# What compulsion the very existence of the community



## javajava

Hello there!

I was reading an Ethics book and ran into the following verb-like word that I couldn't understand: compulsion. Could you help me please? The original statement is as follows:

"What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may demand must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary infringement of freedom."

I took it from a philosophy (ethics) book. I believe they missed a comma after the compulsion word, but I've consulted several sources and they write it up the same original way. What do u think???

Many thanks in advance!

Best wishes!


----------



## owlman5

Welcome to the forum, javajava.  Please name the source of the sentence you are quoting.  "A philosophy book" is not enough.  What is the title of the book?  Who wrote that book?  Thank you.


----------



## suzi br

Hi
I don't think there is a comma missing.
Compulsion is a noun. It's derived from the verb to compel.
The most relevant definition of it is this one from our own dictionary:

an inner drive that causes a person to perform actions, often of a trivial and repetitive nature, against his or her will

Compulsions can be driven by various factors. In this case the writer is discussing  compulsions which come from  the demands generated by the  very existence of the community and the state 

Then these compulsions must be carried out with some restraint, so as not to infringe on freedoms.

What exactly all of that means will depend on the broader context of the paragraph / chapter / book itself.


----------



## bennymix

Respectfully, I disagree.   States compel, that is force compliance-- think how police handle demonstrators.



> OP  "What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may demand...."



A government, almost by definition, has a monopoly on the use of force.  A state or community must defend itself to exist--  exercize compulsion on persons representing dangers from within or without.

Compulsion = patterned routine exercize of force; here, done with proper authority and legality, in the service of order and public safety.    The police arrest robbers.   The society drafts persons into the army for defense and can even execute those who undermine the survival of the state (=treason).  

The author, of course, while recognizing this, is saying that free, democratic societies *limit* government compulsion and keep to the necessary, the basics.    An example of breaking this rule is the Russian law against gay 'advocacy,'  meaning that publically making a 'pro gay' speech can get you arrested.   The state hardly needs to do that for order and safety.

==
NOTE:  





> I believe they missed a comma after the compulsion word,


   No, if you mean, just after the word 'compulsion,' that would muck up the sentence.

The structure is the same as this, and I can see why you might want a comma (though it's wrong).

_"Whatever bone my dog wants is going to be given to him in his bowl."_


----------



## bearded

Hello
Would it be correct to presume that the initial word 'what' , in that sentence, stands for 'whatever'?
Maybe the sentence is clearer if you understand ''whatever compulsion ..the state may demand..''
Compulsion would be the object, and the very existence and the state would be the subjects.
I think this would respond to the OP's doubt.


----------



## bennymix

I agree that 'whatever' would clarify.   In general the sentence is hard to read--not graceful or well-constructed;  ponderous and a little opaque.


----------



## velisarius

Exactly, bearded man; "Whatever coercion" is what sprang to my mind. But I think we are still supposed to be waiting for the _source_ of this sentence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

> "What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may  demand must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary  infringement of freedom."


Try it this way:

The compulsion (the ways they compel) required by the community and the state, to ensure their existence, must avoid infringing individual freedoms unnecessarily.

It's saying that although the community allows the police to tap phone calls of potential terrorists, say, to avoid bomb attacks, the police must not take this as a general approval of phone-tapping.


----------



## bennymix

> "What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may  demand must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary  infringement of freedom."



My clarification would be--

_Whatever force is officially exercized by the state or community to ensure its existence must not be taken so far as to infringe on basic, rightful, human freedoms._


----------



## suzi br

Sorry, yes, Bennymix's definition of compulsion being* external* (rather than* internal ) *works better in this case than the one I copied.
(But the rest of my comment is still OK!) 

Sorry if I have added to your confusion.


----------



## RM1(SS)

bearded man said:


> Compulsion would be the object, and the very existence and the state would be the subjects.


I think that _existence_ is the subject, modified by _of the community and the state_.


----------



## bennymix

Bearded: 





> Compulsion would be the object, and the very existence and the state would be the subjects



{Rephrasing} The state exercizes compulsion on the citizens.   Here, what you say is true. 'The state' is the subject.

In the actual sentence, 'compulsion' is the subject, 'must be exercized' is the main verb-phrase, and

"in such a way as to produce no unnecessary infringement of freedom."  is a complex adverbial entity which itself contains a verb 'to produce,' introducing an embedded infinitive phrase {in green}.

I'm lacking some terminology, here.


----------



## bearded

RM1(SS) said:


> I think that _existence_ is the subject, modified by _of the community and the state_.


So you interpret it as ''the very existence of the community and OF the state..'' which is indeed logical.  I thought the existence....and the state  were two coordinated subjects, but it is in fact less logical.


----------



## bennymix

_compulsion  {[that] the very existence [[of the community and [of] the state]] may  demand_}.  The words in [[xx]] are  adjectival prepositional phrases, yes?   The larger entity in {xxx} is an adjectival clause, I believe.


----------



## bearded

RM1(SS) said:


> I think that _existence_ is the subject, modified by _of the community and the state_.





bennymix said:


> _compulsion  {[that] the very existence [[of the community and [of] the state]] may  demand_}.  The words in [[xx]] are  adjectival prepositional phrases, yes?   The larger entity in {xxx} is an adjectival clause, I believe.


Yes, Benny, and thank you.  As concerns the meaning of the sentence, you are confirming RM1's interpretation, it seems to me.


----------



## Edinburgher

I'm glad there seems to be agreement on the answer to the OP's main question, namely that there should not be a comma.

I don't understand the nature of the disagreement between suzi and benny about internal and external compulsion.  To me the sentence is quite clear in structure, in its own perverse little way it could even be described as rather simple, in spite of how complicated it may at first seem.

Subject {the noun clause "What(ever) compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may  demand"}
Verb {"must be exercised"}
(no direct or indirect object but merely an)
Adverbial clause modifying the verb {"in such a way ..."} -- We can simplify this to "with restraint".

Within the noun clause, the subject is technically *existence*, but if we may simplify "the very existence of the community and (of) the state" to "the country", then that is the effective subject of the noun clause.  _The country demands compulsion_ (as a tool to defend itself and to exercise its responsibilities), so *compulsion* is the object within the main sentence's subject clause, and thereby becomes the effective subject of the whole sentence, which in simple terms says:

_ Compulsion must be exercised with restraint._

What compulsion?  That which the country demands.


----------



## bennymix

I believe suzi and I agree that 'external' compulsion is being talked about.*   Not the kind that makes you wash your hands a hundred times a night or continue 'looking for Mr Goodbar.'

*as when the police drag off a demonstrator in front of parliament.


----------



## suzi br

We weren't really disagreeing, bennymix just pointed out that the compulsion / obligaton etc is originating from the state  rather than any personal compulsions.  

I had used the definition straight from our dictionary which was not such a good fit in this context.

That's all.

I think we are quite clear about the sentence structure and its meaning, actually!


----------



## EStjarn

I understand the introductory _what_ here differently from some (but seemingly not all) previous posters. To me it means _the_, not _whatever_. (Usage example from Collins: _We photographed what animals we could see._) Which gives:

_The compulsion that the very existence of the community and the state may demand must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary infringement of freedom._

In all other respects I agree with the consensus of the thread.


----------



## Edinburgher

I don't think _the...that_ sufficiently captures what _what_ seems to want to express here.  I think the sentence is trying to say that no compulsion exercised by (the country) should be permitted to infringe freedom unnecessarily.  If _whatever_ doesn't sufficiently express that for you, what do you think of _any or all_?


----------



## EStjarn

Edinburgher said:


> I don't think _the...that_ sufficiently captures what _what_ seems to want to express here.



It seems we have word against word here: neither of us can prove the other wrong. For some reason I read _what_ as _the _in this particular sentence. I don't normally do that. Perhaps it's something to do with the general style of the text. (I gave a reference to Thomas's post #8 as it seemed he had the same impression.)


Edinburgher said:


> If _whatever_ doesn't sufficiently express that for you, what do you think of _any or all_?


Sorry. _Any or all_ would to me be a synonym of _whatever_, not of _the_.


----------



## bearded

@ Estjarn
But in your example _We photographed what animals we could see_ 'what' means exactly 'whatever' or 'all those (animals) which', and I find it odd that you cannot see the significance of this expression. Another example: _I will purchase what gifts you want,_ i.e. whatever gifts you want, all those that you want. Sorry, I do not feel that you are correctly interpreting this idiomatic expression, which is rather common in English. _We photographed the animals we could see _and _I will purchase the gifts you want_ would have a different meaning.


----------



## EStjarn

@ bearded man
I don't want to discuss the example given by Collins. I provided it mainly to make clear I did not invent this particular sense of _what _myself. If you have an issue with it, you should probably contact the lexicographers behind Collins English Dictionary.


----------



## Edinburgher

EStjarn said:


> I don't want to discuss the example given by Collins.


 That's a pity, since it was you who brought it to the table, presumably because you thought it supported your interpretation. What bearded man and I are saying is that we do not concur that it does that.


> If you have an issue with it, you should probably contact the lexicographers behind Collins English Dictionary.


 There is nothing wrong with the Collins example as an illustration of _what_ meaning _the...that_.  The problem is that this kind of _the...that_ is more specific than simple _the_, and is generally employed when we want to make a statement of extent.  The most likely context in which the Collins example would be said is after a wildlife photography expedition during which disappointingly few animals were seen, but at least we photographed all the ones we did see.


----------



## bearded

Precisely in the Collins Dictionary I found following two examples under 'What (adjective)':
- take what supplies you need
- repair what damage has been caused.
I think they are the same as 'what compulsion....' in the original sentence, and, well, they are given in the Dictionary to illustrate the use of 'what = whatever'.
Perhaps it's not me who have problems with those lexicographers.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm interested in the difference between 

_a. We photographed the animals that we saw.
b. We photographed any animals we saw.
c. We photographed whatever animals we saw.
d. We photographed what animals we saw.
e. We photographed such animals as we saw_.

Clearly they all imply that when they saw an animal they photographed it.

I've deliberately ordered them a. -> e. to illustrate increasing disappointment at the difficulty of seeing animals.


----------



## bennymix

I think EStjarn has a point, and I like Edinburger's explanation of the matter.



> There is nothing wrong with the Collins example as an illustration of _what_ meaning _the...that_.  The problem is that this kind of _the...that_ is more specific than simple _the_,  and is generally employed when we want to make a statement of extent.   The most likely context in which the Collins example would be said is  after a wildlife photography expedition during which disappointingly few  animals were seen, but at least we photographed all the ones we did  see.



"The" in the present case carries special deliminations, built in.  This non-simple 'the', if I may build on Ed's terms, is, I would point out, rather common, e.g., in the case of a woman saying, "The man I will marry will be exceptionally intelligent."

Looking at Thomas's graded list:



> _a. We photographed the animals that we saw.
> b. We photographed any animals we saw.
> c. We photographed whatever animals we saw.
> d. We photographed what animals we saw._



As to his comment:



> Clearly they all imply that when they saw an animal [sic; actually more than one] they photographed it [them].
> 
> I've deliberately ordered them a. -> e. to illustrate increasing disappointment at the difficulty of seeing animals.



First, they do imply, as he says, that one saw some animals.   Further, however, they suggest that that beasts were some of several that we might have seen or hoped or expected to see.

I agree that there is some sense of 'disappointment' that is apparent, but I would note that the denotative and referential meanings are virtually the same.    Five gradations of *meaning* is --or would be-- slicing the salami a bit too thin.   Rather it more like saying, there is a difference in what's conveyed if you say,  "I saw just a few animals" and "I saw damn few animals."

Returning to the OP's structures,  "What few animals I saw, I photographed" and "The few animals that I saw, I photographed." have in my opinion the same meaning, as I believe ES suggests above.


----------



## EStjarn

Edinburgher said:


> That's a pity, since it was you who brought it to the table, presumably because you thought it supported your interpretation.



As I said previously, I provided the example to express that the reading of _what _as _the _was not a freak one on my part. I feel discussing the dictionary example, which lacks context and is therefore even more open to various interpretations, is unnecessary as we have a perfectly valid instance of _what _in the topic sentence.

The sentence was, it appears, originally lifted from _The Human Use of Human Being _(first published 1950) by Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), an American mathematician and philosopher, also considered the originator of cybernetics. 

One may find at 21centurywiener.org a pdf document of the book (which also includes some other texts by Wiener). I have found that it contains 13 instances of _whatever_ (of which 12 from the book - which at least shows that Wiener was not averse to using the word) and 147 instances of _what_ (of which 138 from the book).

I have been able to find two instances in which _what _is used as, or supposedly as, in the topic sentence (there may be more):.
_Thus we see the great figure of Prometheus, the fire-bearer, the prototype of the scientist; a hero but a hero damned, chained on the Caucasus with vultures gnawing at his liver. We read the ringing lines of Aeschylus in which the bound god calls on the whole world under the sun to bear witness to *what torments he suffers at the hands of the gods*. _(p. 184)

_The " Wolf Child" stories, which have led to Kipling's imaginative _Jungle Books_, with their public-school bears and Sandhurst wolves, are almost as little to be relied on in their original stark squalidity as in the _Jungle Books_ idealizations. However, *what evidence there is* goes to show that there is a critical period during which speech is most readily learned; and that if this period is passed over without contact with one's fellow human beings, of whatever sort they may be, the learning of language becomes limited, slow, and highly imperfect._ (p.84)
.​_Comment:_ I would say that in both the above extracts, _what_ means _the_, not _whatever_. If correct, that still doesn't prove that I'm right about the topic sentence. But it would show that the author uses this rather unusual form of _what_ here and there.


----------



## bearded

Dear EStjarn,
You've got a point there with Wiener.  Nevertheless, I would like to observe 1) that the 2 _what_s in the examples are of different nature, and 2) that they might well be interpreted as follows:
- _bear witness to what torments he suffers _This could be an indirect interrogative clause (what = which kind of)
- _what evidence there is_ (same as the topic sentence) could well correspond to _whatever evidence there is / all the evidence there is.
_Apparently we are on different wave lengths, and I regret to say that the examples you quote appear not at all convincing to me.​​


----------



## EStjarn

Dear bearded man,
I'm intrigued by your resistance to accepting my examples. It would almost seem you did not acknowledge this use of _what_. But in case you do, perhaps you could give an example in which, in your opinion, _what_ actually means _the _and not _whatever_? If you can't, I don't see there's much point in discussing further whose interpretation of _what _in the topic sentence might be correct.


----------



## wandle

There is, I think, a useful clue to the meaning in the verb 'may demand' (not 'demands'). 

If we read 'what compulsion' as 'the compulsion that', then the meaning is 'the compulsion that the existence of the community and the state may or may not demand'. 
However, it does not seem likely that the author intended to divide states into two categories, compulsive and non-compulsive.

If we read 'what compulsion' as 'whatever compulsion', then the meaning is 'however much or little compulsion the existence of the community and the state may demand'. This fits better in my view with the rest of the sentence, 'must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary infringement of freedom', and yields a more likely overall sense.

The sentence reads to me as if the author has just expressed, in the preceding sentence or sentences, the reluctant view that some degree of compulsion is required for any community to exist.


----------



## bearded

EStjarn said:


> Dear bearded man,
> I'm intrigued by your resistance to accepting my examples. It would almost seem you did not acknowledge this use of _what_. But in case you do, perhaps you could give an example in which, in your opinion, _what_ actually means _the _and not _whatever_? If you can't, I don't see there's much point in discussing further whose interpretation of _what _in the topic sentence might be correct.


You are right, I really think that 'what + noun' can either  be interrogative (=which, direct or indirect) or indefinite (=whatever).  So far - no offence meant - you have not been able to provide examples of 'what' not belonging to those two cases, namely what=the. Should *you*​ be able to do so, I would read those examples with great interest, and thus learn something new..


----------



## Thomas Tompion

bennymix said:


> Clearly they all imply that when they saw an animal [sic; actually more than one] they photographed it [them].
Click to expand...

Hello Bennymix,

Two tiny points.  You saw fit 1. to quote my post, and 2. to change it within the quotes.

I feel that if one quotes a post, one should make clear when one has omitted something.  It's also courteous surely to provide the link in the quote, so that people can easily see how you've changed it, if you have.  You changed my post and failed to provide a link.  

Thus my list contained five items, not four, as quoted by you.

Also I would stand by my interpretation of the implication of the sentences that when they saw an animal, they photographed it.  I'd agree that the sentences also suggest that they saw more than one animal, but not necessarily in groups, as your re-wording implies.  I specifically avoided that implication.

Equally there's nothing in the OP to suggest that the compulsion demanded by the very existence of the state must necessarily be more than vestigial.

Remember that I said they were tiny points.


----------



## EStjarn

Let's take into account the context. The author is speaking about what he and those around him consider necessary for the existence of justice. The four sentences:


> The best words to express these requirements are those of the French Revolution: Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. These mean: the liberty of each human being to develop in his freedom the full measure of the human possibilities embodied in him; the equality by which what is just for A and B remains just when the positions of A and B are interchanged; and a good will between man and man that knows no limits short of those of humanity itself. These great principles of justice mean and demand that no person, by virtue of the personal strength of his position, shall enforce a sharp bargain by duress. What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may demand must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary infringement of freedom. (pp. 105-106)



_Comment:_ I would say that _may_ in that last sentence is used to express tentativeness, not possibility. A more direct way of saying the same thing would be: _What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state demands... _Using _may_ makes that verb, _demand_, sound less cutting. The tentativeness is almost necessary after the mention and exemplification of those other, 'softer' qualities.

With _whatever_ we would leave open the possibility of the compulsion being great. How would a person be able to "develop in his freedom the full measure of the human possibilities embodied in him" if we allowed for the compulsion to be great? With _the_, we'd simply be referring to the 'normal' amount of compulsion needed for "the existence of the community and the state."


----------



## bennymix

Hi Thomas,
I appreciate your note and I did exercize, in a couple areas, less that the precise care I should have.   That said,  I'd respond to explain, not justify, as follows.



> You saw fit 1. to quote my post, and 2. to change it within the quotes.



As you know, explanatory additions to and corrections of quotes are commonly included in square brackets, as in  "He [John] spoke."   The is absolutely standard scholarly practice, and making tiny alterations after a post would be unduly complicated, in my opinion.

I'm sorry about the omission of your line e.   That line introduced a different word ("such") not previously or subsequently discussed.  I should have mentioned that ['item e. not reproduced, here'].    It is not, however an unmarked omission within a quote:  Every quote stops somewhere and 'omits' what's after.   I would say that's culpable if some key item or qualification the author made, is omitted--i.e. the quote misrepresents the author's position.   I don't think yours was.

I felt the reader would have easy access to your full posting, since it was just above mine in the same thread.

As to, 





> Equally there's nothing in the OP to suggest that the compulsion  demanded by the very existence of the state must necessarily be more  than vestigial.



The author said, 





> "What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may  demand must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary  infringement of freedom."



I don't fully understand what your interpretive sentence is saying. I'm not sure why 'vestigial.' 

Clearly the author recognizes some minimum set and number of restrictions on freedoms of citizens that every state requires.  Above that, the author suggests, I believe, that the minimum should be exceeded only as to what's 'necessary'--he does not say who is to determine this.   The US gov't said that its Patriot Act was 'necessary.'
We, over here, say that Russia's recent restriction of 'homosexual advocacy' is not necessary.   Perhaps the author would agree with us.

I'm not sure whether your sentence is saying essentially the same analysis as the above, or not.

Again, thanks for your notes.   I will try to quote you in a less exceptionable way, in future.


----------



## wandle

It is clear now that my expectation of the preceding context was mistaken. However, the extract comes from a chapter on Law and on the factors necessary to allow law to operate effectively. In other words, the underlying assumption of the wider context is that law - and therefore compulsion - is generally necessary in human communities. This confirms that the author is not comparing societies which employ compulsion and societies which do not.


EStjarn said:


> _Comment:_ I would say that _may_ in that last sentence is used to express tentativeness, not possibility. A more direct way of saying the same thing would be: _What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state demands... _


_
Here I am afraid I have to disagree. The two expressions:
(a)  'What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state demands ...' and 
(b)  'What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may demand ...' 
are not saying the same thing.

If we read 'what compulsion' as 'the compulsion that', then the meaning of (a) is:
'The compulsion that the very existence of the community and the state demands ...'.
This is saying that the existence of a community or state demands compulsion.

On the other hand, still reading 'what compulsion' as 'the compulsion that', the meaning of (b) is:
'The compulsion that the very existence of the community and the state may or may not demand ...'.
This is saying that the existence of a community or state may or may not demand compulsion.

What can 'tentativeness' mean here? 

If the author is tentative as to whether compulsion is necessary, then it means he is allowing the two possiblities: either that it is necessary or unnecessary. This reading seems to me to be ruled out by the wider context, as explained above.

On the other hand, if the author is tentative as to how much compulsion is necessary, then the meaning of 'what compulsion' is 'however much or little compulsion': that is, 'whatever compulsion'._


----------



## EStjarn

wandle said:


> What can 'tentativeness' mean here?



I was intending it to mean the result of expressing oneself in an oblique way in order to avoid sounding cutting, e.g. _I may have to start working the night shift again, honey. _(in a situation where I will surely have to do that or lose my job, the latter not being a real option)

However, having thought more about this, I am revising my opinion, slightly. I don't see _may _as an expression of tentativeness now, but rather as an effect of hesitation.


wandle said:


> If the author is tentative as to whether compulsion is necessary, then it means he is allowing the two possiblities: either that it is necessary or unnecessary. This reading seems to me to be ruled out by the wider context, as explained above.



With this I disagree. The author is not speaking about how things are, but how things should be in his view. He is speaking about the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. The concept of fraternity alone would seem enough to erase the need for compulsion, for why would it be necessary when fraternity means, as the author says, "a good will between man and man that knows no limits short of those of humanity itself"? In a community or state where all its members embodied that ideal, expressing that good will toward each other, the idea of compulsion would seem almost absurd.

But here is where the author hesitates, thinking that perhaps some measure of compulsion may be necessary after all. In that case, he says, it "must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary infringement of freedom."

In my view, interpreting _what _as _whatever _allows for an unnecessarily broad range of possible levels of compulsion – from negligible to infinitely great. I repeat (post #34): How would a person be able to "develop in his freedom the full measure of the human possibilities embodied in him" if the compulsion was great? It'd be a contradiction. The interpretation of _what _as _the_, on the other hand, does not invite the reader to consider the consequences that different levels of compulsion might have on the embodiment of the ideals.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Surely we all know that one's man's freedom to say what he thinks can easily infringe upon another man's freedom to live his life without being abused.  My freedom to play my boum-boum music with the windows open can infringe upon my neighbour's freedom to sit quietly in his garden listening to the birds.

I wonder if people are sufficiently considering the minimalist element in "What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may demand..."

That form of words implies that, as everyone knows, some compulsion will almost certainly be necessary, but it should be kept to a minimum.


----------



## bennymix

Well put, Thomas.


----------



## wandle

An author writing with the depth and consistency of thought demonstrated by Wiener in the work concerned, and particularly in a definitional sentence such as we are considering, would not in my view  say 'may demand' without intending a distinct sense different from that of 'demands'. He is not trying to break unwelcome news to the reader in a gentle way: he is stating a basic principle underlying the wider discussion and doing so in categorical terms.


EStjarn said:


> In my view, interpreting _what _as _whatever _allows for an unnecessarily broad range of possible levels of compulsion – from negligible to infinitely great. I repeat (post #34): How would a person be able to "develop in his freedom the full measure of the human possibilities embodied in him" if the compulsion was great? It'd be a contradiction. The interpretation of _what _as _the_, on the other hand, does not invite the reader to consider the consequences that different levels of compulsion might have on the embodiment of the ideals.


This comment does not seem to take into account the sentence as a whole. 


> What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may demand must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary infringement of freedom.


The first part _'What compulsion the very existence of the community and the state may demand ...'_  (that is 'however much or little compulsion') does indeed create a range of possiblity from small to great; however, it is countered by the second part _'... must be exercised in such a way as to produce no unnecessary infringement of freedom.'_

The two parts of the sentence are in contrast or counterpoint: neither gives the real message without the other.
The first part opens up the possible range of compulsion: the latter narrows it down by saying it must be minimised so as to achieve the greatest practicable degree of freedom.

The point of the variation introduced by the first part is to allow for the different types of human society, in which differing minima of compulsion may be required to preserve the existence of the community. This enables the principle to apply to everything from an isolated rainforest tribe to a fascist state, theocracy or commercial empire.


----------



## javajava

Sure! Sorry for the missing reference:

The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society  By Norbert Wiener
p106


----------



## owlman5

javajava said:


> Sure! Sorry for the missing reference:
> 
> *The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society*
> 
> By Norbert Wiener
> p106


Thank you, javajava, for taking the time to name your source.  I appreciate it.


----------

