|
|
|
|
|
by eesmith
1247 days ago
|
|
"Could" is doing a lot of work there. It could also be productive. (Another example of "so high-level and abstract as to be useless".) Here's a counter-example. Assume 99% of the people who run a red light / haven't vaccinated their kid, do so for some reason totally disconnected from reacting to coercion, and 1% of the people are fighting The Man. Now we change the coercive circumstances [1] so that 98% of those people now stop at a red light / have vaccinated their kids, the 1% still haven't changed, and an additional 1% have joined them. That means the overall number of red light runners / non-vaccinated children go down significantly. Which means those changes are productive. [1] For traffic lights this might include: higher fines, more active police enforcement, propaganda campaigns about the dangers of running a red light, changing the lights to be more visible. For vaccination these might include: remind parents of vaccination requirements, provide in-school and home-visit vaccination services, and increase propaganda campaigns. |
|
Are you seriously trying to argue your way away from agreeing that coercion can be refused by itself so much that you can't resist providing your hypothetical?