What exactly is "initiation of force"?

[dalebert]

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.

Even that is a form of money, and not necessarily a horrible one if done well and not monopolized through force.

[Eli]

Calling Russell's system obligation or gift is actually inaccurate and inelegant.  He makes a point of the necessity of it being a local system.  Of it being foolish to take on risk for stranger.  And you can see 'tit for tat' in Russell's story from before Nash's discovery and Axelrod's testing. I just couldn't think of what to call it without discussing it too much. 

But basically it is based on the 'weapon,'  "I won't," and its power.  Trade with me?  I won't.  Give me lunch?  I won't.  Pay taxes? I won't.  Take me to your leader?  Confused stare... guffaw... I won't.  Acknowledge my power? I won't.  I'm really not explaining well enough and Russell spends a lot of time setting it up.  A must read, top of my list. 

Caleb I hope you read it so we can chat about it.

[d_goddard]

the necessity of it being a local system

Yes. I already brought up the unfungibility problem.

[srqrebel]

Eli, The Great Explosion by Eric Frank Russell is going straight to the top of my reading list!

Meanwhile, your short description of it -- the "I won't" approach -- triggered such a flurry of inspiration for me, that I feel compelled to get this stuff out of my head and into written form, before it gets "contaminated" by other peoples ideas, or otherwise lost. (What you are describing sounds very similar, if not identical, to some of the ideas I have been developing on my own.)

---

A hearty thank you to all of you who answered, or attempted to answer the question posed on this thread. The purpose of the question was to determine whether there exists a popular misinterpretation of what constitutes the initiation of force, or whether it was simply my own longstanding misinterpretation. Many of the responses on this thread confirmed that it is indeed a popular one.

For the record, there does exist a crisp, clear definition of what constitutes the "initiation" of force, one that fully harmonizes with the true nature of the human organism. There also exists a way out of the tyrannical mess we are currently subjected to, of which that particular definition is a key component.

Someone was joking on another thread about me having "a big build up but no master plan". That perception is completely understandable! The problem is that while this new paradigm is very real and obvious to me, it is proving exceedingly difficult to get it out of my head and into a concise form that accurately conveys it to others. Additionally, I am still undergoing the paradigm shift: The more I get it out of my head, the more I realize further integrations, which need to be recorded as they surface, or risk losing them.

I apologize for the wait, and will be posting here just as soon as it is ready to present. In the meantime, my forum participation will be limited in order to focus on getting this done.

[d_goddard]

The problem is that while this new paradigm is very real and obvious to me, it is proving exceedingly difficult to get it out of my head and into a concise form that accurately conveys it to others

I used to have that problem a lot, too.

I suggest you try not taking acid for awhile. That worked wonders for me.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I think I fully understand where you're coming from on that. I consider myself a fairly adept conversationalist and often get the change to bounce my thoughs off to friends. Trying to explain Free Marketeerism to someone who doesn't understand it however brought me to a mental stand still. It was, for me, a very real paradigm shift in the sense that I could make certain connections until I'd resolved three or four other little things, but once I came to those several realizations, the rest seemed to settle into place.

[Caleb]

Calling Russell's system obligation or gift is actually inaccurate and inelegant.  He makes a point of the necessity of it being a local system.  Of it being foolish to take on risk for stranger.  And you can see 'tit for tat' in Russell's story from before Nash's discovery and Axelrod's testing. I just couldn't think of what to call it without discussing it too much. 

But basically it is based on the 'weapon,'  "I won't," and its power.  Trade with me?  I won't.  Give me lunch?  I won't.  Pay taxes? I won't.  Take me to your leader?  Confused stare... guffaw... I won't.  Acknowledge my power? I won't.  I'm really not explaining well enough and Russell spends a lot of time setting it up.  A must read, top of my list. 

Caleb I hope you read it so we can chat about it.

I will look it up. Sorry if I haven't been as responsive as usual. I'm still having computer trouble.

[Black Bloke]

First post...

Here's how I tend to look at things these days:

Spheres of Authority

Libertarians generally see rights as setting boundaries around people. Each person has a sphere of authority within which they may do as they please, without external interference; but they may not cross beyond their own boundary and engage in actions within someone else's sphere of authority (except with that person's permission). The classic expression of this idea is: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

The libertarian pacifist, however, can no longer consistently endorse this picture. Suppose I grab onto your nose, thus invading your sphere of authority. Before I did so, you were free to scratch your nose whenever you liked. But now that I have a firm grip on your nose, you cannot scratch your nose without first knocking my hand away. Yet if the radical pacifists are right, it would be immoral for you to knock my hand away. It follows that, under those circumstances, it is no longer morally permissible for you to scratch your nose. Through no fault of your own, because of my immoral action, your own nose is now no longer within your sphere of authority.

But this seems unfair. Why should my aggression be allowed to constrict your domain of legitimate activity? Why should my grabbing your nose make you lose your rights over it? It seems more in accordance with the libertarian conception of justice to say that by grabbing your nose I have put myself into your sphere of authority, rather than taking your nose out of it; and as a result, you can now coerce me without exceeding your just authority. What's wrong with initiatory coercion is that it exceeds the bounds of the coercer's sphere of authority, but defensive coercion does not exceed those bounds, and so is legitimate.

(In the case of third-party intervention, defensive coercion is justified to the extent that the intervener is acting as the victim's agent [Presumably, this involves acting with the victim's actual authorization, when the victim is able to give or withhold consent, or else acting as the victim would authorize (so far as can be determined), when the victim is for one reason or another unable to give or withhold consent-perhaps because of unconsciousness, infancy, mental illness, or simply pressure of time.)  For example, suppose I attack you, and Martina, acting as your agent, intervenes to defend you. By invading your boundary, I have put myself under your authority. You may exercise this authority directly; but you are equally within your rights in exercising it vicariously, through your agent Martina.).

But the argument that justifies defensive coercion does not justify retaliatory coercion. If I use more coercion against you than is necessary to end your aggression against me, then in effect I am going beyond merely exercising my legitimate authority within my own sphere. If each person's freedom may be justly limited only by the equal freedom of others, what could justify me in limiting your freedom by more than is necessary to restore my own?

The link has more detail if anyone's interested.  It's also short, which is double-plus good.

[d_goddard]

First post...

.. and way overdue.
Welcome, Bloke!

[srqrebel]

Thank you for posting, BB! As far as I'm concerned, the views expressed in the "Spheres of Authority" quote are spot on, yet it leaves one thing unclear: At what precise point does one cross over from defensive coercion to retaliatory coercion?

If someone is trying to wrest your wallet out of your hand, and you respond by keeping a firm grip on your wallet while using your free hand to coerce the attacker into backing off, that is clearly an act of defense.

If afterward you follow the attacker and punch him out to teach him a lesson, that is clearly an act of retaliation and an initiation of force, that is equally as criminal as the original attack initiated by him. Incidentally, that very mentality -- the punishment mentality -- is strictly a hallmark of the AMOG. The individual who engages his attacker coercively after the fact is in fact implementing the Authoritarian Model of Government at the most basic level, regardless of perceived legitimacy: He is usurping the authority of a fellow sovereign for a purpose other than defending himself or his property against impending harm.

The major misunderstanding and popular disagreement revolves around how one approaches the issue of after-the-fact mitigation, and how to seek restitution.

In the above example, suppose the mugger gets away with the wallet. The victim and several of his buddies, to whom he appealed for help, follow the mugger and confront him. He has stuffed the wallet in his pocket, and refuses to give it up. The victim and his buddies forcibly restrain the mugger, and retrieve the wallet. Does this constitute initiation of force on the part of the victim and his buddies? Or does it fall under defensive coercion?

Suppose the victim and his buddies follow the mugger home. The mugger enters his home and locks the door behind him. The victim and his buddies break a window and enter for the purpose of retrieving the wallet. The mugger refuses to divulge where he hid the wallet. After a thorough search fails to turn up the wallet, the victim tortures the mugger until he reveals where he hid the wallet. Is this justified?

Suppose there was a small gold coin in the wallet, and the mugger swallows it. Would the coin's owner be justified in holding the mugger hostage until the coin is retrieved? Would he be justified in cutting open the mugger to retrieve the gold coin? Would such an act constitute defensive coercion? Retaliatory coercion? Initiation of force?

As long as no black and white line between self-defense and initiatory force is clearly established, the tactics of the AMOG, in fact its very existence as an institution, will continue to be perceived as legitimate.

Fortunately, such a black and white line can be established quite easily.

[MaineShark]

In the above example, suppose the mugger gets away with the wallet. The victim and several of his buddies, to whom he appealed for help, follow the mugger and confront him. He has stuffed the wallet in his pocket, and refuses to give it up. The victim and his buddies forcibly restrain the mugger, and retrieve the wallet. Does this constitute initiation of force on the part of the victim and his buddies? Or does it fall under defensive coercion?

Force is defensive until such time as the initiator makes his victim whole, after which point it would be aggression to use additional force.

Once the victim has his wallet back, and is compensated for the injury of being mugged, as well as expenses incurred to obtain restitution (eg, hiring a group to help him, lost opportunity if he could have invested that money and the restitution takes appreciable time in which interest could have been earned).

The original aggression only ends once the victim is made whole.  Prior to that, the aggressor is still engaging in aggression by refusing to heal his victim, and the victim cannot be an aggressor if he is simply responding to that.

As you say, the line is very simple.  Aggression begins when you initiate force against another, and ends when you heal that other from your attack and its results.

Joe

[Black Bloke]

First post...

.. and way overdue.
Welcome, Bloke!

Thanks Denis ;-)  I don't spend much time on forums anymore (used to live on them years ago), so I might not be seen around here that often.

[Black Bloke]

Thank you for posting, BB!

You're welcome.  I'm glad to have posted actually :-)

As far as I'm concerned, the views expressed in the "Spheres of Authority" quote are spot on, yet it leaves one thing unclear: At what precise point does one cross over from defensive coercion to retaliatory coercion?

I gave that sample of the (I'll note it again, *short*) essay, in hopes that that would induce folks to click on the link and read the whole thing.  Count that last sentence as an extra inducement ;-)

I think the author addresses everything in your post quite well.  You may disagree.

[srqrebel]

I gave that sample of the (I'll note it again, *short*) essay, in hopes that that would induce folks to click on the link and read the whole thing.  Count that last sentence as an extra inducement ;-)

I think the author addresses everything in your post quite well.  You may disagree.

Sorry... I didn't click on the link yet, but I will check it out. Reading is a passion of mine, but I only have so much time in a day, so I tend to just file away a lot of stuph for later... or never

...but I will go read the rest of that essay now

[srqrebel]

Okay, I just finished reading the essay. First, I am rather surprised at how closely the examples in presented in that essay mirror my own examples above.

That said, Long's conclusions as articulated in this essay are entirely too nebulous, not to mention complicated:

Case 2:  I break into your house, and slip your radio into my knapsack.

In this case, you may do more against me than simply kicking me out of your house, because I, by retaining an item of your property on my person, have failed to vacate your sphere of authority.  Hence you may use coercion to get the radio back.  I remain under your authority until you recover your property.

Case 3:  I break into your house, and smash your radio with a hammer.

The fact that your radio no longer exists does not alter the fact that I remain under your authority until the radio (or its equivalent in value) is restored to you.  Thus I may legitimately be coerced into compensating you for your loss.

and

"Coercion, to be legitimate, must pass three tests: first, it must be a response to aggression on the part of someone else; second, it must be necessary in order to end or prevent that aggression; and third, it must be proportionate to the seriousness of the aggression."

In order to achieve a mutual state of peace, and secure the freedom to reach our highest potentials as individuals, the prevailing model of human interaction must be defined by clean, black and white boundaries.

A model that legitimizes nondefensive (after-the-action) coercion to enforce restitution, but "only proportionate to the seriousness of the aggression", leaves indistict boundaries: "Proportionate" is an entirely subjective term. This exposes the individual to the same gradual erosion of freedom and justice that has landed us where we are today.

A clear example of this is the Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". It leaves the boundaries of acceptable bail, fines, and punishment open to myriad subjective interpretations of "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". The result of this error is the proliferation of increasingly excessive bails and fines, and increasingly cruel and unusual punishments (even certain forms of torture). Boundaries left open to subjective interpretations are as secure as a house built upon shifting sand.

• Nebulous boundaries of human interaction engender disputes, paving the way for conflict, injustice and slavery.
• Black and white boundaries of human interaction engender mutual agreement, paving the way for peace, justice, and freedom.