Comment: really?

(See in situ)


Is it really so difficult to draw a distinction between "coercion of the weather" as "natural, and therefore fundamentally acceptable, coercion" and coercion from malicious, psychopathic humans?

It seems to me we're, on the whole, willing to confuse the two because we take the benefits of being temporarily spared unwanted natural coercion by externalizing the costs through societal structures which impose the other kind (mostly) on others. As long as we feel we are benefiting from the coercion of others and "getting something for nothing," then we have no problem with psychopathic coercion. It's only when we feel the boot of these psychopathic social structures on our own necks that we get upset.

Perhaps the other thing to mention is that human psychopathic coercion has inherent in it this idea of externalizing costs, and this readily extends to the natural world, or the "environment" if you like. And that makes all the difference. This also relates to the "higher principle." The higher principle is the morality of kindly use of the world.

Practically speaking, the elimination of taxation (or equivalently the use of violence against those who refuse to consent) would be a great step in the right direction. But it might not be enough. If it allowed voluntary defense of an honest sustainable way of life, then it would be enough.

In short, coercion (of the human variety) is something like half the equation. Responsibility and constraint is the other half. But recognizing and embracing the honest demands of nature and responding to them in a sustainable manner (even if that means death), it seems to me, is definitely desirable.