What exactly is "initiation of force"?

[srqrebel]

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

Thank you, Joe... that is exactly the kind of feedback I am looking for.

[Caleb]

Ok, Menno, I'm going to try one last time, and then I'm going to give up on this topic.

First, you need to stop thinking in terms of "the oughts" being something that we need to try to coerce. In other words, when I say to you that you ought not try to establish an ostracism database, why does your mind immediately go to the place of "why are you trying to stop me?" I don't particularly have any desire to stop you from doing this. If you and others set up an ostracism database, I'm not going to go with some technological gadget and try to destroy your database. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that you *ought* not do such a thing for the reason that it is a horrible idea. It's also a waste of time. Here's why:

Because your idea is basically just the control dynamic reorganized so as to fit the ZAP, you are in a rather strange position. Your niche market for your ostracism ideas are those who are still swayed by the idea that we ought to try to control what other people do. But those people are bound to realize that your ostracism idea is less efficient at accomplishing the control game than violence is. So essentially, you are pitching an inferior product. Why should I buy ostracism when I could use a much more effective violent product to accomplish all my controlling other people needs?

But because of the nature of your ideas you can't switch markets. You can't pitch your ideas to people who don't like the control dynamic, because they are understandably appalled by the controlling nature of your ideas. So the ostracism database idea has no market. It will never happen. As people free themselves from the control dynamic, they start to not need such a thing.

Understand, I'm not saying that ostracism as a tool for dealing with people is completely out of bounds. I am saying that it should be (and will naturally come to be) used sparingly and informally. Not as some tool for which there are rules, regulations, policies, and procedures for implementing. When a person does something so shocking, and displays no inclination to remorse, that people find themselves sickened to their stomach to even be in that person's presence, then ostracism naturally occurs. You don't need a database to replace natural human feeling. What saddens me is that when the topic of social pressure to direct society in positive manner arises, your mind naturally leaped to developing and systematizing negative social pressures rather than seeing how positive social values could be reinforced using friendly and helpful means, such as something akin to a Big Brother/Big Sister program, only maybe where the mentor also teaches life skills and a trade to the youngster.

The benefit of that is that it is also something positive you can do right now. You can't start an ostracism database. Well, you could start one, but no one would use it. But right now you can start trying to lend a helping hand and mentoring troubled youth. So many people go down criminal paths because no one ever showed them how much joy there is in helping other people. They never had a mentor who showed them positive values. All they ever had was harmful social pressure in their gang or their little punk group.

[Free libertarian]

...initiating force (or physical force when delivering retribution) for me is less likely as more time passes after the original event happened. For instance if you steal my milk money on Monday and are bigger than me ...expect the baseball bat on Tuesday if you come back.  Will I hunt you down days later if you've left me alone and don't seek other victims? Maybe, but probably not.  I won't forget though and am likely to come to the aid of anyone else I see you messing with ...in the vernacular of the school yard, "he started it" so I think what ever the bully gets is somewhat justified. If two weaker kids combine forces to ward off the bully...that's just an occupational hazard of being a bully.

I recall a situation in high school where a big bad senior was going to kick a buddies butt...he was capable of it, but I reminded the bully that although he could kick my butt or my buddies butt, he couldn't kick BOTH our butts at the same time...no force required on our part...problem solved.  In that instance while he didn't initiate physical force, the bully was guilty of  being an asshole. In some circles "being an asshole" is justification for getting your butt kicked. We were happy to just avoid the situation and allowed the asshole to exit in a stalemate of sorts.  I maintain the bully inititiated force and we countered with greater force. It was the threat of our using greater force that allowed the situation to diffuse.

Back to the milk money thing...what if I had paid off a bigger kid to beat the bully for me? Would that have been me that initiated the force? The paid bigger kid was "just doing his job" right?  And let's not forget the bully, he  got my milk money on monday thru intimidation...doesn't that mean he initiated force? I sure didn't GIVE him my milk money.  Isn't the bully quilty of starting the war on monday and tuesday's retribution is just a battle in the war the bully started. The fact that my side upped the ante to physical force on the bully who had only been guilty of using intimidation doesn't mean he didn't start it, does it?

To get off topic a bit, heck initiating force could mean almost anything that makes another do something they don't want to. Simply put the threat of a beating is sometimes as effective as the beating itself.
Property tax could be seen as "initiating force" .  It sure isn't paid voluntarily, if it were the threat of losing your property wouldn't be needed.   I won't get into Hillary care. too much but that's another proposal that "initiates force". If you don't participate, you ultimately could go to jail...for doing nothing.

[MaineShark]

Simply put the threat of a beating is sometimes as effective as the beating itself.

A credible threat to use force is an act of force.

When the government says, "we won't send armed thugs to your door, if you pay taxes," they are engaging in violence, even if they don't lay a hand on your, because they made a credible threat (ie, if you didn't do what they said, they actually would have followed-through with the thugs, or they at least made you believe that they would).

If someone threatens to kill me and grabs for a gun, I don't have to wait until the gun is pointed at my head and his finger is tensing on the trigger before I can respond.  He made a threat, and clearly demonstrated intent to follow-through with it, so he engaged in violence, and I may respond in self-defense.

Joe

[srqrebel]

...In that instance while he didn't initiate physical force, the bully was guilty of  being an asshole. In some circles "being an asshole" is justification for getting your butt kicked. We were happy to just avoid the situation and allowed the asshole to exit in a stalemate of sorts.  I maintain the bully inititiated force and we countered with greater force. It was the threat of our using greater force that allowed the situation to diffuse.

Just for the sake of precise communication (which I am a BIG fan of, btw), I refer to such situations as a "threat of force", not "initiation of force". After all, where there is only a threat, obviously there is no force (yet). The threat of force, however, is on par with actual initiation of force, as far as I'm concerned, because there is arguably a victim: One who makes a threat of force is guilty of deliberately triggering rational fear in another human being.

I first encountered the distinction between "initiation of force" and "threat of force" in Dr. Frank R. Wallace's exquisitely concise Constitution of the Universe, originally published in his masterpiece, The Neo-Tech Discovery.

Again, this is not to downplay the seriousness of the initiation of a threat, but rather for the sake of covering all the bases, lest someone might claim that only actual applied force (or fraud) constitutes criminal behavior.

-------

That said, you still have not clearly answered the original question: What specific actions, in your personal estimation, constitute initiation of force?

For example, you said, "Will I hunt you down days later if you've left me alone and don't seek other victims? Maybe, but probably not." My question is, if you were to do so, would your actions constitute the initiation of force, or does the term initiation, in your personal understanding of its popular usage, merely apply to the initial use of force that set off the chain of events, until the victim is made whole again?

[Free libertarian]

 Initiating force in my book isn't always physical contact.  I suppose the first one to strike, grab etc. another is by most standards a given as "initiating force". If you point a loaded gun at me...I'd say you have initited force.
If you steer your car towards me and force me off the road you initiated force...If you flip me off and follow me gesturing wildly because I pissed you off somehow in traffic and you're in a road rage moment it gets a little tougher to declare if you have inititated force. 

  I will think a bit more on your original question and see if I can get a better understanding of my thoughts...please give me space, you're "forcing" me to think, ouch...my head hurts!   

[srqrebel]

...you're "forcing" me to think, ouch...my head hurts!   

...hey, the end justifies the means, ...right?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Friendly bump of this topic. I've been trying to put into words just what my definition of force is (and it's not nearly as simple as it seems at first) and I'd have to say I've (mostly) settled on this:

Force is the willful destruction of a something of value.

Punching a man in the face hurts him, violates his sense of security and physically damages his body, all of which are things a man might value. Threatening a man also breaks the security value. Keying a woman's car ALSO destroys a value and is therefore force.

Now, the area that made this topic hard for me "at first" was "everyone has different values" but that is the same things that makes the free market work. My recognition that force destroys a value, and the recognition that value exists between multiple people but isn't inherent to any given thing means the acceptable level of retaliatory  force that is acceptable is determinded by the specific act of aggression. Recognizing what force IS means that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for people to define when a specific act of force has "crossed the line" and justifies the use of force to bring justice to it.

[Eli]

To briefly diverge back to ostracism and Neil Smith  I also want to suggest that everyone here read The Great Explosion by Eric Frank Russell.  http://tmh.floonet.net/books/tge/tgetoc.html  The last section of the book is particularly telling.  A society that only uses ostracism for social control (and therefore hardly needs it) and runs a gift/obligation economy.  Pretty brilliant.  I bring it up because this conversation makes me wonder how the folks in that book would handle the initiation of force.  The talk about just one weapon, developed by... well, I don't wanna ruin it.  The Weapon is "I won't."  Having just read this book I'm still in the throws of what I think is a fundamental shift in thinking. I almost feel like I comprehend Russell (ours not the author) for the first time ever.

[d_goddard]

A society that only uses ostracism for social control

Could in theory be workable... I'd give it a spin.

and runs a gift/obligation economy.

Yipes, what a lamebrain, horrible idea.
"obligations" and "gifts in kind" are poor mechanisms for long-term storage of high value. They're also terribly infungible.

Any society without Real Money will be compelled to invent it... or collapse.

[Caleb]

Imagine no money ...

It's easy, if you try 

[MaineShark]

Imagine no money ...

It's easy, if you try 

We don't have to imagine it.  It's been tried.  The results have inevitably been oppression, wholesale violence, and genocide, as soon as it moved above a handful of idealists.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

and runs a gift/obligation economy.

A gift-based economy is a great idea and would work on the small scale where everyone knows and trusts everyone else. When you move beyond people you know, it would have to become obligation-based, in the sense that records of IOUs/debts are stored somewhere by some trusted third party in order to keep everyone honest.

But how is that much different from the horrible, non-sustainable mess we have nowadays—trading little pieces of paper that represent not actual value but a third party's debt obligation?

[David]

Eric Russells book is interesting.  The caracters put themselves at risk to be taken advantage of, until they realize they are being taken advantage of.  Then they ostrasize.  For example.  Guy A goes into a pub owned by guy B, guy A promises to pay with something or other, guy B accepts.  Essentually a tab is created.  At some point it will have to be reconciled, or go into default.  Innocent till proven guilty.  Once guy A goes into default, he will be ostrasized by guy B, and maybe his friends.  Guy A can scam as many people in town as possible, to a point.  When he is ostrasized by almost everyone, he either works hard to find new victims or move on. 
It is true that each time he makes new victims elsewhere, but the initial community is safe from him. 
Restitution is great, but it will never be made fair.  Gov'ts are created and given an enourmous amounts of power on the promise of granting 'justice' and creating safety ect.  Our politicians and top military mass murderers will never even be held responsible for crimes against humanity, much less pay restitution for their victims. 
I believe one has the right to defend oneself, but most of what we call justice is not defence, it is revenge. 
I've slowly and grudginly come to the conclusion that pure justice will never be possible, but once a person has proven they have hurt someone, (innocent till proven guilty) then they can be rightfully ostrasized. 
It would be more practical if there was more private property, with rights that are actually respected (when pigs fly    ).  As a person with a particularly violent reputation could be ordered to stay off someones property, and force could be used to enforce the property rights. 
I was early on very facinated in the desire to find a clear black and white answer to rights, violations of them, ect.  But there is a lot of grey.  It is very difficult to speak of customery, common, or moral, because these things change depending on the person you are talking to.  Someone down the street may have an entirely different viewpoint than you as to what is 'right and wrong', and believe with every fiber of their being that they have the right to use force, even deadly force to enforce their version of right and wrong. 
This is actually the reason I have given up on the idea of trying to have an anarchic society in whole.  It is encroachment, a violation of someones right to interfere in the choices of master (gov't) that other people either have made, or have accepted. 

[d_goddard]

The caracters put themselves at risk to be taken advantage of, until they realize they are being taken advantage of.  Then they ostrasize.

In Game Theory, this is called the "tit-for-tat" strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat