[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

If your stance is "I am against A because it is coercive, and because the values gained from using coercion are low" that's not the same as "I am against A because it is coercive." I don't see any problem with assuming that lack of coercion is the only good thing relevant to the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ] Well than the statement "I am against A because it is coercive" simply begs the question: In basically all cases of coercion, somebody is coerced for/in order to bring about something that many other people think is valuable, and usually correctly so (positive liberty, stability, equal substantive self-ownership, efficiency, art, education, defense, safety, public health, protection from human rights abuse abroad, utility etc.) and sometimes even for things that the person being coerced themselves think is valuable (this is the case during coercive actions that solve prisoner's dilemmas, coordination problems, weakness of will problems, tragedies of the anti-commons, etc.). That's why they are coerced!

To assume that no other values are at stake in this situation would be like assuming that, when arguing that a baseball team should spend its money entirely on pitching, that fielding, management, hitting, advertising, etc. are not at all important. But the premise is clearly false, so the conclusion is not true. So there is an enormous problem with the assumption you claim is acceptable.