you saying it is right for some human beings to initiate the use of force against other human beings or are you illustrating what is wrong with the concept of diplomacy.

This is merely a restatement of a post above:

[You must] resort to force when reason wastefully falls on the unreasonable.

I am not saying that this is right; only that it is necessary.

[commonsense]

Effective communication mandates a shared language.

Violence/domination is the only language some people speak.

True! But irrelevant.

Is it your only language?

Force is the only language that some people will heed, even if there are other known languages that are more congenial. Whatever is not forceful is easy to ignore. No political action can take place without some manner of power or force to induce cooperation.

[henry quirk]

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight

[gaffo]

Is the initiation of coercive force, or the threat of it, ever right in one's relationship with other human beings?

Oddly enough there is not a single political view that does not assume that force is sometimes necessary or justified in human relationships. The question has nothing to do with defense, which assumes force has already been initiated, else there would be nothing to defend against.

In all human relationships, whether cooperating in some mutual interest, doing business with one another, or simply enjoying each other's company, unless some coercive force is used, every individual is free to participate in such relationships or not, which means, every individual may choose to socially interact with any other human beings in which all parties to that relationship regard it beneficial to themselves, and are free to evade all relationships they regard as harmful to themselves. Since every individual is different and will have different views and values, every individual would be free to seek and enjoy those relationships that benefit all parties to those relationships.

The question is not whether or not such a society that excludes coercive force is possible. It is doubtful that it is. The question is about the principle, itself, not the practicality of applying it. Force either is or is not a proper means for human beings to interact with one another. So long as it is tacitly assumed that coercive force is ever a right way for human beings to deal with one another, there are no political solutions. If force is justified the whole of politics is reduced to a mad scramble to decide who may use force to make others be and do what they like.

If force is never justified the purpose of politics becomes the search for the means by which human beings can be truly benevolent toward one another without coercively interfering in one another's lives.

another "political" question you brought up in the above is about "association" - as you stated some folks associate with bad persons. so lets talk about the political right to associate with anyone we wish - good or ill.

here in American we have the 1st amendment, which grants me the right to associate with rapists, pedophiles and drugdealers (i..e to choose my friends - and not be persecuted for it (assuming i did not partake in thier activities).

here in American we have older rights - that go back millinia - codified in my Constitution's 9th amendment - to marry any women i choose - from a harlot to a Saint.

nearly all other nations affirm my right to choose my friends and wife also of course, via inherited common law and culture, its just codified in my Nation's constitution - affirming a right that was allready preexistant for millinia.


of course when one is convicted of a crime their right to associate is forfeited - after a trail and due process - but even then, my right to associate with them is not fully - via visitation.

[gaffo]

Thanks for the warning. Thugs always resort to force when they've exhausted their limit ability to reason.

You seem to know much more about thuggery than me. First hand experience?

I resort to force when reason wastefully fails on the unreasonable.

It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. -Bill Murray

true, similar to "you can't fix stupid"

never knew of old Bill's quote (thanks for informing me of it), but over the years i've come to appreciate Murray - not just as a funny man (that was all i thought he was 20+ yrs ago)- as a wise and good man since the last 20 yrs or so.

thanks for the reference!

[Scott Mayers]

Thanks for the warning. Thugs always resort to force when they've exhausted their limit ability to reason.

You seem to know much more about thuggery than me. First hand experience?

I resort to force when reason wastefully fails on the unreasonable.

It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. -Bill Murray

Great saying by Bill Murray! (whether he wrote it himself or performed this in a role)

We cannot live without 'force'. The difference in politics on the 'force' question by different political ideals revolves foremost around whether one believes the majority viewpoint should rule versus a privileged one, ...usually based upon inheritance of some form, whether recognized or not.