Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

I would submit it is not coercive to have dominion over your own house. That one's children are in effect "Trapped" under your care is a function of reality. For example If I take someone up in a hot air balloon that I own. I have every right to remove them from my property if they do not follow my rules. However, I may not throw them out of my balloon 1000meters in the air, that would be murder. The physical reality is your children's upbringing is that same hot air balloon. You must safely ferry them to a place where releasing them from your property would not kill them. You are not "Coercing" them to stay on your property (and thus abiding by your rules) you are preventing their demise at the hands of the physical reality of the world. On the Broader point, government is a mental game we play with each other. We all pretend that we are, in some ethereal way in the same "group" as everyone in our geographical vicinity. That is not a physical reality. That is simply something people like to do. Other people do not like to play that mental game. It is only when the mental game of "I'm the boss and you have to do what I say" meets the physical reality of extortion(taxes), kidnapping(arrests), and murder(the death penalty) that this game becomes not so fun. And to invoke the metaphysical as some sort of justification for the behavior of those not participating in an illusory mental game is a bit myopic. God is my ruler not because of some vote, appointment or some other contrivance. God rules because God created the physical reality I dwell within and the rules of reality itself. The words of men are simply inconsequential to the will of God because it physically can't be any other way.

↑ Parent

Replies (2)

Jordan Eskovitz eskovitz@nostrplebs.com 1 year ago

I suppose you could say they are trapped haha, but I think a healthier framing is that they are given by God and entrusted to my care as a parent. And my argument is that coercion is a natural part of taking dominion. Maybe a helpful way of distinguishing what I mean is that righteous coercion is a tool of just dominion while unrighteous coercion is a weapon for unjust domination. Government (the magistrate) is more than a shared illusion though, because people have to order themselves in a civil society somehow and Scripture is pretty clear that the magistrate is a part of God's intended order. And forgive me if I have not been clear, I am not trying to invoke God to justify the actions of unjust rulers. Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that God intentionally created a world in which there are various ranks of authority and rule and that the magistrate isn't in itself bad, illusory, or even a "necessary evil" that we simply have to put up with, but rather when godly men rule in the fear of the Lord the magistrate is doing what it ought to do—punish the wrongdoer, elevate the righteous, protect property rights. When the magistrate becomes the thing it is supposed to protect against (extortionists, thieves, murderers, etc) then it is right and just for the people to resist such tyranny.

1 replies ↓

npub1m50e...glzq 1 year ago

Just to define a term (because my pedantic nature recoils at the phrase "Righteous coercion") Coercion: 1. The act or practice of coercing. 2. Power or ability to coerce. 3. The act or process of coercing. 4. The application to another of either physical or moral force. When the force is physical, and cannot be resisted, then the act produced by it is a nullity, so far as concerns the party coerced. When the force is moral, then the act, though voidable, is imputable to the party doing it, unless he be so paralyzed by terror as to act convulsively. At the same time coercion is not negatived by the fact of submission under force. “Coactus volui” (I consented under compulsion) is the condition of mind which, when there is volition forced by coercion, annuls the result of such coercion. 5. Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing. 6. Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will. 7. A specific instance of coercing. 8. Conversion of a value of one data type to a value of another data type. 9. Using force to cause something to occur. As far as my moral understanding none of these definitions can be performed righteously. What I think you are refering to as coercion may very well be defined as just ownership or property rights. When one is said to "own" something that is to say they have authoritative control of the use, maintenance, and right to exchange. Your dominion is your property. (God's dominion is everthing and God is the Progenator) Within one's property rule enforcement is not coercion because those on your property have been invited and thus agree to those rules. One cannot agree to coercion. When it comes to government, the only way one might say you "Agree to the rules" of citizenship, is to be under the illusion that you chose the government. That IS an illusion. You may be complicit in the government's actions but you have not chosen anything. This lack of free will to choose IS coercion regardless of perceptions of divinity. The scriptures are inspired by God and written by men. In so doing, they are limited by man's understanding of societal structure and dominion. It could very well be that when a polity is made of wicked men, they make a wicked government. But it is not at all clear to me, that individuals working in their own endeavors freely and collaboratively exchanging their goods and services, need a governance structure outside of their moral adherence to God's will. There is no place for interference from the state even if it could somehow act righteously (again I am unsure how taking money without permission can be righteous given the commandment expressly forbidding it.) That claim to Righteous coercion IS the illusion to which I was referring. I hope that clarifies where I seem to diverge with your view point. Peace and love, Brother.

1 replies ↓