because you have the freedom to do that and it is voluntary
So what’s the agreed upon definition of “having the freedom” and “voluntary” here? Because even under an authoritarian government, you can technically go against the authorities, but there will be consequences to doing so. What level of consequences do we consider to be acceptable for these purposes? Or is it not a question of level of severity of the consequences?
An example of what I’m thinking of is a situation where you defer to someone else for their expertise because maybe they’re the only doctor available who can treat your illness, so you need to do as they say to get better. If you refuse, then you die. Is that voluntary? I can choose to die, so the “freedom” is there, but the consequences are severe.
where you defer to someone else for their expertise because maybe they’re the only doctor available who can treat your illness, so you need to do as they say to get better.
you have the right word for it: expertise (see my other comment).
it becomes a hierarchy if the doctor involuntarily hospitalises you or uses the courts to force you to undergo the treatment; the power (force) to do that is authority. so long as you still have the power to challenge or otherwise discuss the prognosis, it is not a hierarchy, especially if the treatment is gratis and libre.
Illegal actions are always available. States use violent consequences to coerce legal choices. Someone might say the Kent State massacre was an acceptable consequence for violating the rules of the state.
The set of legal and moral actions are not one to one. Any moral deference of autonomy needs to be consentual. There are times I would choose death instead of the doctor. For example, unpayable debt would make death an acceptable outcome.
Autonomy is about power to take an action. Heirarchy is about power over the actions of others. Anarchy is an individual and social philosophy.
I think maybe a level of external intentional threat is necessary for it to be involuntary. Deferring to an expert because you want good results or because you feel more comfortable in a follower role seems distinct from being threatened with going to hell or losing your home.
But even then I still wonder because what if the thing you’re threatened with losing is the other person’s companionship? It’s reasonable to not want to interact with someone uncooperative, but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they’re going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.
I also think there needs to be a word for what people mean when they say voluntary hierarchy if we’re going to assign it a strictly involuntary meaning. You can’t just subtract vocabulary and expect everyone to jump on board.
but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they’re going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.
this is an ongoing discussion within anarchism.
ideally, removing someone who wants to remain should be the last resort of a group. ideally, someone would not get to this point unless everyone else in the group (at some point) wanted them there.
So what’s the agreed upon definition of “having the freedom” and “voluntary” here? Because even under an authoritarian government, you can technically go against the authorities, but there will be consequences to doing so. What level of consequences do we consider to be acceptable for these purposes? Or is it not a question of level of severity of the consequences?
An example of what I’m thinking of is a situation where you defer to someone else for their expertise because maybe they’re the only doctor available who can treat your illness, so you need to do as they say to get better. If you refuse, then you die. Is that voluntary? I can choose to die, so the “freedom” is there, but the consequences are severe.
you have the right word for it: expertise (see my other comment).
it becomes a hierarchy if the doctor involuntarily hospitalises you or uses the courts to force you to undergo the treatment; the power (force) to do that is authority. so long as you still have the power to challenge or otherwise discuss the prognosis, it is not a hierarchy, especially if the treatment is gratis and libre.
Illegal actions are always available. States use violent consequences to coerce legal choices. Someone might say the Kent State massacre was an acceptable consequence for violating the rules of the state.
The set of legal and moral actions are not one to one. Any moral deference of autonomy needs to be consentual. There are times I would choose death instead of the doctor. For example, unpayable debt would make death an acceptable outcome.
Autonomy is about power to take an action. Heirarchy is about power over the actions of others. Anarchy is an individual and social philosophy.
I think maybe a level of external intentional threat is necessary for it to be involuntary. Deferring to an expert because you want good results or because you feel more comfortable in a follower role seems distinct from being threatened with going to hell or losing your home.
But even then I still wonder because what if the thing you’re threatened with losing is the other person’s companionship? It’s reasonable to not want to interact with someone uncooperative, but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they’re going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.
I also think there needs to be a word for what people mean when they say voluntary hierarchy if we’re going to assign it a strictly involuntary meaning. You can’t just subtract vocabulary and expect everyone to jump on board.
this is an ongoing discussion within anarchism.
ideally, removing someone who wants to remain should be the last resort of a group. ideally, someone would not get to this point unless everyone else in the group (at some point) wanted them there.
this is where relationship anarchy and restorative and transformative justice come into play:
for disclosure: i’m not for relationship anarchy, but i’m not against it, either.
I cannot tell you how happy I am to have been given literature.