25 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by MonsieurGeeReplacing coercion (i.e. force, threats of force) with persuasion.
I for one would make sure i didn't try to construct sentences when i was drunk, trying to make something a better a better probably isn't going to work .....
Persuasion is; to appeal to a persons reason.
Coercion is; to treat them as a chattel, a dumb beast, it is to subjugate. Force is the prime evil, it's initiation is not justified. Force is only justifeid in response to force or an objective threat of force.
From: "Adventures of Ideas" by Alfred North Whitehead - The essay - "From Force to Persuasion,"
"The creation of the world -- said Plato -- is the victory of persuasion over force... Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals...
"Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of these two forms: force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force."
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
25 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaCommerce is persuasion? Not for the majority of us. Commerce is coersion. "work or starve" is about as persuasive as "gimmie your wallet or I'll shoot you." To be a rational actor in commerce is to maximize benifit and minimize cost. Often these are reached by a conscious or unconsciousness manipulation of the other parties involved.
Replacing coercion (i.e. force, threats of force) with persuasion.
Persuasion is; to appeal to a persons reason.
Coercion is; to treat them as a chattel, a dumb beast, it is to subjugate. Force is the prime evil, it's initiation is not justified. Force is only justifeid in response to force or an objective threat of force.
From: "Adventures of Idea ulsion exemplify the reign of force."
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
Persuasion implies the triumph of human angency. Coersion implies circumscription from outside influences. Thus, as long as human agency is limited by outside forces (and how could it ever not be?), coersion will always be a part of the social fabric. It is a constitutional component of our collective existence.
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by hoven5thNo-one owes anyone else a meal. I don't owe it to you, you don't owe it to me. To consume more than one produces is dishonest so I have no problem with "work or starve" and can see clearly the difference between a gun being held to your head and some one saying "I choose not to trade with you."
Commerce is persuasion? Not for the majority of us. Commerce is coersion. "work or starve" is about as persuasive as "gimmie your wallet or I'll shoot you."
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by WajomaWell that's all very well and good, but the fact of land ownership means that being landless I can't grow my own food, and I don't own raw materials or anything other than my ability to do work; so my choice lies between starvation and employment. The indirect violence of the threat of starvation is just as much a form of compulsion as the direct violence of the threat at gunpoint you used as an example.
No-one owes anyone else a meal. I don't owe it to you, you don't owe it to me. To consume more than one produces is dishonest so I have no problem with "work or starve" and can see clearly the difference between a gun being held to your head and some one saying "I choose not to trade with you."
Yes, I know about social security and so on, but it doesn't change the fundamental point which is that property rights enforce a capitalist hegemony which acts coersively to force the vast majority of people to work for an employer.
25 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtso you think we should abolish slavery (in highly developed countries)?
Well that's all very well and good, but the fact of land ownership means that being landless I can't grow my own food, and I don't own raw materials or anything other than my ability to do work; so my choice lies between starvation and employment. The indirect violence of the threat of starvation is just as much a form of compulsion as the direct violen hegemony which acts coersively to force the vast majority of people to work for an employer.
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by DeepThoughtPeople that own land don't have to work?
Well that's all very well and good, but the fact of land ownership means that being landless I can't grow my own food, and I don't own raw materials or anything other than my ability to do work; so my choice lies between starvation and employment. The indirect violence of the threat of starvation is just as much a form of compulsion as the direct violen ...[text shortened]... hegemony which acts coersively to force the vast majority of people to work for an employer.
All those that don't own land must work for an employer?
Are you sure?
25 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MonsieurGeeI would (humanely, over time) reduce the population of the US to about 150 million, and implement similar reductions worldwide
If there was one thing that you could change today to make the world a better place, what would it be?
or
I would implement a bill of rights for all sentient beings
or
I would tax corporate greed so that no person could make more than say, 100 times the minimum wage
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by flexmoreBasically, yes I think that wage slavery needs abolishing. But I think that I could have made the statement in my last post even if I thought that wage labour was the least worst way of arranging production, as if no one does any work we'll all starve. Also, I think that it's hard to get very far claiming that wage labour and slavery are the same thing; with wage labour you have some degree of choice about who you work for, at least to a first approximation.
so you think we should abolish slavery (in highly developed countries)?
25 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWhat I mean is that people who own land have the option of self-sufficiency - which involves copious amounts of work, but not working for anyone else. People who don't own land don't have that option. People who don't own land may well own capital. There are also the self-employed, in 1997 they accounted for about 12% of the UK workforce - although this includes IT contractors and the like, whose day to day conditions of work are indistinguishable from someone who has a standard contract of employment. It's always possible to find exceptions in populations, but the overall tendency is towards compulsion to work for an employer and so I don't think you can claim that the existance of self-employed people undermines my argument.
People that own land don't have to work?
All those that don't own land must work for an employer?
Are you sure?
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou've said that wage salvery isn't slavery, and that is my main point of contention, well done.
What I mean is that people who own land have the option of self-sufficiency - which involves copious amounts of work, but not working for anyone else. People who don't own land don't have that option. People who don't own land may well own capital. There are also the self-employed, in 1997 they accounted for about 12% of the UK workforce - although th ...[text shortened]... on't think you can claim that the existance of self-employed people undermines my argument.