[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what he said:

[ QUOTE ]
Acists love to talk about how goverments coerce us into doing stuff we dont like, however they dont like it that much when somebody points out that there really isnt much freedom is youre born in a poor family get an horrible informal and formal education and you are never able to develop any significant skill

[/ QUOTE ]

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

and

[ QUOTE ]
Society as a whole has to make the desition wheter its worth to increase “the coercion done by moral agents” in order to decrease the negative impact of “ the coercion not done by moral agents”

[/ QUOTE ]

He has also redefined coercion to mean a lack of action, which is most certainly not the definition of coercion that libertarians are using when they make their arguments.

His argument, that some people have circumstances beyond their control and it's ok to use coercion to address that, is perfectly valid, although merely normative. But the libertarian argument against coercion is also merely normative.

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.

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. Thus opposing the state's coercion in this matter means you are indifferent to the problem. Not so.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post! Thanks.