<!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>
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western"> Jef Allbright
wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C302659056@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">(1) What do we mean by coercion?
[...] 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>
Not specifically nor in any predatory or unethical fashion. If the greater
productivity failed to materialize, the four farmers would suffer the
consequences of their self determined faith in technology. This example
seems to rely on determinism. [<a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will</a>]
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C302659056@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<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.
I expect that our Libertarian list members might want to express some
strong views on this subject.</pre>
</blockquote>
Once again I sense a deterministic bias. I don't deny that the pre physical
can be causal. What I mean by coercion includes what can lead to physical
pressure. In my usage coercion functions in a stochastic process where a
person or group has chosen to use force in an ethically entropic manner with
an intention to dominate the will of any other human (trans or post included)
individual. Whether that "free will" is viewed as an illusion or an impossibly
difficult Markov property, I think, may be irrelevant. I think we came here
(to this list) with a will to progress, improvement and some sense of moral
responsibility. [ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain</a>]<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C302659056@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">(2) What do we mean by hierarchy or level?
[...]
</pre>
</blockquote>
Here we discuss hierarchical <i>power</i>.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C302659056@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">On the other hand, in the context of PJ's reference to that news article
and the phrase "Hierarchy is out" it seems clear that we're referring to
Social Hierarchy, which comes loaded with considerable values-related
connotations. <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hierarchy"><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hierarchy></a> So, when I said earlier: </pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's an ecosystem, so the organizational
scheme is dynamic, where conflict at one
level leads to reorganization and cooperation
at a higher level of complexity and effectiveness.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
and you replied:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Still hierarchical? What mitigates forceful conflict -- a balance of
<!---->Class I and Class II residues?
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto</a>] </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This may be a good place to focus on both coercion and hierarchy.
First of all, let me say that I greatly admire much of Pareto's work,
his Pareto's Law distribution and what many know as the 80/20 rule, but
I have a very difficult time using his arcane terminology of "residue"
and "derivation". (I also don't care for "liberal" vs. "conservative"
for that matter.) Please defend this usage if you feel it is central
and/or important to our discussion.</pre>
</blockquote>
I feel little attachment to this terminology. I used this to illustrate
the futility of a two level power structure, alternating sadistic and masochistic
roles. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C302659056@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">So to the topic at hand, yes, I think that a hierarchical system that
reorganizes at progressively higher levels of complexity and
effectiveness should be seen as good--and it happens to be as
unavoidable as the laws of physics.</pre>
</blockquote>
Is physics the topic at hand? I thought we were discussing the demise of
social unilateralism. There's a big difference between a system that reorganizes
by means of decapitations and mass exterminations and a structure that enables
more than it constrains. [<a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Giddens">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Giddens</a>]<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C302659056@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Is there conflict? Yes. Conflict between competing methods, with the
more successful tending to persist and the less successful tending to
perish. To "mitigate" such conflict would cause the system to stagnate
and become more likely to eventually succumb to some external threat.
Note that I specifically mentioned that conflict at one level leads to
*cooperation* at a higher level.</pre>
</blockquote>
I didn't say mitigate competence. Let's mitigate bloody methods. Let's
compete to do our best, not our worst. The persistance of the hunter-gatherer
mentality does little to insure that we'll survive, for example, an invasion
of hive mind aliens who just don't understand our "illusion" of free will.
<br>
<br>
How about a voluntarist structure that enables the less successful to reorganize
more successfully -- rather than letting them perish. If they couldn't beat
you, they could join you. I suspect social exclusion signals the collapse
of your hierarchy. [ <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exclusion">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exclusion</a>]<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C302659056@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Now here's the part I'm guessing you really won't like:
Will such progress be seen as "good"? Generally yes, because what works
tends to proliferate and what doesn't work tends to die off, and success
is assessed by those remaining in a position to assess.</pre>
</blockquote>
I don't regard deterministic justification of Machiavellian methods as progress.
[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian</a>]<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C302659056@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap="">Is there coercion? Well, as I said I prefer not to use the word because
ultimately every gradient in power, strength, capability, effectiveness,
etc., can be interpreted as leading to coercion as with the farmers
mentioned earlier.</pre>
</blockquote>
If your higher level can't mitigate violence on a lower level and admits
of no constraints on its own lust for power, then "strength, capability and
effectiveness" sound like euphemisms for an addiction to intimidation. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midB99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C302659056@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net">
<pre wrap=""> But in the case of the farmers, I think it would be
much more realistic to see the situation in terms of a positive-sum game
for any who choose to play.</pre>
</blockquote>
And the low tech farmer could open a museum, but when the "powerful" played
with guns last century -- 180 million died -- not a very positive sum. [<a
href="http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm">http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm</a>]<br>
<br>
I agree. That's enough for now. <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>