Trevor_Blake comments on Rationality by Other Means - Less Wrong

-4 Post author: DataPacRat 26 December 2012 02:52PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (6)

Comments (6)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 December 2012 04:11:23PM 4 points [-]

A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion. States rely on laws enforced by men ready to do violence against lawbreakers. Every tax, every code and every licensing requirement demands an escalating progression of penalties that, in the end, must result in the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance... Violence isn’t the only answer, but it is the final answer.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force.

  • Karl Popper, The Open Society
Comment author: MileyCyrus 26 December 2012 11:18:39PM 2 points [-]

A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion.

You can threaten non-violence, like a boycott.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 December 2012 04:20:45AM 2 points [-]

Mr. Donovan is speaking of rules. A boycott as a rule, a government-mandated boycott, will be backed up by the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance.

Opt-in boycotts, boycotts not required by rules, can be non-violent as you rightly point out.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit