# What if fascism occurs on an implicit level **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2020, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-fascism-occurs-on-an-implicit-level/855757 "2020-06-16T04:37:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-fascism-occurs-on-an-implicit-level/855757/41 "2020-06-17T20:35:16Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Coercion is bad period. But more of it is definitely more bad than less of it. > > I think some coercion is unavoidable, This is a logical contradiction. Either Coercion is bad, period or sometimes it’s not. You can’t have exceptions to an absolute statement. If it’s unavoidable and the only solution to a problem, labeling it as “bad” is just childish word play. Coercion in those situations is **good** in that it is quite obviously beneficial. > [@AHunter3](#): > > just as there will always be power differentials when people interact. Not relevant. > [@AHunter3](#): > > But there’s a difference between its presence in human interaction and its presence in the design of institutions and how they’re designed to function. Considering institutions are made up of people and function through their interactions, specifically to deal with various human interactions across the spectrum, it’s a difference that makes no difference outside of semantics. > [@AHunter3](#): > > There, in particular, incremental increases in equality and democratic participation have made _huge_ differences. I support democracy. This has nothing to do with your statement on coercion, or how a society having a capacity for legal enforcement is “bad. period.” > [@AHunter3](#): > > I am an anarchist. You do not, however, need to be an anarchist to agree with the above. Yes, you do. See, to agree with a syllogism, you need to agree with every logical premise presented therein. I reject your definitions, I reject your axioms, and I reject almost every conclusion you draw and therefore reject your entire argument. The only reason someone would accept “all coercion is bad, period” is if they’re an anarchist (who probably also believes in UFOs and unicorns). > [@AHunter3](#): > > You can believe that some modicum of coercive enforcement is necessary for social order, that without it someone would come over the proverbial hill and do non-systemic non-structural coercive things. I don’t happen to agree with you there but I am not going to engage — believe what you will on that one. This is the entire topic of discussion between us, so if you wont actually defend your point, then you have no argument at all. > [@AHunter3](#): > > But a classic monarchy in which the King’s voice is absolute is inherently oppressive. The English found it to be so and drew up Magna Carta to put some checks & balances in place against King John, as you’ll recall. This is simplistic and wrong. You apparently have no concept of justice, because you have omitted it entirely. People didn’t object to the king’s voice because simply because of coercion, they found the king’s _unilateral authority_ to be _unjust_ and believed that a codification of their rights **including an ability to coerce the king where justice demanded it** was necessary to facilitate and ensure justice. This, too, is a gross over simplification, but it’s far more accurate than mistyfing the issues under the blanket term “oppression.” Justice requires coercion, because without it you can’t actually balance the scales against a bad actor. > [@AHunter3](#): > > The American revolutionary leaders implemented a new form of government a half-millennium later that was founded on the notion that even the far more limited powers exercised by King George and his non-representational Parliament were oppressive, and they put in place structures that were designed to make the governmental apparatus a lot more egalitarian, hence less able to coerce, hence less oppressive. This is so hilariously perverse I can scarcely believe you think this way. The American Revolution was not \*about \*coercion or caused _by_ coercion - the articles of confederation and constitution retained the power to facilitate both. The declaration of independence doesn’t even mention the word or any synonym thereof. Egalitarianism (in other words, treating people equally) has nothing to do with coercion. That the law coerces both parties without regards to circumstances of birth does not make them in any way less coercive. It makes them more _just_, because it is less unilateral and less unfair, but not one iota less coercive. > [@AHunter3](#): > > And in the couple-centuries-plus, we have modified those structures significantly, making them yet less coercive, giving more rights and greater democratic participatory role to all the citizens, which means a bit more of their consent is necessary in order for the government to do things that affect them, hence less coercive, more democratic, less oppressive, and better. There are very few “coercive” things that are outlawed now that weren’t outlawed in English common law. If you break a contract, you are just as coerced now to follow said contract as you were 200 years ago. If you murder someone, the police will investigate, put you in front of a jury, and imprison you if found guilty. Certain specific acts are now illegal - we’ve generally outlawed hanging - but there’s still capital punishment, the institution behind capital punishment, laws, and legal enforcement. It’s not that society is one iota less able to force you into not killing people, it’s that the consequences we as a society choose to impose on you are different. The coercion against murder, breach of contract, etc, is exactly the same. In fact, **more robust** because our ability to record information, gather evidence, and prosecute injustice have become _more expansive_. A medieval peasant couldn’t easily sue a lord in the way that dozens if not hundreds have sued our darling president. > [@AHunter3](#): > > You got a dissent with that? Too much to type, really. I’m really starting to believe you have some warped, shifty definition of coercion. You seem to be using the word in contexts where it makes no sense or conflates with completely unrelated subjects. What definition are you even trying to use? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-fascism-occurs-on-an-implicit-level/855757/42 "2020-06-17T22:32:08Z")
No. Just no. ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2020, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-fascism-occurs-on-an-implicit-level/855757/43 "2020-06-17T22:41:12Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > No. Just no. And this is why anarchists are a joke. Every single anarchist falls on their face the moment anyone scrutinizes their claims and can’t defend even the rudiments of their arguments. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2020, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-fascism-occurs-on-an-implicit-level/855757/44 "2020-06-18T02:13:18Z")
Fine so I’m a joke. I’m not interested in wasting my time and it just annoys the pig. You want to start a separate thread about _how_ to implement the closest thing possible to an anarchy, I’ll be happy to participate. You want to start a separate thread about why anarchy won’t work, go entertain yourself with it, but I won’t be there. Either way let’s quit hijacking these folks’ thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-fascism-occurs-on-an-implicit-level/855757.md?page=2)