Philosophy & Economics

[TychoCelchuuu]

I've always operated under these broad definitions:

Persuasion: getting someone to do something by convincing them that there is a benefit to them.

Coercion: getting someone to do something by convincing them there will be harm to them (usually originating with the coercer) if they don't.

Ah, but notice that this depends entirely on what we take the base line to be in determining whether a change is a benefit or a harm. If you are my slave, and I beat you for 7 hours every day, then I tell you "if you do [something you would rather not do], I'll only beat you for 5 hours per day this month," then according to your definition, have I made a coercive offer? It seems like like I'm offering a benefit to you - you'll be beaten less! But I think most of us want to say I'm coercing you.

One way to fix this is to have a "moralized" baseline, such that I'm harming you because you're a slave that I beat and thus any request I make is automatically coercive, and the only way to get people to act in a non-coercive manner is to provide them offers that don't depend on a baseline level of morally unacceptable treatment.

If this is our choice, though, we need to define our moral baseline, such that anyone who departs from this is coercing people when they get them to act in some way. And it turns out to be very hard to figure out what the correct moral baseline is: do companies coerce employees because a proper moral baseline includes a living wage, and companies threaten not to pay this wage if employees don't work? And so on.

[Roderick]

On that impossible to agree upon, shifting baseline; one man's coercion is another man's persuasion. Thankfully, that grey area is not infinite. There are certain modes of behavior that society at large thinks unseemly, such as murder, or good, such as philanthropy. Only what lies inbetween is up for debate. Employment for wages is definitely a contested area, but no one would side with TychoCelchuuu the slave owner: a scenario he keeps returning to, almost obsessively, with an amount of craving that frightens me.

[osmosisch]

Ah, but notice that this depends entirely on what we take the base line to be in determining whether a change is a benefit or a harm. If you are my slave, and I beat you for 7 hours every day, then I tell you "if you do [something you would rather not do], I'll only beat you for 5 hours per day this month," then according to your definition, have I made a coercive offer?

Yes, because there is harm originating from the coercer, and they will be harmed if they don't agree with the offer. I agree that there's probably loopholes but I don't think this is one.

On a side note, framing anything regarding a discussion of coercion in terms of a slave/slavery is a bit confusing, because slavery is coercive prima facie.

[clyde]

Even if the Good Cop doesn't intentionally collude with the Bad Cop, the two of them together fill a role that is coercive. But that seems weird to claim that the Good Cop is coercive. Must everyone be accountable for their broader context?

[osmosisch]

Even if the Good Cop doesn't intentionally collude with the Bad Cop, the two of them together fill a role that is coercive. But that seems weird to claim that the Good Cop is coercive. Must everyone be accountable for their broader context?

I would say that it's possible for a person who is engaging in an act of persuasion is part of a larger coercive system. But it should be noted that coercion, like any other harmful act, is not necessarily immoral (see parenting and indeed law-enforcement for example).

[clyde]

On the "intelligent use of police-force":

 

[Merus]

I would strongly disagree that coercion in all cases involves the threat of physical force. Stockholm Syndrome is absolutely coercion, but it still exists when the threat of physical force is taken away. Blackmail frequently uses psychological threats to coerce the target - no physical threat is necessary if I show you embarrassing photographs and threaten to send them to the media. Friedman scoffs at the idea of brainwashing, which we know now was a real thing that genuinely existed in China at the time he was speaking, and it didn't require people to go to re-education camps to take root.

 

I would agree, though, that coercion involves a threat. The Stockholm Syndrome sufferer is still feeling psychologically threatened after an intense physical threat. The cult member has been conditioned to feel threatened by outsiders. The slave is operating under a threat and any deals made while under that threat are coercive regardless of what they are.

[clyde]

A game of Philosophical arguments via Sententia:

http://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefwakamakamu/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher

[clyde]

I found this article about Detroit's decline really interesting. I take it for granted that In Civ 5, I can instantly switch production post-war to science or wealth. I'm also fortunate that my population can't move to places which tax less.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130915/NEWS01/130801004/Detroit-Bankruptcy-history-1950-debt-pension-revenue

[clyde]

As of now, Cracker Barrel is my favorite example of a hyperreality. The illusion that it tries to create is of a world that has never existed, but people believe was once real. The region in which I live (Appalachias) may be one of the reasons that Cracker Barrel gets my vote for best example of a hyperreality.

[clyde]

I'm having such a hard time grasping the ideas of Guy Debord (and maybe also Baudrillard?). As I look through Youtube videos and read student articles and such, I oscillate between thinking they they are saying something profound and thinking that they are saying very little with nihilistic generalizations. I ask myself "A dominant system seems like a good idea. How else are we supposed to get along without a leader?" and then wonder if I just can't see outside of false dichotomies.

It's fun though. It's nice to have something so impotent that claims massive applicability; I can just poke at it every once in a while and see if it turns me on. Do any of you have thoughts on the Spectacle or hyperrealities? Is there an inescapable illusion or a reason to not ingest it happily? I read this stuff and I feel either too stupid or too smart for it.

 

[Sententia]

The Spectacle seems like a vague definition for modern culture, sort of like a traditional old guy looking down his nose at how much things have changed, lumping all of it into "bleh".  Near the end of Part 1 she was talking about people 'avoiding the environment, poverty, and war' but to the contrary I think humanity is the most engaged we've ever been historically with global issues, and it's precisely because of technology.

 

I really dislike the personification of social constructs.  We have a celebrity culture because there are a whole bunch of us who make bad choices with our time, not because all the way at the beginning of it some schemer put together a plan to fool us.  We've created this culture by our desires, and it isn't going to change by being angry at the culture, it's going to change by changing the people who together make up the culture.

 

There are also issues with the consumer culture, which came about basically because of increased efficiency in food production cutting down prices allowing people to do other things, rise out of poverty, and have money to spend.  It only exists because we have money, and yes there are abusers of the system specifically in the food industry, but that isn't solved by being angry at the consumer culture.  We have to spread awareness of the specific abuses that are happening to create specific solutions through legislation.  The whole "sheep" or "dream" thing seems like just another conspiracy theorist self-aggrandizing, another way for someone to pat themselves on the back and go "I'm so smart now, I figured it out while all those guys are still sheep".

 

The reference to theology was random, I'm not sure what she meant with that.

[clyde]

Thanks for responding Sententia.

[Roderick]

Ugh, I so want to engage you on this, Clyde, I think it's interesting, but I feel way out of my league. I can barely grasp at McLuhan.

[clyde]

Ugh, I so want to engage you on this, Clyde, I think it's interesting, but I feel way out of my league. I can barely grasp at McLuhan.

Thanks Rodi, the thought counts. I know how you feel. I'm watching a lecture on Kant right now and I have to pause it every time the lecturer uses a big word in a sentence. I have to take a moment to attempt to understand the concepts. Still, I manage to make a few connections.

Regarding being slaves to desire and consumerism, Kant apparently has a few things to say. The claim seems to be that we are only truly free by choosing our own goals as rational beings; this in opposition to obeying our desires. I'm not quite clear on what the differences are between our goals and our desires though. Luckily I'm only 11 minutes in.

 

 

[Roderick]

I love those lectures! I watched the entire series a few years ago and would recommend it as an excellent primer on the philosophy of justice. Maaaan that is the correct way to hold a class on philosophy. I doubt we have anything like it in the Netherlands. Our teaching system isn't exactly participatory, though steps have been made in that direction.

Not that this is the ideal situation, since a format like this favors ones adept at Phoenix Wright style bluffing and thinking on their feet; not people who are accustomed to gathering their thoughts before speaking.

[Gormongous]

Ugh, I so want to engage you on this, Clyde, I think it's interesting, but I feel way out of my league. I can barely grasp at McLuhan.

 

I feel this way about Baudrillard. If anyone has a theory of history & culture to which I can subscribe, it's him, but I'm not too sharp on the particulars of his argument, let alone it can be actuated as something useful.

 

I do think about hyperreality all the time, though.

[clyde]

I love it when people can put philosophy and economics into well-written personal anecdotes and explain how they make for a good allegory about a broader scope of circumstances.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/whitewater-flash-pass-12403562

[BadHat]

Thanks for linking that video on the last page, this series is really entertaining. Great lecturer.

[clyde]

If you aren't spending money or working your job, then you are loitering.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131202-dirty-tricks-of-city-design/all

[Lu]

It's quite simple and clever. You see it in certain restaurants too, that have purposefully uncomfortable seating so you don't stick around for too long after a meal. Gotta turn them tables!

[Bjorn]

It's quite simple and clever. You see it in certain restaurants too, that have purposefully uncomfortable seating so you don't stick around for too long after a meal. Gotta turn them tables!

 

Slightly off topic, but I have a family member who designs and lays out high end restaurants and bars.  He's explained some of his design documents to me and the logic/philosophy behind why he sets up a restaurant in a particular manner.  It's kind of nuts the amount of thought that goes into some places.  And now that he's pointed out a bunch of little things to me, I can always tell walking into a restaurant if someone thought about what they were doing, or if they just put up a bunch of crap where it felt right. 

 

Also, mostly posting here to thank the OP for that link to "Thou Shall Not Commit Logical Fallacies".  That's the most useful thing on the Internet I've seen all week.

[TychoCelchuuu]

A list of logical fallacies actually isn't super helpful if you want to make good arguments any more than a list of common math errors is helpful if you want to take a math test. What you need to worry about is your specific math problem or your specific argument and whether you're doing the problem right or making a good argument. Thinking in terms of fallacies is rarely a helpful way to set up an actual good argument.

[Zeusthecat]

A list of logical fallacies actually isn't super helpful if you want to make good arguments any more than a list of common math errors is helpful if you want to take a math test. What you need to worry about is your specific math problem or your specific argument and whether you're doing the problem right or making a good argument. Thinking in terms of fallacies is rarely a helpful way to set up an actual good argument.

 

I don't know, I kind of sort of think that was just a little bit of a false analogy. Maybe if there was some kind of a fallacy list that you could have referenced your argument would have been a little better.

[clyde]

The list of fallacies is just a helpful heuristic intended to decrease the chances of confusion.
A diagram of how to make a good argument wouldn't hurt though.