The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

From another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the difference between your child tripping outside and being impaled on a knife and dying... and me charging at your child with a knife and stabbing her to death?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see none.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason this person sees none is that he is only looking at one narrow aspect:

[ QUOTE ]
In both instances my child would be dead, I would be sad, and I would remove the hazard after the fact (too late for my child, but hopefully in time to save others from the same fate).

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, he is only observing that someone died.

He is totally ignoring that in one case someone *acted* and the other one didn't.

There is a difference between looking at cases where one is forced to do something and looking at cases where one forces others to do something. There is not a one-to-on mapping.

People are forced to "work or die" every day. People are "forced" to eat to survive. But there is no moral agent at the other end making a *decision* to force people into these situations. There is nobody to blame. Yet those who only see someone being coerced think that *someone* must be "made responsible". Yet there is nobody who can justly be saddled with the obligation to remedy these conditions.

This is the critical fallacy that has struck a long line of distinguished politics posters, including moorobot, propertarian, and most recently jogger.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

One force is the force of nature, and the other is force between human beings (and most notably: human beings with moral capacity and thus responsibility).

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

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

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

The difference between someone falling on a knife versus being stabbed is evident (even to me).

I think a more interesting scenario is the case of a "criminal" in an AC world who is not locked up but who can't find anyone to transact with him because of his criminal past. Now, the "AC citizens" (slight misnomer, but I think you'll know what I mean) aren't really aggressing on the criminal with violence. But if the guy starves to death or is eventually shot for trespassing because he can't find anywhere to go, well then it didn't make much difference to him that the citizens killed him in a passive way rather than an aggressive way. I think there is a richer debate to be had regarding this situation where the intent is to exclude the criminal from society, and even though it is done passively rather than with violence aggression the intent is still the same. The outcome here isn't accidental.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is the critical fallacy that has struck a long line of distinguished politics posters, including moorobot, propertarian, and most recently jogger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, thanks for not including me in this list of "silly statist pinkos".

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

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.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
From another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the difference between your child tripping outside and being impaled on a knife and dying... and me charging at your child with a knife and stabbing her to death?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see none.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason this person sees none is that he is only looking at one narrow aspect:

[ QUOTE ]
In both instances my child would be dead, I would be sad, and I would remove the hazard after the fact (too late for my child, but hopefully in time to save others from the same fate).

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, he is only observing that someone died.

He is totally ignoring that in one case someone *acted* and the other one didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene? Remember that your right to wield a knife in a manner I (but perhaps not somebody else) considers intimidating is absolute. So is your right to charge toward my child.

How can I do anything other than what I describe above, whilst still behaving within the constraints of "AC morality"?

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ 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.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ 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.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the critical fallacy that has struck a long line of distinguished politics posters, including moorobot, propertarian, and most recently jogger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, thanks for not including me in this list of "silly statist pinkos".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not even close to making that list. Those people have all explicitly made that argument - that someone *being coerced* is a "worrying condition" (for lack of a better term) which someone must be responsible for eliminating, as opposed to someone *coercing others* being the condition which must be remedied (the difference being the identification of the responsible party).

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself)


[/ QUOTE ]


he owns himself and that is the basis of every belief re: property


[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally superior 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

either or really .. although killing him causes less suffering that starvation so you could argue that killing him outright is more humane therefore more moral.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ 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.

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 ]

right if someone comes onto your property w/ a knife and obvious intent .... waste his ass.

this is actually the basis of self defense law. to prove you killed someone in self defense law demonstrate that they had

1: motive
2:opportunity
3: intent

if you ask him to leave and he does, that removes intent and opportunity . If he refuses the he has demonstrated all 3.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself)


[/ QUOTE ]


he owns himself and that is the basis of every belief re: property

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, one of the troubling aspects of this (to me) is that if you own no real estate and no one wants to buy the fruits of your labour, you have the right to self ownership but not the right to live anywhere on earth. It's largely a theoretical "problem" with property rights but it's somewhat disconcerting to link my right to exist with the marketability of my labour.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself)


[/ QUOTE ]


he owns himself and that is the basis of every belief re: property

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, one of the troubling aspects of this (to me) is that if you own no real estate and no one wants to buy the fruits of your labour, you have the right to self ownership but not the right to live anywhere on earth. It's largely a theoretical "problem" with property rights but it's somewhat disconcerting to link my right to exist with the marketability of my labour.

[/ 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.

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 there.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally superior 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
He is responsible for himself. Why should anyone else be morally required to provide for him? The alternative to allowing people to choose to interact or not interact with this guy is just more coercion from someone who forces other to provide for him.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
No worries, thinking is fun! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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 ]

Well, you're just sidestepping my issue in the moral code by saying it's not a practical problem. Which is fine. I am not suggesting that this is a fatal flaw that makes the morality system unpracticable. I am just saying that it is hard for me to really buy into a philosophy where a person has a right to exist only after that person has had real property bequeathed to them by someone else or can acquire some through voluntary trade. It means that you don't have a right to exist until someone else "validates" you by choosing to transact with you.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally superior 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
He is responsible for himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, though, since he can only provide for himself by convincing others to interact with him on a voluntary basis he is denied the ability to be responsible for himself until someone else validates his existence by interacting with him.

[ QUOTE ]
Why should anyone else be morally required to provide for him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anybody be morally required to act in any prescribed fashion? If we're talking about morality, we're talking about how people should interact with each other in our view. There's no right answer there.

[ QUOTE ]
The alternative to allowing people to choose to interact or not interact with this guy is just more coercion from someone who forces other to provide for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose things could be worse, but that doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies about this particular issue.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you're just sidestepping my issue in the moral code by saying it's not a practical problem. Which is fine. I am not suggesting that this is a fatal flaw that makes the morality system unpracticable. I am just saying that it is hard for me to really buy into a philosophy where a person has a right to exist only after that person has had real property bequeathed to them by someone else or can acquire some through voluntary trade. It means that you don't have a right to exist until someone else "validates" you by choosing to transact with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when you look at it this way, the only other way somebody could have a 'right to exist' would be by forcibly taking it from somebody else, no? I'm not sure how anyone, in any type of system, could really substantially exist without the help (or at the least being associated with) other human beings.

In any case, I think it is hard to deal with these "fringe" issues by using only a strict and extremely thin conception of libertarianism. Anarchism, or ACism, or whatever, isn't really a separate moral code but rather (hopefully) a part of a more complete one; after all, there clearly seem to be moral issues that fall outside the realm of political structure and questions of 'voluntary transaction vs aggression.' So even though ostracizing someone in such a complete manner falls within the technical bounds of nonaggression and is consistent with libertarian rights theory, I think most would find it inconsistent with a complete ethical theory and work to find ways of non-aggressively fixing the situation (which, in this case, might be as simple as making transactions w/ a fellow human being).

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think a more interesting scenario is the case of a "criminal" in an AC world who is not locked up but who can't find anyone to transact with him because of his criminal past. Now, the "AC citizens" (slight misnomer, but I think you'll know what I mean) aren't really aggressing on the criminal with violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
The state doesn't do anything to solve this scenario. A person could be refused a job everywhere, but it simply doesn't because it's a pathological scenario.

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.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

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


[/ QUOTE ]

from my post on page one of this thread:

[ 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 ]

edit: to add or as soon as intent to do harm is verifiable

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not ok to attack someone before they demonstrate aggression towards you. Once they've done so, you can't preemptively attack since you are already under attack.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not ok to attack someone before they demonstrate aggression towards you. Once they've done so, you can't preemptively attack since you are already under attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but what this leads to is the "He was running at a guy stealing something behind her and you shot him because you thought he was charging your child."

I'm not giving an opinion on anything here in, just saying that's the kind of dilemma you'll be in if this line of thinking continues.

Cody

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
Right but what this leads to is the "He was running at a guy stealing something behind her and you shot him because you thought he was charging your child."

I'm not giving an opinion on anything here in, just saying that's the kind of dilemma you'll be in if this line of thinking continues.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
Possible, but this scenario seems pretty far-fetched and in this scenario, I think nearly every parent thinks of their child's safety in such a situation and takes care of that first and foremost. It seems unnatural to deny that. It's also a risk you run if you're going to pull a knife and chase down shoplifters behind children without explanation.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting someone for imagining charging at you with a knife and stabbing you is a reacation to a 'thought crime.'

Weilding a knife and 'charging' is agression. That is plainly obvious. It is insane to suggest that you have no right to act until the knife plunges into you. Simply insane.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Do you realize that society is a royal mess as it stands right now? We are all paying ~50% of our income in taxes to exist on government territory as it is right now.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ QUOTE ]
So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what??? It's a big deal that the one universal right upon which the foundations of AC are built (the right to your personhood) is ultimately contingent upon the whims of others. The right to life/"controlling the fruits of one's labor" is a fairly hollow right if it doesn't include the right to exist in any tangible place.

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

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


[/ QUOTE ]

from my post on page one of this thread:

[ 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 ]

edit: to add or as soon as intent to do harm is verifiable

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you propose to ascertain someone's intent to do harm?

Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing about anarchism precludes land being unowned or 'publicly' owned (though an owning public would probably be more like a community than an entire country). I also think the actual scenario of a person not owning any land would be far less likely to occur.