Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Does psychological coercion exist?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

How then would objective law handle the scenario I described? Has no crime been committed, apart from the private property breach? What if the couple were having sex on the road outside the school? Assuming they've paid the road owner to use the road, they're not trespassing.

There is no crime but trespass, and possibly a generic 'disturbing the peace' misdemeanor. The school windows have window blinds. I don't even think there is a harm justifying a civil suit from the kids parents. The school administration can file a civil suit to defend its operations long term, because if this were routine I would not want my own kids going to that neighborhood. When you put the couple in the road they become a hazard to traffic and there are all kinds of reasons to get them out of there, sue the couple and sue the road owner.

I think what's being argued there is only the individual can control what they think about any situation. Certainly that's a function of our nature as rational beings. Isn't that objective?

Contextually objective. It is objective enough for ethics because everyone is a witness to their own mind. As a legal principle it is not objective enough if there are exceptions walking around which impose obligations on people simply by their presence. "Do not sell alcohol to minors" is objectively justifiable, enforceable and no great burden to comply with. "Do not sell alcohol to people that are mentally ill or on certain prescriptions" is not objective because store clerks cannot make diagnoses or check prescriptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is no crime but trespass

- Really?

It would seem obvious to me that people exposing themselves to kids or unwanting strangers should be punished in some way.

However, I guess its not directly use of physical force - but on the other hand it would seem in my interest to have a society where such people where put behind bars.

Lets say its not a couple right outside the school yard, but a fat man in his late sixties having a decent solo performance. Is his violation only trespassing? (And not even that, if its a road he has legally rented).

If the answer to that is no, should we define the crime based on the esthetical perceptions of whomever is watching?

And does that mean that whomever sees it fit can roam around naked with no fear of any legal retribution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Really?

It would seem obvious to me ...

Obvious to you is not an objective standard, which is the point of defining coercion and harm in this thread.

There are plenty of misdemeanors applicable to these situations that can be used to shoo those people away, and more serious criminal charges that apply to threatening patterns of behavior. Merely seeing somebody else's genitals is neither coercion nor harm or even psychologically traumatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Really?

It would seem obvious to me that people exposing themselves to kids or unwanting strangers should be punished in some way.

However, I guess its not directly use of physical force - but on the other hand it would seem in my interest to have a society where such people where put behind bars.

Would this seem like a good idea to you:

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/1019...d_faces_charges?

If not, what objective standard can you provide that will prevent that woman from walking around people's houses with her son, and getting them arrested whenever they forget to make sure she isn't staring in their window?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off course seeing someone naked does not necessarily imply some destruction of the mind, nor am I claiming so.

But if you would, for example, stop a bunch of kids and expose yourself and start masturbating/etc I would seem that as an act which there is no rational reason for allowing.

And since I have no intention of ever doing so, but may consider getting kids at some point or atleast value a society where kids can grow up without sexual advances from grown men it would be in my interest that such behaviour was punished somehow.

But are we saying that there can be no laws against such, as phyisical violence is not a factor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fraud is a form a coercion, and it involves persuasion not physical force.

Not really.

Lets say I agree to trade you 20oz of gold for your car. We meet, I take your car and hand you a container with 2oz of beans, spray painted golden. I drive away.

Now, our contract named specific terms. Those terms were not actually met. Which means I physically took your car without your consent. The consent, in the form of the contract (written or no) is only valid if the terms are met. This does not change if I actually give you fake gold that is more convincing than painted beans.

So fraud is force in that it consists in contracting, not meeting the terms on the contract (whether he finds out or not is immaterial) and taking the other guy's goods anyway. Taking his goods being the salient point.

That is why lying is not a rights violation, but fraud is.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But are we saying that there can be no laws against such, as phyisical violence is not a factor?
The key question is whether there are certain acts which require prior warning, from which implicit consent derives. If, for example, you have a shopping mall and certain stores display revolting images that normal people would not consent to, you must warn people in advance so that they can make the choice whether to enter the mall (or, to enter that section of the mall). If they have been warned, then the fact that they continue on to the disgusting-images section of the mall constitutes implicit consent. On the other hand, if you do not warn them, then you would have engaged in a form of fraud where you gain something of value (their entrance into your place of business) under a false warranty (that there are no disgusting images which they would be exposed to).

This is the proper means of dealing with public nudity type issues. It is basically a property-and-contract issue. It is not limited to nudity, it is simply about any act or image which normal people would decline to view. The proper requirement is not that such things should not be visible, but that you must alert people in advance that such things will be visible. The scope of "such things" is determined by reference to normal people, not crazy people who are deathly afraid of images of puppies and kitties.

Children complicate the question in a minor sense (pun intended), that they are incapable of giving reasoned consent. Therefore advance warning is insufficient for them, and they should be prohibited from entering the bestiality wing of the mall.

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...