If I dont go to work I starve. If I organise with my colleagues for a more favourable contract I will be removed by security guards. If we protest this we will be arrested by police. Are you able to only recognise force the moment blood is being spilled?
The initial premise is that the universe/nature imposes a requirement upon you to sustain life. Nature can not be a forceful actor by virtue of not being an actor.
Same problem with several of the replies sibling to yours.
Is it not forceful if I dangle you over a cliff and tell you to run your pockets, by virture of the natural origin of the gravitational potential that will accelerate your body into a jagged rock face at terminal velocity should I release my grip?
This is perhaps the best counterargument I've heard, and I will say, it still doesn't make it not a tyranny. Let's call it then the tyranny of nature/the universe. The promise of technological progress will eventually help us out of it I believe.
The example was literal. Force is not just violence. The threat of being fired is a use of force. I'm not clear if you missed the reference or think that this isn't force. I think it is. If you think otherwise, perhaps you could clarify where you think the line is. How about working in extremely hot conditions with no water breaks?
Now do I think it is tyranny? No. I agree that there should be another word used.
