[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to edit but was too lazy.
Let's say instead of threatening him with physical violence he uses some kind of mind control serum.

[/ QUOTE ] That would using violence in stead of threatening him with violence. That doesn't fix anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right.
But the point remains: Regardless of how you do it, it is morally wrong to make me work for you against my will.
And therefore, regardless of how you do it, taking something away that I have produced through my labour is also wrong, because essentially, that's like making me work for you against my will.

[/ QUOTE ] While I'm inclined to agree that it's morally wrong to have someone working for your benefit, without them knowing beforehand that their work will benefit you (or that it will not benefit them), I think it's immoral on a whole different level than violently imposing your will on someone. You're basically saying that tricking someone to do something and forcing someone to do something under the threat of violence, are morally the same. Or I don't know if that's what you're saying, but that's a position I whole heartedly disagree with. Of course, I can't stop you from having different moral views than me, but I argue that mine is the one who is deducted solely from self ownership, while yours in fact contradicts the idea of unlimited self ownership always being the highest norm.

[/ QUOTE ]
I chose some bad examples, sorry about that.
I'm not saying that tricking somebody into doing something for you is the same as forcing him violently. Of course it's not as bad. And stealing obviously isn't as bad as slavery. But both things are bad for the same reason, namely that you are forcing somebody to do something that he doesn't want to do. Stealing, essentially, is a form of violence.

[/ QUOTE ] No. It's a form of trickery [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] You aren't forcing anyone to do anything. You're just tricking them. And while I might agree that it's wrong, I also think it's wrong to respond to it with violence.

In reality, the barber or hair dresser or what it was will probably not cut my hair unless I have agreed that I will pay for it, and if I don't I'm subject to violence to this or that degree from security company Z or from the barber or whatever. I don't know how those kind of contracts would be best organized, but I'm sure they would be quite common in a free society.