Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Governmental coercion v. Societal coercion

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 1:42:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can I get anyone who is collectivist to tell me which form of coercion they think is more effective and beneficial to society? I am personally against governmental coercion, but think that moderate societal coercion is good for the collective and the individual, thoughts?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 2:30:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I generally find all of the "-isms" objectionable, as such classifications tend to generalize and categorize an argument that may not warrant such categorization.

In the end, coercion is coercion. It could come from the government, from society, from nature, or from your 5 year old sister, it's still coercion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 9:35:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 1:42:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Can I get anyone who is collectivist

Please don't use that word. It's annoying.

to tell me which form of coercion they think is more effective and beneficial to society?

Why does the end result of a vague social-utilitarian calculus matter to you?

I am personally against governmental coercion, but think that moderate societal coercion is good for the collective and the individual, thoughts?

(1) Why?

(2) Define coercion.

(3) Where do you draw the line between social and governmental coercion?

(4) Do you think there's a relevant difference between two acts that, while contentually distinct, have the same result on another's existential claims?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 5:49:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 1:42:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Can I get anyone who is collectivist

I hate that term.

to tell me which form of coercion they think is more effective and beneficial to society?

Government. Societal coercion is people saying 'tut-tut'.

I am personally against governmental coercion, but think that moderate societal coercion is good for the collective and the individual, thoughts?

OMG YOU COLLECTIVIST YOU THOUGHT OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON AT A TIME!!!1111!!
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 5:55:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 1:42:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Can I get anyone who is collectivist to tell me which form of coercion they think is more effective and beneficial to society? I am personally against governmental coercion, but think that moderate societal coercion is good for the collective and the individual, thoughts?

Like Cit, I wouldn't call myself a collectivist.

What exactly do you mean by social coercion? Do you mean like social pressures? Society alone lacks the ground for legal enforcement making any "social coercion" of a totally different nature than government coercion. That said, despite it's limitations in the legal aspect social "coercion" or social pressures are often very deeply entrenched into the society and if I had to choose one I'd go for social over governmental in terms of effectiveness.

Government legislation on guns, pot, and other drugs has hardly done away with them and as long as these things are socially accepted or tolerated they'll continue to have a market.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 5:56:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
^You also can't be against government coercion as an American conservative. That just doesn't make sense. Being against "government coercion" is the same thing as basically just being against the state itself.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 7:51:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 5:56:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
^You also can't be against government coercion as an American conservative. That just doesn't make sense. Being against "government coercion" is the same thing as basically just being against the state itself.

I just don't feel like starting over, since I already have 1k+ forum posts. I am libertarian, not conservative anymore.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 7:54:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 5:55:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:42:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Can I get anyone who is collectivist to tell me which form of coercion they think is more effective and beneficial to society? I am personally against governmental coercion, but think that moderate societal coercion is good for the collective and the individual, thoughts?

Like Cit, I wouldn't call myself a collectivist.

What exactly do you mean by social coercion? Do you mean like social pressures? Society alone lacks the ground for legal enforcement making any "social coercion" of a totally different nature than government coercion. That said, despite it's limitations in the legal aspect social "coercion" or social pressures are often very deeply entrenched into the society and if I had to choose one I'd go for social over governmental in terms of effectiveness.


Government legislation on guns, pot, and other drugs has hardly done away with them and as long as these things are socially accepted or tolerated they'll continue to have a market.

We are pretty much in agreeance here, plus depending on what idea you are a proponent of, some people believe you have a choice in life and despite societal coercion, you can still make your own choices, although there are two sides to that.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 7:59:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 5:49:59 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:42:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Can I get anyone who is collectivist

I hate that term.

to tell me which form of coercion they think is more effective and beneficial to society?

Government. Societal coercion is people saying 'tut-tut'.

I am personally against governmental coercion, but think that moderate societal coercion is good for the collective and the individual, thoughts?

OMG YOU COLLECTIVIST YOU THOUGHT OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON AT A TIME!!!1111!!

lol, I will give you a few examples of what I am talking about, I am still a supporter of the NAP and against most all forms of coercion.

-Societal coercion on bullying, if society stood up to youth bullies and coerced them by showing that society looks down on bullies, sure we would be infringing on the bully's rights, but at the end of the day that's the same as saying making laws against murdering is infringing on the right of the murderer, no validity.

Now societal coercion against things that aren't coercive or aggressive towards another by nature is wrong, for example, coercion against people who publicly express homosexuality, coercion against nudists, drug users, etc. All inappropriate and wrong, although we shouldn't outlaw non-physical/non-monetary coercion as we would then be using coercion to fight coercion, which is idiotic.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 8:12:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 9:35:00 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/31/2013 1:42:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Can I get anyone who is collectivist

Please don't use that word. It's annoying.

Why?

to tell me which form of coercion they think is more effective and beneficial to society?

Why does the end result of a vague social-utilitarian calculus matter to you?

I am personally against governmental coercion, but think that moderate societal coercion is good for the collective and the individual, thoughts?

(1) Why?

Governmental coercion has set ramifications for not abiding by the accepted set of rules, society has unwritten rules, but you cannot be directly punished (monetarily or physically) for not abiding by these rules, of course you can be socially outcasted, but that's not direct coercion. Ultimately societal coercion still turns out to be more effective in cases of drug usage and is good at enforcing rules that the government generally loosely enforces, like incest and adults having intercourse with minors.

(2) Define coercion.

I am assuming in my own words, as if you cared about the technical definition you would look it up yourself.

Coercion in my own words: Any deterrent/punishment/consequence, whether it be physical, social, monetary, etc. that is created to prevent or promote certain behavior in society.

(3) Where do you draw the line between social and governmental coercion?

Not sure what you mean, there is a clear distinction between the two. Governments are authorized to use physical and monetary force to coerce people in to behaving a certain way, a collective group of people are not.

(4) Do you think there's a relevant difference between two acts that, while contentually distinct, have the same result on another's existential claims?

If I am interpreting this correctly, no. Two acts that have the same result are objectively the same. Intentions are irrelevant in the objective scheme of things, as objectively there are only certain ways to measure coercion or force.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 9:06:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 8:12:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/31/2013 9:35:00 PM, Noumena wrote:

(4) Do you think there's a relevant difference between two acts that, while contentually distinct, have the same result on another's existential claims?

If I am interpreting this correctly, no. Two acts that have the same result are objectively the same. Intentions are irrelevant in the objective scheme of things, as objectively there are only certain ways to measure coercion or force.

So if it's the end result, then why (in yer opinion) does it matter if those results are attained through explicit governmental force, social mores, capitalist uncertainty, religious indoctrination, etc.?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 9:48:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 9:06:41 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/2/2013 8:12:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/31/2013 9:35:00 PM, Noumena wrote:

(4) Do you think there's a relevant difference between two acts that, while contentually distinct, have the same result on another's existential claims?

If I am interpreting this correctly, no. Two acts that have the same result are objectively the same. Intentions are irrelevant in the objective scheme of things, as objectively there are only certain ways to measure coercion or force.

So if it's the end result, then why (in yer opinion) does it matter if those results are attained through explicit governmental force, social mores, capitalist uncertainty, religious indoctrination, etc.?

Yes, it costs the government my money to coerce people and coercion only has a minor net benefit, so it's not worth it. On the other hand it doesn't cost me anything for the media and social groups to coerce other people. Both might have the same result, but one costs taxpayer money and results in increased governmental power/jurisdiction while the other doesn't. (I consider government being able to influence culture, trends and thought a relatively large power).
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 9:51:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 9:48:17 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/4/2013 9:06:41 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/2/2013 8:12:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/31/2013 9:35:00 PM, Noumena wrote:

(4) Do you think there's a relevant difference between two acts that, while contentually distinct, have the same result on another's existential claims?

If I am interpreting this correctly, no. Two acts that have the same result are objectively the same. Intentions are irrelevant in the objective scheme of things, as objectively there are only certain ways to measure coercion or force.

So if it's the end result, then why (in yer opinion) does it matter if those results are attained through explicit governmental force, social mores, capitalist uncertainty, religious indoctrination, etc.?


Yes, it costs the government my money to coerce people and coercion only has a minor net benefit, so it's not worth it. On the other hand it doesn't cost me anything for the media and social groups to coerce other people. Both might have the same result, but one costs taxpayer money and results in increased governmental power/jurisdiction while the other doesn't. (I consider government being able to influence culture, trends and thought a relatively large power).

Then I'll ask again: Why does the end result of a vague social-utilitarian calculus matter to you? Or put more clearly, why is coercion only 'bad' to you when it costs money (I'll ignore for the sake of argument the monetary costs of different types of social pressure e.g. discrimination, etc.).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 1:04:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 9:51:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/4/2013 9:48:17 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/4/2013 9:06:41 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/2/2013 8:12:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/31/2013 9:35:00 PM, Noumena wrote:

(4) Do you think there's a relevant difference between two acts that, while contentually distinct, have the same result on another's existential claims?

If I am interpreting this correctly, no. Two acts that have the same result are objectively the same. Intentions are irrelevant in the objective scheme of things, as objectively there are only certain ways to measure coercion or force.

So if it's the end result, then why (in yer opinion) does it matter if those results are attained through explicit governmental force, social mores, capitalist uncertainty, religious indoctrination, etc.?


Yes, it costs the government my money to coerce people and coercion only has a minor net benefit, so it's not worth it. On the other hand it doesn't cost me anything for the media and social groups to coerce other people. Both might have the same result, but one costs taxpayer money and results in increased governmental power/jurisdiction while the other doesn't. (I consider government being able to influence culture, trends and thought a relatively large power).

Then I'll ask again: Why does the end result of a vague social-utilitarian calculus matter to you? Or put more clearly, why is coercion only 'bad' to you when it costs money (I'll ignore for the sake of argument the monetary costs of different types of social pressure e.g. discrimination, etc.).

Coercion is not bad as a whole, as I have mentioned. We can be coerced in to behaving a certain way and not even be aware, so utilitarianism is not relevant. Coercion can occur through mental manipulation. If someone wishes to push their worldview/cultural views/religious views/whatever views on others they can, they just shouldn't force others to pay for their venture of manipulative and physical coercion. I have explained why governmental coercion is different, governments have more powerful means to enforce their coercion that aren't even necessarily as effective; imprisonment, death, torture, fines, etc. Society can only verbally abuse you or manipulate you to achieve their coercive goals.