What exactly is "initiation of force"?

[srqrebel]

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

No, you would not be forced at all.

If you would like to break into my truck and drive away in it without my permission, only to find that it is equipped with biometric technology that allows only the rightful owner to start the engine, have I "forced" you to "not" steal my truck?

The inherent morality of ostracism is based upon the fact that you, and only you, can own that which is derived from your primordial property: Your life. In other words, your thoughts and actions, combined with honestly obtained resources, and any creations arising from that combination, are uniquely your own, for they are the ultimate derivatives of the life that is uniquely your own. To deny that is to advocate slavery.

Hence, any attempt to resist an individual's freedom to withhold values that belong uniquely to him, is rooted in a desire to enslave. The logic goes something like this: "I have a need for the values you have earned by the sweat of your brow, therefore you have no business withholding those values from me."

Perhaps you are more of a @#$%%! communist than I thought.

As for me, I believe that I am responsible for myself above all else. I long for an environment that enhances my ability to make good on that responsibility -- hence, I truly look forward to the implementation of a comprehensive honor/ostracism database. Such a database would do for all individuals what credit bureaus do for financial institutions: Protect the interests of honest people, while providing everyone with a powerful incentive to act self-responsibly.

[J’raxis 270145]

For me, the 'initiation of force' is about the immediate threat of physical harm, (i.e. the mugger pointing a gun at me, or someone swinging a fist at my nose.)  Those are the initiation of force, and merit a forceful response (or perhaps simply make a forceful response morally justified.)  Any other force/fraud/agression can be dealt with in a more constuctive manner.  The initiation of force that can/should be responded to with force are the kinds of events that might preclude an individual seeking restitution in the future.  For example, when you are pointing a gun at me you are presenting me with a situation wherein it is unreasonable to assume I will survive on the basis of your decency.  In those circumstances I believe I have every right to respond with any force/lie/submission strategy I think will give me future opportunity to seek a future.  After that situation has passed, I think using force to get restitution is probably an initiation of force, as other, less permanent options are available to me.  I also think that lesser levels of force, a punch for example, merit a forceful response, as any physical violence can result in death, in spite of intent. 

My two cents, srqrebel.  Neil Smith's too, I think, though he is more eloquent about it.

L. Neil Smith has a nice take on the use of ostracism in a free society, too: Here's the page from the Probability Broach graphic novel synopsizing it.

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

And if enough people don't join in, the attempt fails at having any appreciable effect on the target of ostracism. It doesn't really "matter," and may ultimately lead to the ostracizers giving up the attempt as more effort than it's worth. It all has a very natural, "invisible-handish" quality to it: No central control necessary, errors are self-correcting, it all works out in the end, &c..

[J’raxis 270145]

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. 

I've often pointed out that beliefs or systems that encourage "self-denial" (e.g., deprivation of creature comforts, abstinence and similar restrictions, dietary restrictions) result in the same thing: Frustrated, angry, and aggressive people. I wonder if that's related to what you're getting at here.

[Caleb]

Biometric technology is one thing. An ostracism database requires my compliance, even if I am completely innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, I must identify myself to the business owner so that she can check me against the database.  What if I don't want identification? What if I am morally opposed to an ostracism database, and hence refuse to submit to a screening procedure?

Your comparison to the credit bureaus is telling. I don't view the credit bureaus as anything close to a moral solution, as they are biased in favor of the accuser.  They are rife with corruption, inaccurate information, identity theft which destroys an otherwise honest person's credit for years, and the like. The same potential, and more, exists in any sort of attempt to collect information on people. And people with bad credit still work around the credit bureaus through bad credit loans where they pay higher rates.

Ostracism will only work in communities where people are known to each other. And like I said, the more people that are ostracised, the less effective it will be. I'm trying to get you to see that these sort of negative pressures are just attempts to reimplement the amog on terms that you find more palatable. Social pressure ought to be thought of in mostly positive, not negative terms. I'm trying to convey that to you, but you respond by calling me a commie as a perjorative. My natural cockiness and arrogance makes me immune to that level of intellectual intimidation.    Do you care to respond to the thrust of my ideas, or am I wasting my time? You say you want feedback, but I'm wondering if you truly want feedback, or if you just want a cheering section.

[Caleb]

I've often pointed out that beliefs or systems that encourage "self-denial" (e.g., deprivation of creature comforts, abstinence and similar restrictions, dietary restrictions) result in the same thing: Frustrated, angry, and aggressive people. I wonder if that's related to what you're getting at here.

I am not an expert by any means, but it seems to me that it's the same sort of mechanism at work. It won't really matter whether the control is forced on me by an outsider or by my own beliefs, to the extent that I am being forced to act in a manner inconsistent with my true wishes, it creates a control dynamic and a subconscious desire to rebel against it. The longer that I act against my true wishes, the more frustration, anger, and aggression build, until at some point they are likely to break out. That's how I'm starting to view it anyway. But that as the control is taken away, as long as the reinforcements are consistent with my true desires, then people revert to their natural state. Who knows what that is? I tend to think that people are basically caring toward each other, cooperative, and eager to get along. I'm starting to think that the search for a perfect system is a waste of time, and we ought to just try to find the best way to let people be themselves and quit trying to force them into some mold. That's why I see this Ostracism database as more of the same sort of utopian thinking that gets us the state in the first place. This desire to find a way to make everything right, which is not even possible.

[J’raxis 270145]

Biometric technology is one thing. An ostracism database requires my compliance, even if I am completely innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, I must identify myself to the business owner so that she can check me against the database.  What if I don't want identification? What if I am morally opposed to an ostracism database, and hence refuse to submit to a screening procedure?

Facial recognition technology is getting pretty good. Unless you wear a mask, you're going to be identifiable. And the business owner is within his rights to adopt a "no masked customers" policy.

(Not that I'm advocating or supporting such a surveillance society—just stating a fact.)

Your comparison to the credit bureaus is telling. I don't view the credit bureaus as anything close to a moral solution, as they are biased in favor of the accuser.  They are rife with corruption, inaccurate information, identity theft which destroys an otherwise honest person's credit for years, and the like. The same potential, and more, exists in any sort of attempt to collect information on people. And people with bad credit still work around the credit bureaus through bad credit loans where they pay higher rates.

I wrote something about the credit score comparison myself a while back.

[Caleb]

Read it. It was good. I agree with you.  You are going to be a lot of fun to work with once you see the futility of working with politicians. 

Honestly, this whole surveillance idea, this whole "let's collect as much info on people as we can - but just within libertarian framework ..."  it just seems like it's so controlling to me. I don't want to collect information on people. I don't want to install facial recognition software so I can learn who they are, etc. It just seems so divisive and controlling to me.

[J’raxis 270145]

I've often pointed out that beliefs or systems that encourage "self-denial" (e.g., deprivation of creature comforts, abstinence and similar restrictions, dietary restrictions) result in the same thing: Frustrated, angry, and aggressive people. I wonder if that's related to what you're getting at here.

I am not an expert by any means, but it seems to me that it's the same sort of mechanism at work. It won't really matter whether the control is forced on me by an outsider or by my own beliefs, to the extent that I am being forced to act in a manner inconsistent with my true wishes, it creates a control dynamic and a subconscious desire to rebel against it. The longer that I act against my true wishes, the more frustration, anger, and aggression build, until at some point they are likely to break out.

Exactly. Cynically-minded rulers encourage self-denial and deprivation in order to make their subjects amenable to fighting wars. They create systems to foment aggressiveness, and then channel that breaking out of aggression into such uses.

That's how I'm starting to view it anyway. But that as the control is taken away, as long as the reinforcements are consistent with my true desires, then people revert to their natural state. Who knows what that is? I tend to think that people are basically caring toward each other, cooperative, and eager to get along.

Most likely. Human beings were peaceful and egalitarian in the beginning, and then something happened that made them warlike and aggressive. One theory I've read about is a climactic disaster—desertification of northern Africa, humanity's original habitat—that caused people to become aggressive in order to survive... and we've never been able to get back to our "natural state" since.

I'm starting to think that the search for a perfect system is a waste of time, and we ought to just try to find the best way to let people be themselves and quit trying to force them into some mold.

This makes me think of what Dale means by anarchism not being a system, it's a state of mind. Many people here have also framed libertarianism as simply being about leaving everyone else the hell alone. I agree with this—it's about tearing down the systems in place now, and not constructing new ones, but at most allowing new natural systems (such as private ostracism databases, if that's what some people want) to come into place on their own.

[J’raxis 270145]

Read it. It was good. I agree with you.  You are going to be a lot of fun to work with once you see the futility of working with politicians. 

Just one of the many courses of action I see as potentially useful in downsizing the current system. We have state rep elections coming up this year—whether or not I consider such a course of action as still being useful will hinge in large part on how many of the worst reps we're able to toss out this year.

Honestly, this whole surveillance idea, this whole "let's collect as much info on people as we can - but just within libertarian framework ..."  it just seems like it's so controlling to me. I don't want to collect information on people. I don't want to install facial recognition software so I can learn who they are, etc. It just seems so divisive and controlling to me.

Indeed, that's sort of my opinion on the whole DRO idea. Delegating force to a proxy is what got us in this whole mess in the first place. (In reality it wasn't delegated, it was stolen, but the idea of voluntary delegation is behind the "social contract" idea that so many people believe in, so whatever.) Like DROs, the surveillance system would turn into simply a new way to control people, all the more so if all businesses (or even 90% of businesses) employed the technology.

[Free libertarian]

The initiation of force is usually applied when one being (a) wants what another has (b), or wishes the other
to behave a certain way and rather than use communication to get (b) to voluntarily accede...well they
use "force".     
Force, can obviously be physical, non physical psychological intimidation or it can be more subtle but equally effective...that would be known as "legislation".  I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but ever try to go against a regulation or red tape?   
  It's even worse when "force" is applied as foreign policy, but I won't go there.

Concerning using force,  I see nothing wrong with applying either ostracism or a knuckle sandwich depending on the situational environs and local customs...for instance there are times when despite
a reasonable effort to avoid an asshole they insist on invading your personal space or outright attacking.
  How we respond to the initiation of force upon us can have a direct effect on whether or not the force is applied again.  For instance if somebody steals your milk money on monday, but on tuesday you break their leg with a baseball bat, they may decide to seek milk money elsewhere.  Perhaps a kick in the shins would suffice too...some would prefer telling the teacher. (good luck)
Many of us are here because we are "responding" to the initiation of force" by an out of control government...our response to having our milk money taken is demonstrated in many ways.  To not respond is an invitation to not only have our milk money stolen, but our peanut butter sandwich too.

The concept of live and let live and not being an aggressor is solid in my book...I'd have to think about turning the other cheek though in some circumstances anyhow.     

[MaineShark]

And if enough people don't join in, the attempt fails at having any appreciable effect on the target of ostracism. It doesn't really "matter," and may ultimately lead to the ostracizers giving up the attempt as more effort than it's worth. It all has a very natural, "invisible-handish" quality to it: No central control necessary, errors are self-correcting, it all works out in the end, &c..

L. Neil Smith also has a good answer to the practicalities of that.

Can you boycott (and get others to boycott) every business that does anti-liberty things?  Of course not, if you want to live a "normal" life - there are just too many of them.

But you can specifically seek out businesses that do pro-liberty things, and support them, and tell them why you are supporting them.

His example was businesses that have anti-gun policies.  Whenever you hear about such a thing in the news, put some money in a jar.  When you get enough saved up, go buy a gun at your local gun store, thank them for providing a valuable service and, if you feel like it, write a letter to an anti-gun business and tell them about your new purchase, and why you bought it.

Joe

[srqrebel]

The initiation of force is usually applied when one being (a) wants what another has (b), or wishes the other
to behave a certain way and rather than use communication to get (b) to voluntarily accede...well they
use "force".     
Force, can obviously be physical, non physical psychological intimidation or it can be more subtle but equally effective...that would be known as "legislation".  I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but ever try to go against a regulation or red tape?   
  It's even worse when "force" is applied as foreign policy, but I won't go there.

Concerning using force,  I see nothing wrong with applying either ostracism or a knuckle sandwich depending on the situational environs and local customs...for instance there are times when despite
a reasonable effort to avoid an asshole they insist on invading your personal space or outright attacking.
  How we respond to the initiation of force upon us can have a direct effect on whether or not the force is applied again.  For instance if somebody steals your milk money on monday, but on tuesday you break their leg with a baseball bat, they may decide to seek milk money elsewhere.  Perhaps a kick in the shins would suffice too...some would prefer telling the teacher. (good luck)
Many of us are here because we are "responding" to the initiation of force" by an out of control government...our response to having our milk money taken is demonstrated in many ways.  To not respond is an invitation to not only have our milk money stolen, but our peanut butter sandwich too.

The concept of live and let live and not being an aggressor is solid in my book...I'd have to think about turning the other cheek though in some circumstances anyhow.     

Good points, though what I am looking for is precisely when does the use of force constitute initiation, and when does it not?

You came close when you stated, "...if somebody steals your milk money on monday, but on tuesday you break their leg with a baseball bat, they may decide to seek milk money elsewhere".

My question to you is, would you consider yourself to be initiating force when you break their leg on tuesday, for stealing your milk on monday?

[MaineShark]

Good points, though what I am looking for is precisely when does the use of force constitute initiation, and when does it not?

You came close when you stated, "...if somebody steals your milk money on monday, but on tuesday you break their leg with a baseball bat, they may decide to seek milk money elsewhere".

My question to you is, would you consider yourself to be initiating force when you break their leg on tuesday, for stealing your milk on monday?

Initiation is initiation.  There's no time limit on it.  If you steal my car and I don't track you down for 10 years because you drove somewhere else with it and didn't come back until you figured I had forgotten, I may still require (forcibly) that you make restitution at that time, and my force would not be initiatory.

"Statute of limitations" is a legal concept, not a moral one.  Some may choose to "forgive and forget" after enough time has elapsed, but that is their aesthetic choice, not a moral requirement.  A given social group may applaud them for doing so, or ostracize them for failing to do so, or might applaud them for seeking restitution even though time has passed, or ostracize them for not seeking restitution.

Joe

[srqrebel]

...You say you want feedback, but I'm wondering if you truly want feedback, or if you just want a cheering section.

The feedback I am seeking here is individual interpretations of when the use of force constitutes initiation. I am tolerating the "ostracism database" deviation simply because I think ostracism is an important tool for acting self-responsibly, whose value deserves to be defended.

...An ostracism database requires my compliance...

Bingo!

Might I point out that biometric technology which prevents all but the rightful owner to start the vehicle, is actually a small step closer to the use of force than an ostracism database would be. The biometric technology decisively eliminates your option of driving away in my truck. The ostracism database leaves you a viable option for doing business with me: Identify yourself so I can make an educated decision as to whether I want to share my values with you... and unless you turn out to be an unrepentant criminal, I will be happy to do business with you.

...but under no circumstance will I disable the technology that deprives you of the option of stealing my truck!

...What if I don't want identification? What if I am morally opposed to an ostracism database, and hence refuse to submit to a screening procedure?

Then you simply do not get access to my values. That is all.

Why would you possibly have a problem with me exercising my right to decide under what circumstances I am willing to do business with another human being?

There is only one possible reason I can think of: You believe that the values I have earned by the sweat of my brow are not mine to keep or share with others as I see fit.

That is the evil at the core of traditional communism. Up to now, I had not perceived you as a conventional communist, but a sort of "voluntaryist/communist"... one who espouses communism as a choice, while still fully respecting the right of each individual to dispose of the fruit of his own labor as he sees fit.

...I'm trying to get you to see that these sort of negative pressures are just attempts to reimplement the amog on terms that you find more palatable. Social pressure ought to be thought of in mostly positive, not negative terms...

I completely disagree on your characterization of ostracism as a characteristic of the AMOG. While I won't go into it here, I am working on a clear definition of the AMOG and its characteristics, in order to effectively contrast it with the Free Market/Voluntaryist model. (The discussion of "when does the use of force constitute initiation", ties directly into that, as well.)

I see no point in framing this issue in terms of "negative vs. positive social pressure", but rather in terms of "what actions can an individual take to enhance his own longterm well-being, without transgressing against his fellow human beings".

If I deny you access to that which is exclusively mine, I have clearly not transgressed against you -- no matter what the reason (unless it violates a prior voluntary agreement with you).

...Ostracism will only work in communities where people are known to each other. And like I said, the more people that are ostracised, the less effective it will be...

Perhaps so... that certainly remains to be seen. If you truly believe that, though, why is it even an issue to you?