What is the most fair and practical way to define force?

by Scott Swain

I think most of us agree that there is usually a net overall loss when one person forces another person to do a thing. Sometimes, though, people will "expand" the definition of force to include not doing a thing. What?! 

Example:

A person in need came to you asking for [food, love, listening, etc] and you didn't give it to them or you gave them less than they wanted. Maybe you had just enough for you and your family at that time. The person in need ended up dying or killing himself. The death might not have happened if you had given them the thing. Therefore, you forced them to die. Really?

Another example:

"Hey can you give me a loan?"

Response: "Sorry. I don't have enough extra right now."

"Then you are forcing me to take it from you." or "You leave me no choice but to rob you."

[Who is the person really using force here? Who is attempting to disguise their use of force as justified because they say the other one was the first to use force?]

Does it serve us to include not doing something as "force"? Especially when:

(1) It undermines responsibility. If we can say that a person not doing something is forcing us to do something then we can more easily say we had no choice and thus, no responsibility because we all know that when we are forced to do something, we have no say.

Full article: https://www.clearsay.net/how-far-do-you-stretch-definition-force.asp

#force #initiationofforce #nap, #nonaggressionprinciple #removalofchoice #choice #freedom #independence #libertarian #voluntaryism #agorism #anarchy #anarchocapitalism #ancap #liberation #respect #ideals #principles #empowerment #nvc #nonviolentcommunication #coercion #compassion #empathy