[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The implication is that being born poor is a form of coercion. He redefines coercion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont redifine coercion, I just come up with a new type of coercion( the coercion I call" coercion caused my non-moral agents")


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now you're redefining "redefine" and changing it into "came up with a new category of the same thing" or "came up with a new concept". That's just another way of saying "redefine".

The fact remains, you are redefining the terms by trying to define "lack of coercion" as a form of coercion.

I have not critiqued the merits of your position, which I understand to be that it is morally preferable to use state coercion to mitigate the effects of natural states, rather than to not do so. It may be a valid position but not because "lack of coercion" is the same thing as "coercion".



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, he is also using a bit of a strawman by saying libertarians "don't care" about natural state. Just because you don't support state coercion to address natural state problems doesn't mean you don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? ACists constantly give more importance to "coercion done by moral agents" over "coercion done by the state of nature" If one type of coercion is constantly undermined you might as well say they dont care about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ranking the preference of one kind of good or bad over another does not mean that there is no concern for the the other one.

You are creating a strawman by saying that since libertarians abhor using coercion more than they are horrified by natural states, they therefore care nothing about the problem of natural states. This is false.

Again, your position is the opposite and is a valid one, but not because libertarians care nothing for the unfortunate poor, which is both untrue and irrelevant to your position.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, he also employs a false dilemma by implying that either the state must solve natural state problems with force or nothing else can be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im implying that some force of natural state problems need a state not that ALL of those problem need a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's still the same thing. You're creating a false dilemma where the natural state of being born into poverty can only be solved by the state. And thus anyone who does not approve using state coercion to (attempt to) resolve poverty legacy is obviously opposed to solving that problem. This is a classic false dilemma.


Are you familiar with the most common logical fallacies? It may help to study up on them in order to fine tune your arguments, because you have employed several of them.

To be clear, I have not criticized your position, I'm merely pointing out that your arguments in support of your position are poor. In fact, I have validated some of your positions by stating that both yours, and the libertarian couterposition, are purely normative. In other words, equally valid.


natedogg