Frank Van Dun on the Four Sources of Interpersonal Conflict
Discussion
The four sources of interpersonal conflict, By Andrew Allison:
"Legal philosopher Frank van Dun argues that there are four necessary and sufficient conditions for interpersonal conflict. They are plurality, diversity, scarcity, and free access.
Plurality is the condition of there being more than one person. Since there can be no interpersonal conflict with only one person, a single-person world would never have such conflict. Robinson Crusoe, before the arrival of Friday, could never have interpersonal conflict since he was alone.
Diversity arises when those multiple persons have different plans about how to use some resource. If Crusoe would like to use a stick to fish on the east side of the island, and Friday wished to use that same stick to fish on the west side, conflict could arise. However, if both Crusoe and Friday agree on the use of the stick – say they both want to use the stick to fish on the east side of the island – then no conflict will arise. The stick will be used exactly how both parties want it to be.
Scarcity, the condition that Hoppe brings to light above as the source of human conflict, is the condition in which there is not an infinite number of resources. Crusoe and Friday can only conflict over the use of the stick insofar as they are limited in the number of sticks they have. If (as would have been the case in the Garden of Eden) Friday could pluck the stick from Crusoe’s hand and produce two sticks (and this trick could be performed infinitely many times) then no scarcity would exist. In such a world, no conflict over the use of sticks could ever arise. All differing plans regarding the use of some resource could be fulfilled simultaneously as both parties could use the “same” resource for different purposes.
Finally, the condition of free access is one in which there are no rules governing the use of those scarce resources. If there were a pre-existing rule that Crusoe is the only person who may use sticks on the island, then conflict regarding the stick can be avoided."
(https://www.hoppean.org/article/pqz3dmun1esudp77e7iciftckcma0f)
Escaping Conflict - Unity or Property?
Andrew Allison:
"Van Dun offers four solutions for eliminating interpersonal conflict. He writes, “Given that each of the causes [plurality, diversity, scarcity, and free access] is necessary, it is sufficient to eliminate (reduce) only one of them to eliminate (reduce) the possibility of interpersonal conflict.” In order to eliminate plurality, diversity, scarcity, and free access, van Dun suggests unity, consensus, abundance, and property respectively.
According to van Dun, Hobbes is a proponent of eliminating plurality via unity. Van Dun describes the unity solution as follows: “As a political ideal unity stands for the reduction of the social to the individual: society becomes an individual, and that individual is personified in the ruler or ruling authority.” Through this solution, the problem of interpersonal conflict dissolves. There are not multiple people, but one; the ruler. He makes all decisions regarding the use of all resources everywhere and at all times. This is precisely the solution that Hobbes sought in a sovereign. Van Dun writes,
Plato and Hobbes were in agreement on the thesis that only a strong form of political organization under the unconditional supremacy of a single authority can defuse the supposed tendency of men to start and escalate universal war and conflict. That supreme authority preferably should be one natural person (Plato’s philosopher-king or Hobbes’ sovereign and absolute monarch) but it might also be, probably as a second-best option, an assembly (Hobbes’ Parliament) or council (Plato’s Nocturnal Council) producing binding ‘collective decisions’ according to some decision-rule."
(https://www.hoppean.org/article/pqz3dmun1esudp77e7iciftckcma0f)