Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

So far, so good. But the problem I'm pointing out is that all this assumes that consequences are measured relative to a do-nothing baseline in which Alfie does not beat Bruno up and does not give him any drugs.

I say this politely; as best I can tell, you are the only one making that assumption, and then you are arguing against it, or such.

Long story short, your entire argument and series of points and questions all seem to be a strawman.

If the baseline is that Alfie gives Bruno drugs every day,

The baseline might be that Alfie rapes Bruno every day.

It doesn't change anything in regard to how consent, coercion, and violence are defined, or whether a future action by Bruno is consensual when done under a future threat by Alfie that Alfie will do a certain future action if Bruno does not do what Alfie wants.

Rather, just as always, regardless of any so-called 'baseline' (e.g. a history of Alfie giving Bruno drugs or a history or Alfie raping Bruno on a daily basis), the consensuality of the future action done by Bruno under the future threat by Alfie that Alfie will do a certain future action depends on what that future action is regardless and independent of any baseline or morality.

Namely, it depends on (1) whether that certain future action would itself be consensual, and (2) whether that certain future action is violent or non-violent.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will stop donating to Bruno's charity.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will donate to Bruno's charity.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will cheat on his husband and have a gay affair without even using a condom.

Maybe that certain future action is that Alfie will punch Bruno repeatedly in the face while Bruno cries and begs Alfie to stop.

It depends on what that certain future action is, and the so-called baseline and "morality" or "moral rights" are all completely irrelevant.


It seems to me, the difference between consent and non-consent is not that complicated at all.

And similarly, if the baseline is that Alfie beats Bruno up every day, then Alfie's first condition (that he'll only beat Bruno up if Bruno doesn't vote for him) becomes a positive consequence for Bruno (a promise if letting him off) attached to the outcome that Alfie wants, hence non-coercive.

So either we say that whether someone is coerced or not, and hence whether an act is consensual or not, is subjective, depending on what you choose to take as your baseline.

It seems to me with the above two paragraphs you have disproved your own argument via reductio ad absurdum.


"Hey, Bruno! You know how I beat you up every day while you cry and beg me to stop. If you give me your lunch money today, I won't do it today--which would be a great positive consequence for you that is much better then the baseline of me beating you up every day like I have been. But if you don't give me your lunch money I will beat you up again today!"


If your argument at all entails suggesting that Bruno giving his lunch money would be even arguably consensual because it is positive compared to the so-called baseline of Bruno getting beaten up, then I think you have disproven yourself via reductio ad absurdum.

In contrast, in reality, it's not at all that complicated. The so-called baseline is irreverent.

Consent is simple. It's clearly not about the so-called 'baseline' and it's not about morality or so-called "moral rights".

It's clearly about violence, namely non-defensive violence, and the threat thereof.

If the baseline is that Alfie gives Bruno drugs every day, then Alfie's second condition (that he'll only give Bruno drugs if Bruno votes for him) becomes a negative consequence for Bruno attached to the outcome that Alfie doesn't want. A threat of stopping his drug supply.

[...]

You seem to be suggesting firstly that the second condition (about drugs) isn't coercive either way round because it doesn't involve violence. That seems to me obviously mistaken.

Obviously? The exact opposite seems obvious to me. Of course, it's not coercive. Whether you have been paying someone with money, drugs, or sex, or otherwise giving a certain person money, drugs, or sex on the daily for a long time, it wouldn't be rape to say, hey do sex with me or I will stop paying you (i.e. giving you) the money, drugs, or sex I've been giving you.

Which affirms the negative/positive distinction without addressing the baseline issue.

I absolutely and whole-heartedly reject both the negative/positive distinction and the baseline . With politeness, they are both utterly absurd on the face, as best I can tell.

Your own example with Alfie beating up Bruno on the daily proves it. Let me show:

"Hey, Bruno! You know how I beat you up every day while you cry and beg me to stop. If you give my your lunch money today, I won't do it today--which would be a great positive consequence for you that is much better then the baseline of me beating you up every day like I have been. But if you don't give me your lunch money I will beat you up again today!"

Likewise, we can see the same complete and utter irrelevant of the positive/negative decision and the irrelevant of the so-called baseline in the inverse situation as well:

"Carl, I know you have been working for us as a porn star for a long time, and we have been paying you $100 every day to have sex on camera with Darla, but we've decided to change gears and become a gay sex company, so you either need to have sex with Eric today on camera or we will have to let you go, hire someone else, and stop paying you $100 per day."


Thank you,
Scott

[Good_Egg]

Namely, it depends on (1) whether that certain future action would itself be consensual, and (2) whether that certain future action is violent or non-violent.

OK, so suppose Alfie is a teacher and Bruno is a 7-year old pupil who has been disrupting the class, and Alfie tells Bruno to sit down and shut up right now or he will punish him. Is Bruno's resulting silence consensual ?

You seem to be saying that if the threatened punishment is physical then no, but if the threatened punishment is non-physical then yes. I don't see the logic of that position.

Is saying that the threatened future action is nonconsensual the same as saying that it is negative (i.e. something that - other things being equal - Bruno would not choose to have happen to him) ? Or do you mean something else ?

In my schooldays the threatened punishment would be that Bruno will be sent to see the headmaster. And generally he would go because if he doesn't he'll be in worse trouble. So your construction making the consensuality of one act conditional on the consensuality of another seems to merely defer the problem...

[LuckyR]

Namely, it depends on (1) whether that certain future action would itself be consensual, and (2) whether that certain future action is violent or non-violent.

OK, so suppose Alfie is a teacher and Bruno is a 7-year old pupil who has been disrupting the class, and Alfie tells Bruno to sit down and shut up right now or he will punish him. Is Bruno's resulting silence consensual ?

You seem to be saying that if the threatened punishment is physical then no, but if the threatened punishment is non-physical then yes. I don't see the logic of that position.

Is saying that the threatened future action is nonconsensual the same as saying that it is negative (i.e. something that - other things being equal - Bruno would not choose to have happen to him) ? Or do you mean something else ?

In my schooldays the threatened punishment would be that Bruno will be sent to see the headmaster. And generally he would go because if he doesn't he'll be in worse trouble. So your construction making the consensuality of one act conditional on the consensuality of another seems to merely defer the problem...

I agree that hinging whether an interaction is "consensual" or not, on whether negative consequences accompany one of the choices, is shall we say, a non standard interpretation.

Though if one makes that leap and uses that definition, many interactions (including the OP) can be recategorized. Though the implication of this is opaque to me.

[Good_Egg]

I agree that hinging whether an interaction is "consensual" or not, on whether negative consequences accompany one of the choices, is shall we say, a non standard interpretation.

So what do you think coercion means if it isn't acting under threat of negative consequences that the other party has attached to the act that they're trying to dissuade you from ?

Or alternatively, what do you think "consensual" means if it doesn't mean "not coerced" ?

I thought the point of the OP is that taxation is a payment to government that is coerced by threat of imprisonment ?

I don't see where you're coming from here...

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Namely, it depends on (1) whether that certain future action would itself be consensual, and (2) whether that certain future action is violent or non-violent.

OK, so suppose Alfie is a teacher and Bruno is a 7-year old

If either person is a child, mentally disabled, severely intoxicated, or otherwise ssignificantly less mentally capable than the average awake sane sober human, then often thinks will be reversed.

For example, no matter how much a grown adult entices or persuades a child to have sex, it would still not be consensual.

The same goes for non-human animals, non-living objects like my microwave, and even (arguably) ChatGPT. For example, I generally wouldn't say that the ChatGPT AI bot consents to doing what I ask it to do, even if it does it.

[LuckyR]

I agree that hinging whether an interaction is "consensual" or not, on whether negative consequences accompany one of the choices, is shall we say, a non standard interpretation.

So what do you think coercion means if it isn't acting under threat of negative consequences that the other party has attached to the act that they're trying to dissuade you from ?

Or alternatively, what do you think "consensual" means if it doesn't mean "not coerced" ?

I thought the point of the OP is that taxation is a payment to government that is coerced by threat of imprisonment ?

I don't see where you're coming from here...

The set of all episodes of coercion caused by negative consequences is a subset of all interactions that contain negative consequences. Thus identifying negative consequences is insufficient to demonstrate coercion.

In other words there are plenty of consensual arrangements that contain negative consequences. If you go to a loan shark to borrow money and later don't have the money to pay and he arranges to have your legs broken, was your interaction with the loan shark consensual? You didn't sign up for broken legs, you signed up for a loan. But you knew a loan shark very well could break your legs if you didn't pay. You tacitly "consented" to have your legs broken even though you never said "please break my legs". It's all part of the package, you either participate in the system or you don't. Trying to cherry-pick the rights while disavowing the responsibilities is a (rather amateurish) attempt at verbal sleight of hand.

[Sy Borg]

Good point made by Lucky, re: loan shark deals.

Is coercion such a big deal, anyway? I have felt coerced into doing things my entire life - 'do x or y negative consequences will ensue'. From family to school to the bullies to technical college to the workplace to relationships. It's completely usual and normal because humans are terribly demanding creatures. That's the beauty of dogs; they give you a break from insistent human complexity.

[Good_Egg]

If you go to a loan shark to borrow money and later don't have the money to pay and he arranges to have your legs broken, was your interaction with the loan shark consensual? You didn't sign up for broken legs, you signed up for a loan. But you knew a loan shark very well could break your legs if you didn't pay. You tacitly "consented" to have your legs broken even though you never said "please break my legs". It's all part of the package, you either participate in the system or you don't.

I read this example as saying that an act - in this instance paying the loan shark - can be both consensual and coerced.

From that you might extrapolate to say that taxation of immigrants is consensual. They may not actually be stopped at the border and asked to sign a form saying that they consent to be taxed, as a condition for entering the country, but it's arguable that it's an implied condition, what you call "tacit consent".

It's harder to argue that being born in a country is tacitly consenting to whatever the government does...

[Gertie]

Any relationship involves give and take.  The larger and more complex   the grouping, the more standardised and less flexible the structure tends to be.  A family can talk over every little thing and make workaround accomodations for each other fairly easily, but if a government  wants to get stuff done it can't ask every one of 50 million people every time it wants to do something that might impact them in some way.  Rigidity and red tape comes with scale, not because people think its great, it's a practicality, sets standards and guards against bias and corruption. 

So it's right that the smaller scale the grouping, the more flexible to particular needs decision-making is, and the easier to find consensus it is.  In theory every individual could be their own sovereign state, and no coercion would exist.  But as soon as people start interacting, give and take comes into play. And in nation states that involves huge networked projects which have advantages of scale,  like power supplies, transport systems, defence.  We might also want to ensure all kids get a decent education, all citizens have the basics to live on, access to healthcare, police and courts, parks or whatever.  Which need paying for. Not everyone will agree about everything, or at exactly what level  grouping makes most sense for different types of decisions - compromise is inevitable.  But if we're lucky enough to live in a democracy, we get a say along with everyone else. Comparing that to slavery, as some Libertarians do, just screams entitlement to my ears, like a toddler who hasn't learned other people's needs and desires matter too.

The alternative to  democracy is Might Makes Right, the Haves with most power get to decide the rules and force the less powerful to obey.

So you have to weigh the actual alternatives if you want the benefits of living in a society with other people who aren't clones of you, there's no perfect solution where you get exactly what you personally want.  Democratic politics is the practice of juggling competing interests to find broadly acceptible compromises, balanced by  the creation of Human Rights as a bullwark against the tyranny of majority when it comes to our basic needs and human dignity. Everyone gets  pissed off about some things, but you get to protest, form movements, form parties,  vote. 

An important aspect of the ability to vote governments in and out is it means we rely heavily on our sources of information to make informed decisions. Which is why the state of our news media is such a concern, and why a few crazily rich people with obvious vested interests owning most of it is such a bad idea.  You don't need illuminati/new world order/WEF/whatev conspiracists when you have a small group of people with similar interests in charge of what we voters are told and how the information is framed.

[Good_Egg]

So you have to weigh the actual alternatives if you want the benefits of living in a society with other people...

I think you're saying that
1. there are benefits to living in large societies,
2. Large societies cannot operate by universal consensus
3. Thus it is rational to consent to living without such consensus. Pre-consenting to non-consensuality.

There's a point of language here around the relationship between similar terms - consent, consensus, and consensual acts.

If you're invited to a party and told that at this party everyone commits sexual acts, and you choose to go to the party, have you thereby consented in advance to every sexual act that might be proposed to you at the party ?

I think most of us would say no - you've consented to the general principle but not to every specific act.

There's a question about the reality of that supposed consent-in-advance. We don't live in a time and place where there's a habitable wilderness next door. How many of us have a real choice about living in society ? We're at the party whether we like it or not.

And point 2 seems a convenient oversimplification. Many things could be paid for consensually. In the UK you pay for a TV licence only if you opt-in to the subset of people who watch broadcast TV. And the TV licence pays for the BBC. You pay motor tax only if you opt into the subset of people who use a motor vehicle on public roads. (The original intention was that this would be the mechanism by which roads were funded, but it later became just another tax). There is a consensual model available, a way of running aspects of large societies which could be used in more cases than it is.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

So it's right that the smaller scale the grouping, the more flexible to particular needs decision-making is, and the easier to find consensus it is.

I agree, but I suspect the degree of the effect is minor, and more importantly moot to the discussion at hand. That fact is covered in my other topic:

Voting is uncorrelated to consent. Unanimous voting can be non-consensual, and non-unanimous voting can be consensual.

To illustrate by example, I was part of the PTA once, and served as an elected unpaid volunteer on the Board of Directors for the entire Connecticut PTA in the position of vice president in charge of inclusivity and outreach. For reference, the PTA has 4 million dues paying members. I believe everything they do is consensual, and all PTA members 100% consent to paying their dues.

So you have to weigh the actual alternatives if you want the benefits of living in a society with other people who aren't clones of you, there's no perfect solution where you get exactly what you personally want.

[Emphasis added.]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but this point and all the others like it seem to be off-topic. The question is not "are taxes beneficial" nor "do you personally as an individual want there to be taxes".

While you did mention "consensus" once, I notice neither the word 'consent' nor the word 'consensual' appear in your 5-paragraph 485-word post.

Let's make sure to stay on-topic and remember that the topic is simply this: Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?


***

Many things could be paid for consensually. In the UK you pay for a TV licence only if you opt-in to the subset of people who watch broadcast TV. And the TV licence pays for the BBC. You pay motor tax only if you opt into the subset of people who use a motor vehicle on public roads. (The original intention was that this would be the mechanism by which roads were funded, but it later became just another tax). There is a consensual model available, a way of running aspects of large societies which could be used in more cases than it is.

Good point!

Similar examples include the USPS in the USA, and the buying and selling of postage stamps, as well as my previous example about huge private corporations, including charitable non-profits, such as the PTA which is a registered non-profit charity that has 4 million voting dues-paying members.

Of course, at least when philosophically rigorous, when it's consensual and non-violent, I would typically call it a "fee", or "voluntary price paid". So I paid my annual member's dues to be a voting member of the PTA each year I was, but I was never 'taxed' by the PTA.

[Gertie]

So you have to weigh the actual alternatives if you want the benefits of living in a society with other people...

I think you're saying that...

No need to guess - the post is what I'm saying!

[Gertie]

So it's right that the smaller scale the grouping, the more flexible to particular needs decision-making is, and the easier to find consensus it is.

I agree, but I suspect the degree of the effect is minor, and more importantly moot to the discussion at hand. That fact is covered in my other topic:

Voting is uncorrelated to consent. Unanimous voting can be non-consensual, and non-unanimous voting can be consensual.

To illustrate by example, I was part of the PTA once, and served as an elected unpaid volunteer on the Board of Directors for the entire Connecticut PTA in the position of vice president in charge of inclusivity and outreach. For reference, the PTA has 4 million dues paying members. I believe everything they do is consensual, and all PTA members 100% consent to paying their dues.

So you have to weigh the actual alternatives if you want the benefits of living in a society with other people who aren't clones of you, there's no perfect solution where you get exactly what you personally want.

[Emphasis added.]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but this point and all the others like it seem to be off-topic. The question is not "are taxes beneficial" nor "do you personally as an individual want there to be taxes".

While you did mention "consensus" once, I notice neither the word 'consent' nor the word 'consensual' appear in your 5-paragraph 485-word post.

Let's make sure to stay on-topic and remember that the topic is simply this: Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

I was making an argument about what consent means in the context of your specific question, it strikes me as relevant to the discussion - but I'm happy to leave it there.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I was making an argument about what consent means in the context of your specific question, it strikes me as relevant to the discussion - but I'm happy to leave it there.

Okay, sorry about that; I think I misunderstood. What's the conclusion of the argument you were making about what consent means?

[Gertie]

I was making an argument about what consent means in the context of your specific question, it strikes me as relevant to the discussion - but I'm happy to leave it there.

Okay, sorry about that; I think I misunderstood. What's the conclusion of the argument you were making about what consent means?

No prob.

This roughly sums up my position -


Consent in the context of organising society so that each person gets exactly what they want isn't possible, give and take is inevitable. (This means in your terms any form of government is coercive I think, pretty much by definition, but this isn't a yes/no poll it's a discussion board, so I explored the context further)

In such circs, bearing in mind the realistic alternatives.

Which services are provided for and paid for by the citizenry via taxation under democracy there-by becomes a compromise, which we have an equal say in, and ways to non-violently participate in affecting.

There should be basic Human Rights under-girding such a system, which maintain individual consent on key issues no matter the policies passing governments, to avoid the tyranny of the majority in areas we agree should be protected.

(Side issues in that larger context involve which decisions are best made at which level, and the role of news sources in manufacturing consent in a system which relies on voters being informed).

Conclusion - if you live in a society, the consent of others to your wishes in every case is impossible, and vice versa. The reasonable response to this is to create systems which maximise the benefits of living in a society and minimise the downsides. Democracy is the best realistic option imo, with a Human Rights 'consent safety net'.