Merged Harm, force, and might makes right

[Patrick_R]

The harm principal or freedom principal or whatever you would like to call it, is hated (very much) on this forum. So, I’d like to hear from the critics: when it is ok to use force against another?

 

[Francesca R]

Isn't this better suited to "politics"?

 

[Patrick_R]

The harm principal or freedom principal or whatever you would like to call it, is hated (very much) on this forum. So, I’d like to hear from the critics: when it is ok to use force against another?

 

[DC]

The harm principal or freedom principal or whatever you would like to call it, is hated (very much) on this forum. So, I’d like to hear from the critics: when it is ok to use force against another?

Whenever a society has declared something illegal, like Drugdealing, Raping, Murdering.
or when a society has decided to demand something, like Tax money etc.
and whenever that society has ordered a institution to enforce those laws and demands, like Police for example.

 

[drkitten]

The harm principal or freedom principal or whatever you would like to call it, is hated (very much) on this forum. So, I’d like to hear from the critics: when it is ok to use force against another?

When "another" is a Libertarian who is spamming the forum with inane questions.

 

[DC]

deja vu

 

[Cleon]

The harm principal or freedom principal or whatever you would like to call it, is hated (very much) on this forum.

Is it? Or is just that people disagree with your conception of it?

So, I’d like to hear from the critics: when it is ok to use force against another?

Define "force." Quantify what you mean by "ok."

This weekend at TAM I was talking with a gentleman who was open about being an extreme Libertarian. At the same time, he was also adamantly in favor of the government forcing people to get vaccinations. (He and I are very much in agreement on this.)

It's not a question of whether it's "ok" to require people to get vaccinated, it's a question of public safety. To not to get vaccinated is not merely a personal choice, because a nonvaccinated person is a risk to other people.

 

[lightfire22000]

Whenever a society has declared something illegal, like Drugdealing, Raping, Murdering.
or when a society has decided to demand something, like Tax money etc.
and whenever that society has ordered a institution to enforce those laws and demands, like Police for example.

What constitutes what a "society" ordered? What gives one government authority over another? Ultimately, you'll find nothing else besides might?

 

[Patrick_R]

When "another" is a Libertarian who is spamming the forum with inane questions.

I guess in your "critical thinking" utopia everyone holds the same line of reasoning and no questions are ever asked.

Dr. Kitten you have exhibited dangerous and frightening tendencies. I’m assuming you are joking when you said you would use force against someone you disagree with but there are so many real world examples when people with good intentions toward the poor and a penchant for big government have murdered in the name of their goals of social justice and equality.

 

[Patrick_R]

Is it? Or is just that people disagree with your conception of it?

I was just on the Econ thread...people, at least there, dislike the principal very much and attack it. They redicule it out of hand, whether or not you define it for them.

Define "force." Quantify what you mean by "ok."

Force = making someone do something against their will

OK = meaning you support it.

This weekend at TAM I was talking with a gentleman who was open about being an extreme Libertarian. At the same time, he was also adamantly in favor of the government forcing people to get vaccinations. (He and I are very much in agreement on this.)

libertarians like any group aren't all the same. I was at a Cato Institute seminar (libertarians) and one guy asserted that we should have the right to shoot guns in public so long as we don't hit anyone. No one agreed.

It's not a question of whether it's "ok" to require people to get vaccinated, it's a question of public safety. To not to get vaccinated is not merely a personal choice, because a nonvaccinated person is a risk to other people.

This is what I would be looking for. More examples, scenarios and reasoned arguments why.

 

[geni]

The harm principal or freedom principal or whatever you would like to call it, is hated (very much) on this forum. So, I’d like to hear from the critics: when it is ok to use force against another?

Define "ok".

 

[DC]

What constitutes what a "society" ordered? What gives one government authority over another? Ultimately, you'll find nothing else besides might?

not sure for your country, but in mine it is done by voting. we vote about a value added tax, yes or no and how much.
then if the majority votes yes, everyone is forced to pay that tax.
so we as a society or community decided and have already governmental bodys to enforce those things we decide.

 

[Marc39]

International law permits the use of force by states only in cases of self-defense. Only through UN Security Council resolutions, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, may force be used, usually to prevent aggression and to restore peace.

 

[Cleon]

Force = making someone do something against their will

That's great, but it still doesn't really mean anything.

There are no laws, as far as I'm aware, that actually make anyone do something against their will. What they do is create consequences for not doing them.

For example, nobody makes me obey the speed limits. There's no regulator in my car, and nobody sits there holding my leg so I don't hit the gas too hard. What happens is that if I do go beyond 5 mph of the speed limit, there are consequences involved. If I get caught speeding, I face those consequences.

This concept isn't limited to government, either. Nobody makes me pay my mortgage against my will; I can choose not to, if I so desire. If I do, though, my house will be repossessed.

Nobody is "made against their will" to stay faithful to their Significant Other. But if you cheat, your SO might well drop you to the curb.


Humans are social critters, and we always have been. We create rules so we can live and function together. Sometimes those rules are good ideas, sometimes they're bad ideas. Sometimes they come from governments, sometimes they come from social convention, sometimes they come from private corporations. Sometimes they're severe, sometimes they're mild to the point where they can be ignored.

But in the end, nobody makes you follow the rules against your will; you choose to follow them, or you don't.

So I prefer to argue the merit of the rules, rather than vague ideas about "forcing" people to do things "against their will." That line of argument is a dead end.

OK = meaning you support it.

Support it, or simply accept that it's necessary?

This is what I would be looking for. More examples, scenarios and reasoned arguments why.

Perhaps, then, you should try to bring up examples, scenarios, and reasoned arguments rather than speaking in vacuous platitudes about "freedom principles."

 

[ravdin]

For example, nobody makes me obey the speed limits. There's no regulator in my car, and nobody sits there holding my leg so I don't hit the gas too hard. What happens is that if I do go beyond 5 mph of the speed limit, there are consequences involved. If I get caught speeding, I face those consequences.

Right, and those consequences are ultimately backed by the threat of physical force. If you fail to pay the fine, your license will be suspended, and if you drive your car anyway, you'll be arrested. Try resisting arrest and see what happens to you.

I don't see that as wrong or illegitimate, by the way. It's more like a contract. When you drive your car, you're agreeing to abide by the rules of the road.* In return, you get services like paved roads and emergency assistance. This seems fair to me, and if it doesn't one is always free to opt out and not drive.


*Unless you happen to be a California state senator on a medication bender taking a wild ride in a taxpayer funded car- but I digress.

 

[Cleon]

Right, and those consequences are ultimately backed by the threat of physical force. If you fail to pay the fine, your license will be suspended, and if you drive your car anyway, you'll be arrested. Try resisting arrest and see what happens to you.

And that is no different from anything else I mentioned.

If you decide to not pay your mortgage, ultimately you will be physically tossed out.

If you tell off your boss and he fires you, he will use physical force to eject you from the building if you refuse to leave.

"Physical force" is the ultimate threat for any social rule or convention, government or no.

I don't see that as wrong or illegitimate, by the way. It's more like a contract. When you drive your car, you're agreeing to abide by the rules of the road.* In return, you get services like paved roads and emergency assistance. This seems fair to me, and if it doesn't one is always free to opt out and not drive.

That's exactly it, and you're proving my point. By participating in society, you agree to abide by the rules of that society.

If you don't like the rules, fine. Either try to change them, or leave society.

But the fact that we have rules is not, in itself, a problem. It's just the way people function together, and that's true whether we're talking social convention, business practices, or government laws.

 

[dudalb]

I have no respect for Rush Limbaugh,but once he summed up the problem with Libertarianism in a nutshell, about the only time he made sense:

The problem with Libertarians is they think they live in a vacuum, where no action they take has an impact on others.

 

[Patrick_R]

Cleon, this is simple, express when it is ok to use force. Speed limits are a great example, thanks. What else?

Notice I didn't request you specify when it was ok to use force via the state? It doesn't matter right now: force from individuals, groups, companies, the state? When is it ok to use force?

I’m afraid people on here either don’t keep an open mind and don’t care to actually learn about an opposing view point, or they are so hard headed they’d just like to remain ignorant and keep conflating issues and generalizing their oppositions views. You'll soon learn that libertarians and even anarchists understand that there are need for rules and proper incentives - simply put incentives matter - but it’s how we structure them and how much is necessary that becomes debatable.

 

[ravdin]

That's exactly it, and you're proving my point. By participating in society, you agree to abide by the rules of that society.

If you don't like the rules, fine. Either try to change them, or leave society.

But the fact that we have rules is not, in itself, a problem. It's just the way people function together, and that's true whether we're talking social convention, business practices, or government laws.

I'm pretty sure we more or less agree- I was just making the nitpicky point that most of our rules are backed by physical force (or at least the threat of force). I don't have a problem with this, and I definitely don't see it as "might makes right".

I'd also add that the rules go both ways- if you call the police because you need help, they're not allowed to refuse their services. This is ultimately backed by force. So are any rules that allow us to live in a safe, comfortable society instead of being naked, cold, hungry, and alone in the wilderness. Compared to that, being "forced" to drive under the speed limit isn't such a terrible situation.

 

[Cleon]

Cleon, this is simple, express when it is ok to use force. Speed limits are a great example, thanks. What else?

Notice I didn't request you specify when it was ok to use force via the state?

Well, what I did notice is that you are steadfastly refusing to address anything I said.

I’m afraid people on here either don’t keep an open mind and don’t care to actually learn about an opposing view point, or they are so hard headed they’d just like to remain ignorant and keep conflating issues and generalizing their oppositions views. You'll soon learn that libertarians and even anarchists understand that there are need for rules and proper incentives - simply put incentives matter - but it’s how we structure them and how much is necessary that becomes debatable.

And you'll soon learn that people who disagree with you aren't necessarily disagreeing with you because they "don't keep an open mind."

Or maybe you won't. It's up to you, really.

I fail to see any reason to continue this conversation. It's clear that you're here on an evangelical mission to preach the Holy Word of Libertarian philosophy, and have little interest in discussion.