Re: Redefining violence (contains possibly POLITICAL material)

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 15:16:39 MST

  • Next message: Charles Hixson: "Re: If Magick Exists (was RE: Ideological blinders)"

    On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 18:28, Charles Hixson wrote:
    > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
    >
    > >I'd like to return to this thread after some time thinking about the
    > >issues raised.
    > >
    > >
    > >On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 08:37, Greg Jordan wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Lee Corbin wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>context. Do you maintain that billboards on private
    > >>>property that happen to be within sight of highways
    > >>>(just as distant mountains are within sight), should
    > >>>be restricted in what appears on them?
    > >>>...
    > >>>
    > Perhaps one needs to consider that force, call it coercion, exists on a
    > scale. We may not yet have a good calibration for it, or a decent
    > meter, but clearly offering bread to a starving man, but insisting that
    > he do something first counts a some degree of coercion. And threatening
    > a well armed man with a club does, also. And screaming at a child. And
    > this ranges must include everything up to words of praise for trying to
    > perform correctly, and down to torturing someone to death for failing to
    > satisfy your whims instantly (without your bothering to inform them).
    > These are all acts along a scale of coercion, though I can't place all
    > of them in order. Somewhere along that scale will be the billboards.
    >
    > Is the scale continuous? (Or essentially continuous to the limit of
    > human perception?) Is it reasonable to pick one place along the scale

    ### Yes, for practical purposes of building efficient legal systems it
    is reasonable to distinguish strongly between physical harm including
    involuntary death, and interactions where these elements are not
    present. Additional distinctions are made, allowing definitions of
    fraud, theft, and other crimes, using practical criteria of usefulness
    in real-life conflict resolution and economic efficiency improvement,
    but they do not invalidate the simple definitions on which successful
    legal systems are based.

    ---------------------------

    ,
    > and say "Everything below this is unethical, everything above it is
    > ethical"?

    ### No, there is no simple dichotomy.

    ----------------------------------
    >
    > Then there are other components. After someone has purchased an
    > expensive house with a magnificent view, is it his neighbor's right to
    > build a high fence? How high? This isn't coercion, but it's certainly
    > provokation. So perhaps the model is too simple...

    ### For the practical purpose of conflict prevention and resolution, the
    idea of private property, with well-defined components adapted to local
    situations, is very useful.

    Specifically, the bundle of rights contained within a real property
    title, can include clauses describing limitations on the height of
    fences. Since real property is obtained freely, with knowledge of the
    relevant rules, any outcomes in accordance with the law are not
    coercive. Building a fence where not forbidden is not coercive, since
    the neighbor did not purchase a right to forbid its construction. Owning
    a right to forbid a fence is not coercive, since the fence builder
    obtained a property without the right to build fences. As long as the
    formation of the fence building rules (allowed/disallowed) occurs in
    voluntary interactions not involving non-consensual threat of force,
    fraud, or legal/economic monopoly, the system as a whole is
    non-coercive, and will produce either specific outcome (fence/no fence)
    in accordance with the preferences of the citizens. There will be towns
    where fences are allowed, and towns without fences, with citizens freely
    choosing between the two.

    -----------------------------
    >
    > Simple words and traditional concepts are more suited to understanding
    > things quickly than to understanding them correctly.

    ### Simple concepts, like self-ownership, reciprocity, free market, are
    almost all we need to build good laws. In part because they define what
    is correct.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 15:21:22 MST