Another view is that anarchism sees only voluntary authority as legitimate. Here, “voluntary” is used to mean that one may opt out, but chooses not to.
Well, the whole text is about power. What it is, how it works. Power is breaking or bending the will of another, successfully communicating opportunity costs. To change another person's course of action to my own advantage. If I can bend a person's will, then I have power over that person.
I do not think this is compatible with any form of anarchism. Where is the room here for willingness or voluntariness? Again, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between coercion and "free" or "voluntary" choice. Free from what?
This is an idiosyncratic use of “power”. Power is a word with many uses. The most basic one derives directly from physics, and just indicates any capability to do something. Political or ethical philosophers sometimes use it to mean the ability to change the legal or moral framework. Anarchism would not eliminate those.
You seem to have something different in mind, perhaps domination or coercion. Anarchism indeed aims to eliminate or minimize those.
Breaking the will of another and communicating opportunity costs seem distinct. Maybe you mean imposing new and restrictive opportunity costs, as opposed to just pointing out some existing costs?
One can change another person's course of action to their mutual advantage or to the one's exclusive advantage. These also seem distinct.
I agree that it is difficult to make a clear distinction between coercion and "free" or "voluntary" choice in the way of analytic philosophers. But that doesn’t mean the concept is useless. It means there are gray areas that require more explanation, but also that there are areas that are one thing or the other, without grayness. I was free to reply to this comment, or to ignore it. If I get mugged, I am free to ignore it in only a restricted way, one arranged by and advantageous to the mugger.
To make it even clearer: I wanted to develop the concept of power in a praxeological context. Praxeology is the science of human action, a special form of economics, so it is a social science about social interactions.
What do you think power is in this context? Getting people to do what you want them to do, what they would not do without your powerful communication of costs and opportunities (what they can gain by following you and what they would lose if they do not). I think this is the core meaning of power in a social context.
The gray parts are the real parts of practice. There are always impurities("coercion"). A good and useful theory tries to catch and embrace them.
Maybe I overreacted to the bit about breaking people's wills. It is possible to wield social power without breaking someone's will. And in a social context, I would find the word “authority” more apt, though I understand you now. And some people would object to my use of “authority” outside the context of formal coercive hierarchies.
“What do you think power is in this context?”
The ability to get things done. I would usually associate it with the physical aspect, except in the case that political philosophers talk about, where it means the ability to change the rules of the social game. I guess we could describe your use that way too, but usually they mean changing the law or widespread social norms, not getting particular persons to make exceptions to the rules or change their goals temporarily.
“The gray parts are the real parts of practice.”
I don’t think so. Maybe you have an example in mind?
“ anarchism wants to drive out power completely.”
Another view is that anarchism sees only voluntary authority as legitimate. Here, “voluntary” is used to mean that one may opt out, but chooses not to.
Well, the whole text is about power. What it is, how it works. Power is breaking or bending the will of another, successfully communicating opportunity costs. To change another person's course of action to my own advantage. If I can bend a person's will, then I have power over that person.
I do not think this is compatible with any form of anarchism. Where is the room here for willingness or voluntariness? Again, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between coercion and "free" or "voluntary" choice. Free from what?
This is an idiosyncratic use of “power”. Power is a word with many uses. The most basic one derives directly from physics, and just indicates any capability to do something. Political or ethical philosophers sometimes use it to mean the ability to change the legal or moral framework. Anarchism would not eliminate those.
You seem to have something different in mind, perhaps domination or coercion. Anarchism indeed aims to eliminate or minimize those.
Breaking the will of another and communicating opportunity costs seem distinct. Maybe you mean imposing new and restrictive opportunity costs, as opposed to just pointing out some existing costs?
One can change another person's course of action to their mutual advantage or to the one's exclusive advantage. These also seem distinct.
I agree that it is difficult to make a clear distinction between coercion and "free" or "voluntary" choice in the way of analytic philosophers. But that doesn’t mean the concept is useless. It means there are gray areas that require more explanation, but also that there are areas that are one thing or the other, without grayness. I was free to reply to this comment, or to ignore it. If I get mugged, I am free to ignore it in only a restricted way, one arranged by and advantageous to the mugger.
To make it even clearer: I wanted to develop the concept of power in a praxeological context. Praxeology is the science of human action, a special form of economics, so it is a social science about social interactions.
What do you think power is in this context? Getting people to do what you want them to do, what they would not do without your powerful communication of costs and opportunities (what they can gain by following you and what they would lose if they do not). I think this is the core meaning of power in a social context.
The gray parts are the real parts of practice. There are always impurities("coercion"). A good and useful theory tries to catch and embrace them.
Maybe I overreacted to the bit about breaking people's wills. It is possible to wield social power without breaking someone's will. And in a social context, I would find the word “authority” more apt, though I understand you now. And some people would object to my use of “authority” outside the context of formal coercive hierarchies.
“What do you think power is in this context?”
The ability to get things done. I would usually associate it with the physical aspect, except in the case that political philosophers talk about, where it means the ability to change the rules of the social game. I guess we could describe your use that way too, but usually they mean changing the law or widespread social norms, not getting particular persons to make exceptions to the rules or change their goals temporarily.
“The gray parts are the real parts of practice.”
I don’t think so. Maybe you have an example in mind?
“There are always impurities("coercion"). “
There are layers.