<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
I think something is missing from your 'farmers' example -the 'coercion'
starts to come in when farmer # 5 can no longer buyresources, spares or parts
for his/her technology or agriculture methods because the suppliers don't
stock them any more. Folks are forced to upgrade or drop out. Psychological
pressure to conform is also coercion; how will the kids at school cope with
being called the 'hillbilly family' or 'the Amish'? It's hard to 'freely
choose' anything when actual physical harm to oneself and one's kin results
from doing anything that 'doesn't fit in'.<br>
Just a thought.<br>
AR<br>
**********<br>
<br>
Samantha Atkins wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid458F8A57.1020606@mac.com">
<pre wrap="">Jef Allbright wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thomas -
Thanks for your thorough reading and feedback.
I detect two principle areas, apparently heavily laden with feelings of
value, on which we might focus for our mutual edification:
(1) What do we mean by coercion?
>From Wikipedia: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion></a>
"Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to involuntarily behave
in a certain way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats,
intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may
typically involve the actual infliction of physical or psychological
harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of
further harm may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person
being coerced."
My concern, and the reason I don't like to use the word, is that it
fails when extended. For example, suppose five individual farmers
operate within a small town, all using traditional farming methods for
many years, but recent developments in agricultural technology now offer
greater productivity at lower cost. If four of the five farmers adopt
the new technology, but the fifth resists due to, say, religious
beliefs, then it's likely that he would lose his livelihood due to being
unable to effectively compete. In such a case, is he being coerced?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Of course not. The wikipedia definition is faulty. Coercion is using
force or fraud to override a person's right to make their own decision
and follow it. The four farmers above are obviously not doing anything
of the kind. The fifth farmer freely chose differently. That his results
are not as good due to this choice and he may fail as a farmer by so
choosing is in no way coercion. It is simply consequences to the
decision made based on whether it works well enough in reality, Reality
includes the choices of others within the same field of endeavor. If
they make choices that objectively improve their results more than your
own then you will not be competitive with their offerings.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Others have defined coercion more narrowly as relating only to cases
involving the threat of *physical* force, including incarceration. This
attempt at narrowing to "physical" fails because any number of alternate
forms of pressure ultimately lead to physical pressure.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Mere pressure is not coercion unless force or fraud is involved. To
define coercion more broadly is simply to be talking at cross purposes
about something quite different.
- samantha
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>