JackTheMimic on Nostr: Just to define a term (because my pedantic nature recoils at the phrase "Righteous ...
Just to define a term (because my pedantic nature recoils at the phrase "Righteous coercion")
Coercion:
1. The act or practice of coercing.
2. Power or ability to coerce.
3. The act or process of coercing.
4. The application to another of either physical or moral force. When the force is physical, and cannot be resisted, then the act produced by it is a nullity, so far as concerns the party coerced. When the force is moral, then the act, though voidable, is imputable to the party doing it, unless he be so paralyzed by terror as to act convulsively. At the same time coercion is not negatived by the fact of submission under force. “Coactus volui” (I consented under compulsion) is the condition of mind which, when there is volition forced by coercion, annuls the result of such coercion.
5. Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing.
6. Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will.
7. A specific instance of coercing.
8. Conversion of a value of one data type to a value of another data type.
9. Using force to cause something to occur.
As far as my moral understanding none of these definitions can be performed righteously. What I think you are refering to as coercion may very well be defined as just ownership or property rights. When one is said to "own" something that is to say they have authoritative control of the use, maintenance, and right to exchange. Your dominion is your property. (God's dominion is everthing and God is the Progenator) Within one's property rule enforcement is not coercion because those on your property have been invited and thus agree to those rules. One cannot agree to coercion.
When it comes to government, the only way one might say you "Agree to the rules" of citizenship, is to be under the illusion that you chose the government. That IS an illusion. You may be complicit in the government's actions but you have not chosen anything. This lack of free will to choose IS coercion regardless of perceptions of divinity. The scriptures are inspired by God and written by men. In so doing, they are limited by man's understanding of societal structure and dominion. It could very well be that when a polity is made of wicked men, they make a wicked government. But it is not at all clear to me, that individuals working in their own endeavors freely and collaboratively exchanging their goods and services, need a governance structure outside of their moral adherence to God's will. There is no place for interference from the state even if it could somehow act righteously (again I am unsure how taking money without permission can be righteous given the commandment expressly forbidding it.) That claim to Righteous coercion IS the illusion to which I was referring.
I hope that clarifies where I seem to diverge with your view point. Peace and love, Brother.
Coercion:
1. The act or practice of coercing.
2. Power or ability to coerce.
3. The act or process of coercing.
4. The application to another of either physical or moral force. When the force is physical, and cannot be resisted, then the act produced by it is a nullity, so far as concerns the party coerced. When the force is moral, then the act, though voidable, is imputable to the party doing it, unless he be so paralyzed by terror as to act convulsively. At the same time coercion is not negatived by the fact of submission under force. “Coactus volui” (I consented under compulsion) is the condition of mind which, when there is volition forced by coercion, annuls the result of such coercion.
5. Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing.
6. Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will.
7. A specific instance of coercing.
8. Conversion of a value of one data type to a value of another data type.
9. Using force to cause something to occur.
As far as my moral understanding none of these definitions can be performed righteously. What I think you are refering to as coercion may very well be defined as just ownership or property rights. When one is said to "own" something that is to say they have authoritative control of the use, maintenance, and right to exchange. Your dominion is your property. (God's dominion is everthing and God is the Progenator) Within one's property rule enforcement is not coercion because those on your property have been invited and thus agree to those rules. One cannot agree to coercion.
When it comes to government, the only way one might say you "Agree to the rules" of citizenship, is to be under the illusion that you chose the government. That IS an illusion. You may be complicit in the government's actions but you have not chosen anything. This lack of free will to choose IS coercion regardless of perceptions of divinity. The scriptures are inspired by God and written by men. In so doing, they are limited by man's understanding of societal structure and dominion. It could very well be that when a polity is made of wicked men, they make a wicked government. But it is not at all clear to me, that individuals working in their own endeavors freely and collaboratively exchanging their goods and services, need a governance structure outside of their moral adherence to God's will. There is no place for interference from the state even if it could somehow act righteously (again I am unsure how taking money without permission can be righteous given the commandment expressly forbidding it.) That claim to Righteous coercion IS the illusion to which I was referring.
I hope that clarifies where I seem to diverge with your view point. Peace and love, Brother.