Liberty and coercion
This is the overview article about the connection between toleration and liberty.
Tolerance is about consciously allowing controversial people, ideas and actions. In this way, toleration is closely intertwined with the ideal of freedom. Liberty is a difficult concept, because our freedom is actually always limited. That is why I prefer to speak of the absence of coercion. The question is: how can we form a society in which people coerce each other as little as possible. Even if we do not like them, their ideas or their behaviour.
To this end, we first take a look at pre-modern societies, where there is a lot of pressure, but little coercion.
The Korean village known for its magnanimity
In 1992, the anthropologist Vincent Brandt (b. 1924) wanders through the South Korean village Uihang, on a remote peninsula on the west coast. He finds the overgrown memorial stone with his name on it, from 1966. He then stayed there for a year for field research, for which he obtained his PhD. Brandt walks around a bit confused. In 1966 he was a well-k…
Such societies are foreign to us now, as a result of the modernity that has gradually crept into us. An important characteristic of this modernisation is individualisation. I investigate where this individualisation comes from, and whether a society with more community spirit is a feasible option, where people address each other more, but coerce each other less.
The solitude of our own heart
The previous episode was about a remote, pre-modern village in 1966 South Korea. The community was very much alive, its six hundred residents were intensively involved with each other, people cared about each other, they had time for each other. Even if you crossed the line you were not considered poison; the village prided itself on it
We then zoom in on a motive for applying coercion: one's own good. We start with paternalism from the perspective of human dignity. People need to be protected from themselves, because some behaviour is unworthy. Using the example of dwarf tossing, I investigate whether human dignity can be an independent motive for paternalism. I conclude that it cannot.
People should not behave in an unworthy manner, the French judge ruled
Manuel Wackenheim has dwarfism; he is 118 centimetres tall. He lives in the remote Moselle department in France. In 1990, when he was 23 years old, he met an enterprising impresario who suggested he start performing in discos. He got an american football uniform fitted, including a harness and a helmet. For a fee, customers lifted him up with both hands…
But that does not mean that we can reject paternalism in all cases. If people do stupid things that only harm themselves, are you allowed to stop them? I conclude that this is only permitted under very strict conditions, stricter than what we are used to.
Are you in your right mind?
Molly had inherited a nice fortune. One evening she goes to a casino, where she loses everything. In fact, she continues to gamble, but now with borrowed money. At the end of the evening, she is left with an enormous debt to a criminal, who charges her extortionate interest. Because she cannot afford it, he locks her up and she has to repay her debt through prostitution.
Then we will consider the last motive for paternalism: harm to others.
This article may be perceived as offensive
Intervention should only occur when people cause harm to others. However, it is not that simple. What about social harm, offences, and the undermining of societal morals?
But that is not all. There are all kinds of other motives for using coercion. There is a fairly broad consensus that coercion should also be used to force people to cooperate. Coercion to cooperate is a legitimate motive, but it can also get out of hand. Hence an article about our ingrained meddling and regulatory urge.
Meddling
Hans was a fisherman. Every day, he’d row out into the fjord by his remote village in Norway, casting his line to catch salmon. It was a modest life — he’d sell his catch to the villagers, which was enough to scrape by. Though young and capable of catching more fish, Hans didn’t bother because there simply wasn’t enough demand in the village. Sometimes …
Crime is of course the first motive for coercion that comes to mind. Two articles on that: one on drugs, and one on our instinct for revenge.
We need to talk about drugs
Drugs are dangerous. Not only for the user, but also for society. You will read here what can happen if too many people start using drugs. But the fight against drugs may be even worse than the disease. You can read here how the fight against drugs has turned into a fiasco. We have lessons from history, economic analysis and the theory of soft paternali…
This is followed by a consideration of the nature of freedom: to what extent is the freedom we experience and idealise also real freedom? What if our ability to make free choices is only an illusion? For this, we look for the latest insights into free will, from scientists who study the human brain.
Are you a kind of zombie? Some brain scientists actually think you are.
Picture this: everything you do — every blink of your eyes, your career choice, even who you might cheat with in January 2032 — is already set in stone. Sounds absurd, right? But some neuroscientists claim it’s true. In fact, they argue that the idea of “free will” is nothing more than a clever illusion. Your brain is playing tricks on you. That feeling…
In a final article we draw conclusions: what is a better moral ideal? Freedom, autonomy, or the absence of unjustified coercion?