Three categories of interaction

We can interact voluntarily or involuntarily. Often we can choose between the two. And if we choose involuntary interaction, we can choose to give a reason for our choice or not. This creates three categories of interaction.

If we interact involuntarily without giving reasons, and I give you a command and threaten to retaliate if you disobey, can I object consistently when other people treat me the same way, or even worse? Someone who chooses to interact involuntarily without giving reasons silently presupposes that we don’t need to explain involuntary actions, at least not the sort they’re carrying out. So if one person doesn’t need to give reasons, no one needs to give reasons. 

Suppose that is wrong. Suppose I say that I need no reasons but you do. That sounds like special pleading. But more interestingly, I seem to imply I have a reason for my actions. There must be some reason that explains why I am free to do as I wish while you are not. Such a difference in status requires an explanation; otherwise you have no reason to restrain yourself and I have no grounds to object to your lack of restraint. But if that reason exists, I am not doing as I wish without having a reason, I am just refusing to provide my reason. My action presupposes not that I don’t need a reason and you do, but that I have a reason and you don’t. This contradicts my assumption that I need not give reasons for my involuntary actions. So if I say I need no reason to interact involuntarily with others, no one needs a reason when interacting involuntarily with me. I can hold the position that I need no reason while you do need one, but I contradict myself. If I say I have a reason but I won’t provide it, I am probably bluffing. If I act as if I need no reasons, then my actions presuppose that no one needs a reason. This provides a negative principle of reciprocity. (This resembles Kinsella's concept of libertarian estoppel.) It doesn’t say no one should turn the other cheek, it says that they have no logical requirement to do so. 

We could also frame this as, unjustified involuntary interaction implies reciprocity and justifies self-defense.

Is the principle of negative reciprocity normative or positive? It doesn’t label anything normal or abnormal, good or bad, permitted or forbidden. It just says I can’t remain logically consistent while objecting to other people acting the same way I do. If I want to be able to object consistently to things other people do, I need a reason when I interact involuntarily, one that could convince an impartial arbiter of my special status. This is a weak principle of society. If I don’t care what other people do and have no desire to object to anything, I can say no one needs a reason for anything; but then no one needs a reason for anything they do to me. Or I can say everyone needs a reason for interacting involuntarily, and I have one. It’s a choice.  

I think most people prefer reciprocity - don’t hurt me and I won’t hurt you. That goes a long way.

To summarize, we have three mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories of interaction we can sometimes choose among:

• We can interact voluntarily, without need for justification.
• We can interact involuntarily with a good reason.
• We can abandon justification or reciprocity, but not both.

That leads to the next question: what sorts of reasons can justify involuntary interaction?