Vaniver wrote:That's the primary reason; anarchy is bloody. There are secondary reasons why people would choose not to be violent, but they're strictly not true for everyone.
Wouldn't it make sense to prevent aggressive use of nonviolent force for the same reasons we want to prevent aggressive use of violent force, so long as it is logistically feasible to do so?
Vaniver wrote:Perhaps this is a better way to put it: when you behave in a racist fashion, you create a niche. Markets reward people that fill niches. Obviously, not every niche will be profitable to fill- someone who camps out in the desert is not going to find a grocery store springing up to meet their needs- but the niches the market won't fill are, by definition, marginal unless there's some non-market obstacle to filling them.
Here we're seeing a big assumption - that in the US south, the racists
are the niche, instead of the non-racists
Considering that market power isn't numbers in most industries, but buying power (and the groups most likely to be economically persecuted are the ones with the least buying power), I don't think that's a safe assumption to make, and it was definitely a poor assumption to make in the 1960's.
Vaniver wrote:It can. The response is twofold: first, 'nonviolent force' is an extremely nebulous term, unlike violent force. It's easy to tell if Billy hit Timmy, it's difficult to tell if Billy's choices are deliberately made to reduce Timmy's well-being.
I don't think it's remotely so clear-cut. It's not just the force being used, but the intent in both cases. It's easy to tell if Billy hit Timmy, but it's hard to tell if his intent was to hurt Timmy, or if Billy was defending himself in some way, or if it was just an accident on Billy's part.
Similarly, it's generally (I won't say always, as business activities can get awfully well-obfuscated) easy to detect the use of nonviolent force - "Sorry, we don't accept blacks" is both a clear use of market leverage to someone's detriment, and clearly made with intentional aggression. But the market can produce the same intent-ambiguous situations as with the Billy/Timmy example. If Billy raises his prices in such a way that Timmy can not afford Billy's services, it's hard to tell if Billy raised his prices for that reason, or for another reason.
To summarize, I think the use of force is fairly easily detectable in both cases, and the intent behind the use of force is much harder to detect in both cases - so again, I'm not seeing much of a difference.
Vaniver wrote:Second, violent force is exclusive while nonviolent force is not. The proprietor of a gas station refusing to sell me fuel because he doesn't like me does not preclude me from procuring fuel elsewhere; it may make me worse off but it doesn't coerce me. If my suppliers refuse to deal with me, I can find other suppliers.
I don't think exclusivity even applies to violent force in the way that you describe it with nonviolent force. If I provide a physical barrier against someone, I'm applying physical force towards them, but they can walk around me. If I push someone, I'm applying more physical force towards them, but they can still push back, or go in a different direction. Hell, even if I try to kill someone, they might be able to kill me first, just like someone can go find another supplier.
I think your argument here boils down to how effective
each type of use of force is - it's easy to make a highly effective use of violent force (1.Grab club, 2.Apply club to head), but it requires significant leverage to make a highly effective use of nonviolent force (such as a market where non-racism is the non-thriving niche).
This functions as a good reason why government should not 100% micromanage transactions for the possibility of aggression - but it seems that we have two fairly detectable and dangerous types of nonphysical force which should regularly be audited and should evoke a government response to control in the same sense that aggressive physical force evokes government response:
-Systemic nonphysical force, such as the racist-dominated market, in which smaller instances of nonphysical force are used in quantity to the detriment of others, and
-Mass nonphysical force, such as employing market leverage to force others to behave differently or lose money, in which single, powerful forces employ nonphysical force to the detriment of others.
Our current system has some rules to address both of these, but I don't think we really have a unified body of law to deal with the problem, so enforcement is haphazard and inefficient. For instance, a union strike is aggressive nonphysical force. An ideal body of law should be able to distinguish between a union strike that has a valid justification, and one that doesn't, in the same way that the law can distinguish between violent force that has a valid justification from violent force that does not.
Vaniver wrote:I am comfortable with use rights (I sell you this land and the right to built up to five stories tall on it, but retain the right to build more than five stories) but I'm not comfortable with resale restrictions (I sell you this land, on the stipulation that you not resell it for another five years).
Ah, so you're saying that if the right were removed, it would be stripped from the estate mechanism as well. I see.