'I can consent to be coerced at a later time' Is this a logical paradox?

Question

The sentence seems to be a paradox. Defining coerce as persuading an unwilling person, while also having agreed to be persuaded would indicate you are not unwilling. Does this line of reasoning make sense?

Answer 1

Social contract theory pictures politics like this, agreeing to certain functions being carried out by the state, and so necessarily to taxes that will fund them with coercion even for citizens who don't want to pay - for instance a minority group who don't agree with what the majority want the state to do (see issues of tyranny-of-the-majority).

People can agree to all sorts of things, without the issues involved being logical. For instance a person might agree consensually to a BDSM relationship where they will be coerced. If problems then arise, the issues are moral and legal ones, not logical ones.

A good case for this kind of issue, is whether in a democracy the electorate can be allowed to vote to end democracy. There is then a tension between democracy as following the popular will, and a return to the problems of the pre-democratic era and of authoritarianism in general where tensions arise that generate destructive violence or oppression of that rather than any attempt to negotiate an easing of tensions, especially if the group unhappy with the situation is a minority group. This is case of a logical paradox, in that we have to say in a democratic system the electorate cannot simply decide anything, like to end democracy or to exert tyranny-of-the-majority, because addressing those is exactly why democracy exists. The view democracy is the unlimited ability of the majority to make any decision by a majority vote, is a common misrepresentation of what democracy is. So the definition of democracy must be elaborated beyond that, to define the logical paradox.

Answer 2

'I can consent to be coerced at a later time' Is this a logical paradox?

Absolutely not. Consider that when you voluntarily enlist and go through MEPS, you soon find yourself in a military branch which has the right to coerce you (and harass you and scream at you and order you about and if need be send you to your death). An individual has the right to forsake certain rights in the future. Another prime example is voluntarily checking yourself into a mental hospital because of an awareness of a loss of mental competency.

But what language can we use to explain how we have dissolved the paradox? If one has volition, one can use one's volition to attempt to have others constrain one's volition in the future, generally with an understanding that coercion may be used by others. There is a difference, in this way, between short-term and long-term desire. I may desire to lose weight, but not desire to exercise, so I arrange to attend a fitness bootcamp in another state where I empower that institution to deprive me of food and rest because I anticipate that my resistance to exercise is at odds with my goal to be fit.

One last example might be devoting one's life to God. Monks and nuns historically become part of religious orders where the order is empowered to help bring one closer to God. Think of the young nun who optimistically wants to make the world a better place, but understands there are temptations of the flesh. Upon becoming a Franciscan, the young nun accepts the penalties of the community and Mother Superior to help her overcome what she believes are bad choices. In this way, consenting to coercion later is a rational act.

Answer 3

You can consent to coercion and be coerced into consenting, but you cannot be coerced into freely consenting, even if you consented to the coercion. I don't see the issue here, attention seeking aside; things are in flux. In general no means no, most agreements are temporary, and not all consent is freely given.

If you mean can I want (rather than consent) something that I later wish hadn't happened, sure.