Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Force Defined

Rate this topic


AisA

Recommended Posts

Stephen Speicher, I was talking about seizing immovable property like a house or area of land and not moving it or even touching it, but forbidding the owner to access it and, say, holding an auction to sell it.

And your claim is that this represents only a threat of force, not an act of force? Sorry, but any action which takes my property without my consent is an act of force. Are you seriously going to argue that, when I thief points a gun at me and demands "your wallet or your life," that such an act is merely a threat? Under normal circumstances I choose to keep both my wallet and my life, but here I am being forced to choose between the two. The thief is forcing my will, plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the note right below the sentence you quoted.

In fact, everybody please forget I ever said anything on the topic.

In that note you say

Note, I meant "seizing ... is the threat of physical violence, which by the way is a form of force."

Yes, a threat of physical violence is a form of force. But, seizing property is not simply a threat of physical violence -- the threat being "I will physically stop you from regaining your property -- but the seizing itself is an act of force. Do you see the distinction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am taking possession of your bank account now, and if you cooperate, nobody will get hurt." No physical violence was used, though the threat of it is force.

The threat of physical violence is implicit in the act of seizure, as long as the victimizer does not have the victim's consent; contrast this with the case of the victim giving the victimizer the sanction of the victim, where the deed would no longer be force (in my estimation).

Note: in the case I mentioned, there was no contact except the notice that the owner may no longer use his property at his discretion. Seizing valuables is different - it usually involves taking them from the owner's property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen

Yes. I am "seriously going to argue" that a gun pointed at you "is merely a threat." However, I will not modify the term "threat" with the word 'mere' for I do not look upon threats of force as something to be taken LESS seriously.

In the example you provide, you face that choice because your interaction with the thief is NOT voluntary. Whether it is not voluntary because the thief *threatens* you with force or because he *actually uses* force does not change the nature of the interaction. It doesn't change the fact that, "under normal circumstances" (ie under voluntary circumstances) you would not face such a choice. In other words, whether one threatens to act in x manner or one actually acts in x manner, the interaction between the two parties remains the same - it remains NOT voluntary.

However, the fact that you do not act voluntarily does not change the fact that the threat of x is not the same AS x - that the threat of action is not the same AS an action - that the threat of force is not the same AS the use of force.

Thus I believe the definition I provide (which Betsy helped formulate) accurately identifies both the involuntary nature of the interaction AND the nature of the act of the initiator of that involuntary interaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

y

"I am taking possession of your bank account now, and if you cooperate, nobody will get hurt." No physical violence was used, though the threat of it is force."

Actually, the bank is in contact with your wealth. And it maintains that contact regardless of your wishes (ie it maintains that contact according to the will of the govt as opposed to your will). That is force according to the provided definition. Besides this actual use of force, there is also the threat of force - the threat that force will be used against you if you do try to access your wealth.

So in this example, there is both force AND threat of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the fact that you do not act voluntarily does not change the fact that the threat of x is not the same AS x - that the threat of action is not the same AS an action - that the threat of force is not the same AS the use of force.

Yes, the thief threatening to shoot me with his gun is not the same as the thief actually pulling the trigger. The metaphysical distinction is between a pointed gun and a bullet entering my body. But such a metaphysical distinction does not imply the necessity of a normative distinction. Both the threat of shooting and the actual shooting are acts of force, which is why I am forced to hand over my wallet if I do not want to be shot. A friend once put it in very clever way: "I regard the bullet entering me or not, as a time difference, not a force difference."

Thus I believe the definition I provide (which Betsy helped formulate) accurately identifies both the involuntary nature of the interaction AND the nature of the act of the initiator of that involuntary interaction.

As I said earlier, I have not really read the previous posts, so I do not know what definition you refer to. But, let me say for the record, just because I so much love and admire my wonderful wife Betsy, does not mean I agree with everything she says. If you were a fly on the wall of the Speicher household, you would get an earful. We first met one evening at a lecture and talked and argued till 5am the next morning. We just celebrated our 37th anniversary, and we haven't stopped talking and arguing since! An active mind is a wonderful thing, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition:

Force is contact with the person or property of another without that other's consent.

--

"A friend once put it in very clever way: "I regard the bullet entering me or not, as a time difference, not a force difference""

There is a very big metaphysical difference between the two. One is an actual. The other is only a potential. While both are involuntary interactions, that metaphysical distinction does exist, is quite important, and thus needs to be identified (especially when it comes to the political realm).

"But, let me say for the record, just because I so much love and admire my wonderful wife Betsy, does not mean I agree with everything she says."

I was not trying to make an 'Appeal to Authority" here. I mentioned it because I thought you might know how and why she had come to such a definition, thus saving us much posting. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of the metaphysical distinction, which is why I myself pointed it out, RadCap. But, in addition, I am suggesting you consider the possibility of making the same normative evaluation of differing metaphysical conditions.

A gun as a weapon is metaphysically different from a knife, but if you are murdered by either weapon, it is murder nonetheless. A pointed gun is forcing my mind -- the relinquishment of my wallet -- just as much as a bullet does by disabling me. Each is an act of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A pointed gun is forcing my mind -- the relinquishment of my wallet -- just as much as a bullet does by disabling me."

I don't disagree with this statement. As I have pointed out, neither act is voluntary. I simply distinguish between a potential act and an actual act. I do not claim that one is more voluntary or less voluntary than another.

As to your gun/knife comparison, I do not believe it is appropriate to the context. The context now is the potential vs the actual - the potential to be stabbed vs being stabbed - the potential to be raped vs being raped - the potential to be murdered vs being murdered. Though neither option is voluntary, I hope you will agree there is an enormous difference between the potential and the actual in each of these examples. And it is that difference which I believe demands identification. Such an identification does not, however, diminish the fact that both are non-voluntary human interactions and, as such, are immoral.

--

Concerning your comments about Betsy, I was simply making sure you didnt take that to be a logical fallacy. I knew most of it was lighthearted, but even if you had included a smilely, I would still have made the statement, for the sake of clarity.

Oh - and RadCap stands for Radical Capitalist :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both of the Speichers are agreed as to what force is (in a politcal contect): physical contact made by one person with the person or property orf another person without the other person's consent. The quibbling comes in when using terms like "act of force." Then you have the option as to whether to include threats of force under that. That's optional.

Either way, threats of force are wrong, negate choice, violate rights, and deserve retaliation too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...