What exactly is "initiation of force"?

[Caleb]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could pin down a nice definition for what exactly it means to initiate force?

Too hard?

Imagine getting everyone to agree with what is right and wrong, and when they should use force when they think someone else is wrong, and when they should refrain.

Man. I'm getting tired just thinking of it.

[Eli]

After that situation has passed, I think using force to get restitution is probably an initiation of force

So, I should steal your stuff when you're not in your house.
Got it.

Nope, you shouldn't.  But I probably won't hunt you down and shoot you.  It just isn't worth it.  In all likelyhood I'd hand my wallet over to a mugger too, as I was trained to do by the people who taught me to defend myself.   If I found out who stole my stuff, I have a whole range of options to get it back, most of which would allow us to argue about it at a later date.  Which I think is preferable to any solution that precludes future existence for either of us.

I could ostracize you.  List you as a thief.  Steal my stuff back...uh... recover my stuff.  Make a claim against you in some voluntary court.  Tell my insurance company and just get new stuff.  Whatever.  Most of these are more satisfying than ending you life over my household clutter.  Hell the whole reason I buy insurance is to minimize my interaction with police, those deputies of force.  If I could find an insurance company that didn't require a police report I'd use them instead.

[dalebert]

I like your answer, Eli.

What do you guys think of this case of a guy microwaving his baby?
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=20380.0

Here was my response:
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=20380.msg373657#msg373657

[dalebert]

I posted this at FTL but thought it was relevant here.

This guy should be totally ostraciszed for his actions.

The cool thing about ostracism is you can perform it on anyone for any reason. Ostracizing doesn't violate any sovereign rights. For it to be very effective you have to convince others to join in, of course. Even if you don't convince everyone, this can lower the quality of someone's life significantly, particularly in a local region. That's why I think that if you create a culture shift in the direction of non-violent solutions to problems, this will likely lead to a more polite society in general. If someone forces me to have to hire someone or serve them in my business, they take away a crucial power I have to induce positive social change.

[ReverendRyan]

Imagine getting everyone to agree with what is right and wrong, and when they should use force when they think someone else is wrong, and when they should refrain.

[Caleb]

Interesting for it's predictability. I would have expected more from you, Rev. Every time someone encounters a pacifist, his mind immediately jumps to Hitler.

Two observations for starters. Hitler was just one human being. What was accomplished in NAZI Germany was the result of the collective actions of millions of people. Pacifism as the norm of conduct would have been an effective antidote to the mindset that allowed millions of otherwise good people to allow themselves to be used as a tool by Hitler, precisely because they bought into the concept that sometimes, for a higher "good", violence is acceptable.

The second observation is that Hitler did not come to power in a vacuum. He came to power in a state of desperation, which was directly caused by punitive actions taken against Germany following WW1. Further evidence that had pacifism been in vogue, Hitler would have never even found his voice, let alone killed millions of people.

Think smarter, not harder. 

[ReverendRyan]

Interesting for it's predictability. I would have expected more from you, Rev. Every time someone encounters a pacifist, his mind immediately jumps to Hitler.

Two observations for starters. Hitler was just one human being. What was accomplished in NAZI Germany was the result of the collective actions of millions of people. Pacifism as the norm of conduct would have been an effective antidote to the mindset that allowed millions of otherwise good people to allow themselves to be used as a tool by Hitler, precisely because they bought into the concept that sometimes, for a higher "good", violence is acceptable.

The second observation is that Hitler did not come to power in a vacuum. He came to power in a state of desperation, which was directly caused by punitive actions taken against Germany following WW1. Further evidence that had pacifism been in vogue, Hitler would have never even found his voice, let alone killed millions of people.

Think smarter, not harder. 

Umm no. That wasn't in any way a critique of what you said. You don't recognize a reichroll when you see one? :-P

[Caleb]

Hmmm. Then this is just some sort of random Family Guy-esque diversion from this thread?    Carry on then! If there's one thing I do enjoy, it's a good Hitler ploy.

[Caleb]

I posted this at FTL but thought it was relevant here.

This guy should be totally ostraciszed for his actions.

The cool thing about ostracism is you can perform it on anyone for any reason. Ostracizing doesn't violate any sovereign rights. For it to be very effective you have to convince others to join in, of course. Even if you don't convince everyone, this can lower the quality of someone's life significantly, particularly in a local region. That's why I think that if you create a culture shift in the direction of non-violent solutions to problems, this will likely lead to a more polite society in general. If someone forces me to have to hire someone or serve them in my business, they take away a crucial power I have to induce positive social change.

I think ostracism can be effective in extreme cases. But if overused, it's effectiveness will be limited because there will be so many ostracized people that they will form their own little mini society.  I definitely don't want to live in a world that forms an "Ostracism database".

"Excuse me, sir, but before I do business with you, I need to see a Private Defense Insurance validated form of ID to check you against the Ostracism database." 

[Jacobus]

I didn't get the Hitler vid either.  After thinking about it some, I thought the Reverend was saying that if conformity and agreement of belief is the goal, the end result would be Reich-esque intolerance.

I guess the last few posts make it slightly clearer.  The ReichRoll would have been more effective if the vid was just a link, since you can see Hitler in the video before pressing play.

[srqrebel]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could pin down a nice definition for what exactly it means to initiate force?

Too hard?

Imagine getting everyone to agree with what is right and wrong, and when they should use force when they think someone else is wrong, and when they should refrain.

Man. I'm getting tired just thinking of it.

No one is making you participate in this exercise... it is only for those who are willing to volunteer their two cents.

The whole reason I started this thread was to either verify or disprove that there exist two vastly different, yet commonplace, interpretations of the phrase "initiation of force".

Even with only a tiny handful of individuals responding, it already appears pretty well verified. 

[srqrebel]

...I definitely don't want to live in a world that forms an "Ostracism database".

"Excuse me, sir, but before I do business with you, I need to see a Private Defense Insurance validated form of ID to check you against the Ostracism database." 

Why not? You would be perfectly free to refuse to do business with those terrible business owners who have moral objections to sharing their hard-earned values with criminals, and wish to take positive steps to avoid doing so.

Are you suggesting that business owners should be forcibly deterred from doing so? ...because, in the absence of force-backed external regulations, competent businesses do whatever maximizes their profits. If they draw more customers than they lose by identifying and refusing to do business with known criminals, that is exactly what they will do. Unless you are in the majority, you may someday face the "unsavory" choice of either doing business only with honest businessmen in a peaceful and prosperous civilization -- or doing business only with criminals on the black market, while the prosperous mainstream passes you by.

Of course, this deviates from the subject of the thread... but it is my thread, and I hereby authorize it

[Caleb]

At least you see my point. I was worried that you had not thought out the implications of such a database. Apparantly you have thought them out and are ok with the implications.

I'm not. I guess under your society, I will be forced to be counted among the lawless.   

[Caleb]

Here's a thought, Menno, and others, although I'm not sure it goes in this thread, but i'm not sure where to put it exactly, so this thread is as good as any others.

They've got psychological experiments with animals where they test the various types of reinforcement to see which forms were most effective. What they find is that disciplinary tactics create animals that are more compliant with the "rules" but also more aggressive and angry.

I've been thinking about this a lot. At some point, I may write a little piece on it (once I feel that I can articulate what I'm trying to say well enough) but the gist of it is that when you attempt to control another person's behavior, that external pressure that they feel is what causes them to rebel. So then we tighten the screws more, and we get even more violent disruptions from the norm. 

The more I think about it, in a completely free society where coercion in any form is completely absent, crime would be nonexistant because there would be nothing to rebel against. It is the contraints on a person's free will that create the desire to free oneself by breaking the rules.

I'm starting to understand the myth of Adam and Eve. In the Garden where the only rule was that they don't eat from one particular tree, the compulsion is created to eat from it for no other reason than that it is forbidden ...

[dalebert]

There's something to that, Caleb. I've been watching a lot of dog trainer shows and the really amazing dog trainers that take problems dogs and turn their behavior around in a few minutes tell people to never strike their dogs. The best method of training a dog is positive reinforcement for desired behavior and mostly just withholding that positive reinforcement for undesired behavior. Of course, that's just part of it. Another part is taking care of the dog's basic needs like enough exercise, which is a big culprit. Most people aren't walking their dogs once or preferably twice a day. Once ought to be the bare minimum.