Repression and Coercion - For and Against

Okay, wife is due back in town tomorrow, so I’d better get this out of the way. :smiley:

Must admit, that last post had me stymied. It’s like when I’m playing chess and someone makes a move so bizzare that I’m left only with two conclusions: That the other player is just so good as to be unfathomable, or that they come from some alternate universe where that move is a sure-fire game-winner. ie. they’re crazy.

Hence to my opponent I say:

“Okay, where’s the real Tentative, and what have you done to him…?”

Restraint. Restraint…? Restraint…???

And you’re using that word in conjunction with human beings…? That branch of primates renowed for displaying its lack - those bloat-headed monkies that raven all in their paths…? Hmm.

I’m protesting too much. Okay, in the abstract, if everyone was restrained in their behaviour then yes, everything would be lovely - bluebirds would alight upon every shoulder and sing Disneyesque tunes while we skipped along wooded paths dressed in ribbons and bows. Pink ones even.

I have kids, you have kids, so we know the amount of blood, sweat and tears we’ve had to expend just to get them to think of their sisters and brothers when sharing out the sweets. And you reckon we can do that to the entire population of the Earth. In a couple of generations. Presumably without using any form of coercion and repression in the process…?

Smileys fail me.

I’m sorry, but I’m seeing droves of jack-booted Restraint-Police trampling over helplessly consumption-addicted teens who’re chanting “We’re entitled !!! We deserve the best, fuck the rest !!!” and crushing their fingers as they tap spastically on keyboards updating twitter and facebook. And I’m seeing that going on for centuries. And still not doing any good.

Obviously, anyone with half a brain can see that Tentative’s right and the human vice of ‘too much and right now’ is going to kill us all, or at the very least force us right to the brink of extinction. And yet we keep right on with the slash and burn bullshit we’ve always done since we picked up the first stone axe. Why…? Why keep taking the pill we know will kill us in the end…?

That’s easy, if the same pill keeps you alive right now.

Retraint is not a stable behavioural gambit. It only works if everyone is as equally as restrained as you. The first individual, or group of individuals that reneagues on the new and shiny ‘restrained’ social contract will surge ahead like a Mustang on nitro. Unless they are massively repressed instantly, by some (scrupulously neutral, unbribable) coercive force that er… wouldn’t exist anymore in our restrained eden.

Anyway. I drew a graph. Can’t remember why now, as I did it on Monday, but here you go.

It’s a bit general, but it’s intended to illustrate the cycles Tentative mentioned. [Stability is in green btw. I forgot to label it].When legitimacy is high, people toe the line because it is overwelmingly apparent that that line is the right one to toe, and the governence is equally right in supporting that line. However, times change as do circumstances and legitimacy fades as rulers do stupid things like buy one too many Ferraris and get caught with one or four too many super-models while everyone else is stuck with a Volkswagon Beetle and the not-so-bad-looking-if-you-squint-a-little, girl next door.

When the lines cross, things get ugly fast. The secret-police get their capes out and wars on terror are declared, whether terror knows about it or not. Unlike the graph, this period of high repression and low legitimacy can extend for as long as it takes. Then, come the revolution, the ratios of repression to legitimacy reverse again, though in the interim, stability goes out the window as infrastructure gets blown up, people get killed and general mayhem rules. Rinse and repeat. It’s not rocket-science. It’s a stable relationship. Stable because for a society to work, it needs to be held to some predictable standard of conduct. People need to be able to bank on next week being pretty much the same as this week, otherwise they’ll go to the bank, withdraw all their money, convert it into gold or cans of baked beans or whatever and hide it under the matress - then act all surprised when their neighbor comes round with a machete, removes the stash from under the matress, takes a dump on their living room carpet and fucks off into the wild blue yonder.

Stability must be maintained, and mutual restraint, at least without a gun to the head somewhere involved, ain’t stable. And that’s the irony. Tentative’s restrained society would be more repressed than mine ever would. :-k - Food-stamps and ration-books and women drawing lines up the backs of their legs.

(I mean, so okay - that worked in World-War II, but then again, it was only World-War II that made it work. There’s a catch there somewhere, with ‘22’ written on it).

First, I have to thank you for agreeing that restraint would make social interaction a better (and more stable) world. But best of all, is your graph. With the vertical scale of 0-100, it proves what I’ve been saying. Repression and coercion doesn’t provide stability. The repeat cycles of crash and burn was a wonderful visual. Thank you.

I’ve no illusion that repression and coercion will ever disappear completely. It can’t. It’s an important tool in “civilizing” our children. “No, you can’t pee in daddy’s shoes. If you do, he’ll swat your bottom.” Every form of governance, whether child rearing or international relations carries some form of repression and coercion. But this in no way suggests that it has to be the dominate paradigm as it is today.

Whether it take two or three generations or a hundred makes no difference. If restraint is taught long enough, genuine social stability finally takes hold.

Back to your graph: What I’m suggesting is the reduction of the amplitude of your wave pattern. Get the ups and downs someplace between forty and sixty. The graph looks better now, doesn’t it? The crux of this is to begin moving away from the failed paradigm of repression toward a new paradigm of restraint. It will take time, but after 10,000 years of failure, it’s time to try something new, and you have to start some place.

An overview: It seems like we half-agree on most points made by the other. If there is a difference in our perspectives, you seem to be saying “That’s the way it is.” I can’t argue that this hasn’t been the case, but I’m saying that it’s well past time for humanity to look for better answers.

[size=85][psst - are we finished…? I’ve got one more “finishing statements” type post left in me, or we can leave it here if you like.][/size]

The original deal was two back -and-forths and one summation, but we’ve boon-doggled this to the point of pub talk. So go ahead. Wouldn’t want to inhibit any thoughts you may have. If I can think of anything else do I get a fourth shot?

Sure, I started first so you’ve one in hand. I’ll get to it.

Actually, screw it, I wasn’t gonna do anything more than point out some obvious niggles, and I guess the judges will be shrewd enough to do that for themselves.

Let the judging commence I say.

I’m fine with that. Did we have anyone but UPF consent to judging this (cough) debate?

Hey Mods! Can someone sort out the judging and get this show on the road?

UPF, the honorium check is in the mail. Trust me. :^o :laughing:

Two more Judges?

I’ll be one, I haven’t really read any of it yet, so I’ll be neutral.

Okay, UPF, Pav, and who…?

We could do with a lady to balance stuff out. How about Blurred…? Anita has already pulled a wobbley and bailed on us, Arc’s a wee-bit too romantically inclined - no offence - for my taste and I can’t think of anyone else. At a push the man with a line for his name and Pezer owe us a judgement, if they fancy it.

So i just issue my own judgment right? i don’t collaborate with the other judges, do i?

i’ll need a couple days to go through the whole thing again, before i post my expert opinion.

and Tent, when you make out that check you should include a gratuity, as i’ll be working over the holiday weekend.

UPF and Pav,

Could you come up with a third judge? Tab and I have established “reputations” that seem to make people wary of dealing with either of us. :laughing:

UPF, so you get to work this weekend? Who did you piss off to get that fucking deal? Anyway, Cookies and a carton of milk on it’s way…

I could get you a camel no problem. For real. :-$

Go for it, UPF. A camel would be a cool chick magnet. I mean, what a pick up line! “Hi beautiful. Wanna ride home on my camel?” What girl could resist that? :laughing:

Oh, it’s a good deal if Tab picks up the Fed Ex freight charges, the costs of the mandantory quarantine period, and the vet bill for appropriate vaccinations. I’m sure he’d be happy to oblige.

i work every weekend - gotta keep food in my belly and shoes on me feets. but i meant i’d be working on my judgment over the weekend, which i think warrants at least a batch of pot brownies and a carton of chocolate milk, as well as at least 20% of whatever money you have in the bank. And a camel.

It’s on its way - she’s called Delores, two-hump fighting dromedary. Eats dried moss and kicks like a couple of mules all cellotaped together.

We’ll come up with a third Judge who has not read the Debate if UPF and myself don’t make it unanimous. I’ll not read his judgment nor he mine.

This will be my judgment: Pav, read no further until you’ve posted your own . . .

. . .

i feel as though the debate was a draw, here’s why:

The topic itself raises two seperate questions:

First, do repression and coercion work for providing social stability? (Tab’s primary focus)

and

Second, ought repression and coercion be used in the first place? (this would be the “for and against” question - Tent’s primary focus)

  • So, right off the bat, we have our two participants in the debate focusing on seperate issues, and in the ensuing confusion little (beyond what we already knew going in) is actually resolved.

Tab argues that repression and coercion work to provide the aforementioned social stabilty, at least for finite, though sometimes quite extended, stretches of time. Here, he seems to have the good fortune of arguing for the self-evident in that regard. Though he does so with his usual verve and wit (and cool little visuals), there is no escaping the fact that he is simply pointing out the obvious. Even Tent agrees with the basic point here. Now, Tab, as we all know, is a wiley enough debater not to stop there. He goes on to make the very interesting assertion that periods of repression are actually beneficial for societies in transition because they weed out the dross from the pool of potential up and coming leaders,

  • Quite a fascinating proposal, but, here, he does not have the advantage of arguing what is already readily apparent, and, imo, fails to persuasively demonstrate his theory beyond simply stating how it might work if it were true, leaving the impression that it’s just a cool, clever idea he thought up over a bowl of wheatabix and camel-milk one morning, rather than something he actually knows to be the case. As for coercion, he again points out the obvious (as he very well should) when he talks of the need for recognized, legitimate enforcement of social rules and the essential role it plays in society as we have come to understand it, but does not make the case for the more extreme forms of coercion (brutality and systemic killings, say), or how those might be any more likely to stabilize, rather than destabilize, a given society.

Tent, for his part, acknowledges that both repression and coercion as described by Tab can work, for finite periods of time - but rightfully points to the perennial, social crash-and-burn that we see occuring throughout the history of highly repressive regimes, and so posits that it is time for an alternative approach. Reasonable enough, but he fails to really make the case, or to demonstrate the ways in which such boom-bust cycles might be maladaptive. Instead, he talks in vague terms of “restraint”, saying:

He fails, however, to demonstrate this, even admitting that the idea (as appealing as such a paradigm-shift might seem for many of us) finds little creedence historically. So, ultimately, he’s just doing what Tab did: making stuff up to suit his position. It’s good stuff, granted, but he doesn’t really develop it enough to be fully persuasive.

So, in the end, we basically have Tab and Tent kind of talking past one another: Tab making an empirical argument while Tent makes a moral one - and, alas, IMO, neither actually makes a fully developed case FOR or AGAINST repression and coercion.

Yea. Damn. It was just a cool idea I pulled out of my ass. Thinking back I should have used India and Ghandi’s eventual arisal to illustrate a historical precedent. But, being a lazy scuzz, I didn’t bother. Gosh-darnarize it.

Thanks for the “You both equally lose” verdict. :laughing:

I think Tab has it right. We both just “pulled whatever out of our ass” and tried to run a bluff. You caught both of us and we deserve the hall of shame award for not trying. I was in forensics for almost eight years. It isn’t like I don’t know a debate when I see one, and neither of us really debated the subject. I really didn’t have much choice but to “change the subject” because Tab had too much on his side to counter, but I did my usual half-assed job and you were more than kind to call it a draw.

Hopefully, the camel will be just compensation for your efforts. :wink:

Ooh no, the camel got cancelled. Delores has been put out to stud. Or whatever the equivalent practice is for sexy girl-camels.