I’m not looking for a black/white standard, I’m looking for a set of factors/standards/considerations. I think you offered a reasonable suggestion, the combination of a power differential and an abnormal agreement. The “abnormal” part seems to favor the status quo which doesn’t sit well with me. We also mentioned the threat of violence as being a factor. I’m sure there are other aspects to consider.
]]>There are no “clearly defined principles which justify various forms of action.”
What I will say is that, as much as your free market mentality seems to reflect that of the American capitalist institution, even the American government places a fairly heavy burden on a corporation that would seek to control too much of its market, specifically because we understand that such power imbalances lead to extreme forms of coercion. If you don’t believe this, I’d suggest reading up on the Industrial Revolution, and examining why workers’ unions emerged (and fought literally bloody battles in order to survive). There was a point in time when corporations would call in private security firms to beat their workers into submission. Yes, even the Good Ol’ US of A!
What I already argued–and I think this is a very general claim–is that anything “abnormal” extracted because of a power differential, can be explained as having been gotten via coercion. The extent to which such forms of coercion are tolerable will depend entirely on the case, and also, as always, on one’s perspective. Some will appear benign, or even fair, while others will appear cruel and/or overreaching.
In other words, if you’re looking for a black/white standard, where we can say “Well, this one is good, but that one is bad!” I don’t think you’re going to find it.
]]>Regardless of how one defines coercion, I think there it is usually morally significant to distinguish between:
a) “Give me X, or I will take Y from you,” and
b) “If you give me X, I will give you Y. Of course, you may decline, make a counter-offer, or attempt to gain Y through trade with someone else.”
I acknowledge that a power differential between two people or groups is worth noting, and amounts to a situation in which “unfair” agreements are made more likely. But the truth is I don’t even know how to define powerful. A power differential seems neither necessary nor sufficient for identifying agreements I would personally object to, or agreements I would like the state to forbid.
For example, Google seems powerful relative to me, or one of their individual employees, but overall seems to treat both very well and seems to be an enormous force for good in the world.
On the other hand, relative equals often come to agreements which seem, if not unfair, certainly less than ideal. For example, two adolescents agreeing to exclude a third from their group of friends.
I guess what I’m looking for are clearly defined principles which justify various forms of action. For example, there might be certain considerations which justify the authority of world goverment, a broader set which justify the laws of a nation, a broader set for a smaller political jurisdiction, on down to the individual who has the most freedom and least responsibility to justify their rules of action. The same type of thinking would apply to social norms applying to larger and smaller groups.
ok, if you want an excuse not to respond I’ll give you one. 😉 I need to go focus on my work and may or may not to respond to your response. Thanks for providing such an excellent place to exchange ideas.
]]>Coercion doesn’t have a stable, solitary definition. You can coerce through threat of force. You can coerce by making assistance contingent on an abnormal condition. It would seem that the latter is the form of coercion we’re talking about here. By “abnormal condition,” I mean something that one wouldn’t require of, in this case, every foreign state. For example, if I control a powerful country, and I’m in the position to lend money or give aid to less powerful foreign states, I’m probably always going to ask for interest in the case of loan, no matter what country I’m dealing with. But I’m probably only going to extract certain other conditions–such as the institution of policy decisions that make your nation’s economy, politics, etc. more amenable to mine, or present scenarios where firms from my country can come in and exploit your markets more easily–from countries that are in the most need, and therefore not in positions to argue.
I’m not sure how one can’t see this as a form of coercion. You may, at the end of the day, think that it’s “fair” or “not bad” to do something like this, in all cases, but it is, I think, nonetheless coercive. Because conditions beyond those that are normal for ever case have been extracted as a result of asymmetry in power. If you look at the case of coercion based on a threat of violence, the same dynamics are in play. You get what you want not by reasoning or negotiation, but because of an asymmetry in power. It happens all the time–not just from America, by the way–and the extent to which it is objectionable, I think, depends on the case in question. It’s not a black & white issue. But I think it would be foolhardy to form some wholesale denial that this constitutes coercion.
]]>I am not claiming that free trade should always and everywhere be considered synonymous with, or the most important form of, freedom. Nor am I claiming that the agreements between France and the U.S. in the aftermath of W.W. II are just (I know too little about them).
]]>If physical force were the only way a world power could get other nations to bend toward its purposes, the world would basically be in ashes right now. It’s obvious, on its face, that economics can be, and is, a form of coercion. It’s probably the most prevalent form of coercion on the planet.
]]>-Gratuitously insulting the blog author (me) and displaying baseless superciliousness (first two paragraphs).
-Giving a fake email address — I discovered that the address attached to this comment, [email protected], is nonfunctional. (The author is likely one of several Jason Ms listed in the Southern Methodist University directory, which owned the IP address in question. Yes, it is easy to find these things out.)
-Pointless displays of right-wing political prejudice: there are plenty of other forums for that, and I see no reason to support it here.
-Not reading (or not understanding) the previous comments before posting and hence repeating complaints that have already been discussed. In particular, Jason advances a sort of rational-choice, market-oriented “but if it’s not at gunpoint it can’t be coercion” argument, which Mike already had invoked and which I had responded to. My response may not have been sufficient and Mike might have a point — that’s entirely possible! — but further discussion ought to at least depart from that earlier discussion.
Basically, this is my blog and the reason I allow comments is because I enjoy the discussions. So if you antagonize me (which is not the same as disagreeing with my claims!), especially if you are a total stranger, that probably means the discussion isn’t going to suit me. For future reference.
]]>I’m sure a sufficiently clever left-wing academic can twist the meaning of “coerce” to mean anything at all, but this is a bit much.
Is it “coercion” that the French state promotes the consumption of its patrimonial wine, cheese and New Wave movies?
Why should the French beverage industry have a veto over the beverage choices of the French people?
Is there any evidence that the French Communist Party’s position was a widely supported one? At least in France, people had the opportunity to ignore the Communists if they wished, unlike in those countries where Communists actually governed.
The anti-Coca-Cola campaign is as brilliant as Roger Vailland’s imperishable anti-refrigeration polemic:
]]>But since you label it coercive, I can’t help but ask what definition of coercion you are using?
I trust that an issue is the wealth and power differential between the U.S. and France. What would prevent an agreement between parties with significant wealth and power differentials from being coercive?
Is it coercive when a government imposes restrictions on what their citizens can buy and how much they pay, based solely on which side of a border a manufacturer is on? What about when a government restricts who can cross and live within their borders based upon where they were born?
]]>