Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: How Opposite are Reason and Force?
Message-ID: <28200661@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 09:51:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200661
Posted: Mon Feb 10 09:51:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 21:12:32 EST
References: <441@umich.UUCP>
Lines: 43
Nf-ID: #R:umich:-44100:inmet:28200661:000:2033
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Feb 10 09:51:00 1986


[hound!rwsh (R.STUBBLEFIELD)]
>    When I say force is the opposite of reason, I am *not* saying the 
>victim or the initiator of force necessarily becomes incapable of reason.  
>(Although it is clear that force could destroy the victim's brain and his 
>faculty of reason.)  To be precise, initiation of force to gain values is 
>*opposed* to the faculty of reason.  I will argue, after some intermediate 
>steps, that initiating force to gain values is detrimental to the faculty 
>of reason--both to that of the victim *and* the initiator.

We have here 3 successively weakened reformulations.  I
agree with the last one, in a still weaker form:

(1) Force is *the* opposite of reason. --"The" implies the one
and only. Surely, force is not the antonym of reason; and lots
of things (such as self-delusion) could be said to be opposed
to reason as much as force or more.

(2) Initiating force to gain values is *opposed* to the faculty
of reason. --Well, it is opposed to whatever faculty would be in
command if force were not initiated - sometimes, reason.

(3) Initiating force to gain values is *detrimental* to the faculty 
of reason--both to that of the victim and the initiator.

Add : "tends to be", and "in the long run", and I agree. This  is
*still* strong enough to object to *institutionalized* initiation
of force in society - *even* if that were the only way to prevent
*sporadic* use of force by society's members. However, the alter-
native of a total breakdown of civilization, or of imminent  con-
quest, would be bad enough to justify that.

If non-initiation of force is the rule, it would seem  to  follow
that  enforcement of *contracts* by physical force - especially
by the government - is *not* justified.  Breaking a  contract  is
not  initiating  force. People often say "force or fraud" - as if
they were one. But they aren't.  Also, breach of a contract  does
not always imply fraud.

Can contracts be maintained, except by the threat of force ?
Certainly. There are many examples.

		Jan Wasilewsky