Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet in this case, the criminal has no right to interact with other people against their will. People do have a right not to be stabbed by other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself) and no one who owns property will allow him reside on their territory or interact with him, that person has been deemed by the others to have no right to live there.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but this is the problem - up until the moment where he finds someone to allow him on their property, he does not have a right to live at all under the moral code. This is disturbing to me because it associates your right to exist with the (perhaps arbitrary) approval of others.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, the alternative is either he forces others to provide for him or someone else does. If we're trying to minimize coercion, this alternative seems like a poor way to do so.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
You should cross post this in SMP to see what they have to say about it. I think that forum has more traffic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a decent idea, but I gotta say, I think its gonna be pretty unanimous support for the OP.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet in this case, the criminal has no right to interact with other people against their will. People do have a right not to be stabbed by other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself) and no one who owns property will allow him reside on their territory or interact with him, that person has been deemed by the others to have no right to live. Is it morally superiour to starve him to death on the basis of property rights rather than to execute him on the basis that he's just a terrible person?

As a side note, I'm not really "challenging" AC here with this edge scenario. I just think it's a more interesting, if somewhat irrelevant, hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. He still has a right to live. Just not a right to the things necessary to live. But thats nature's fault, not mine.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property? Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course. In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile? I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it does. It wasn't specified.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile?

[/ QUOTE ]

I surely can.

[ QUOTE ]
I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I was wondering when you were going to throw in your customary inflamatory logical fallacy.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it does. It wasn't specified.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile?

[/ QUOTE ]

I surely can.

[ QUOTE ]
I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I was wondering when you were going to throw in your customary inflamatory logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point may you preemptively shoot someone, according to your moral tenets? In what manner are you determining intent? Naturally I'm quite interested in your position on thoughtcrime, which I had erroniously believed you opposed.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property? Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course. In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile? I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it were like Bush's doctrine, pvn would need to walk into some guy's house and shoot him in his bed because he thinks that guy has a knife.

The guy charging your kid with a knife is the one who initiated aggression. You shooting him is a response to that aggression and is therefore self-defense.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]


i cannot imagine any situation where someone couldn't sell the fruits of there labor. Even the most handicapped person basically sells being handicapped to charities in exchange for goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost anyone probably could sell the fruits of their labor...sure. But in terms of "rights" a non-real estate owning individual in ACland can exist only at the pleasure of property owners. This person does not have a right to travel to his place of labor because all travel is conducted on private property (private roads/waterways.) It would likely not be a problem in real terms (he would probably just trespass, or be given permission to travel on company owned roads), but all of this is at the pleasure of the land owners.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property? Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course. In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile? I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it were like Bush's doctrine, pvn would need to walk into some guy's house and shoot him in his bed because he thinks that guy has a knife.

The guy charging your kid with a knife is the one who initiated aggression. You shooting him is a response to that aggression and is therefore self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property? Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course. In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile? I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it were like Bush's doctrine, pvn would need to walk into some guy's house and shoot him in his bed because he thinks that guy has a knife.

The guy charging your kid with a knife is the one who initiated aggression. You shooting him is a response to that aggression and is therefore self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's attacking you in the scenario in the OP so there is no preemption.