The difference between being coerced and coercing

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you have to wait until he wields and/or charges? As I've already asked, at what point does it become okay to violently preempt what you believe will become his attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a man is weilding a knife and his demeanor is agressive and he is charging at someone and I have a gun I am going to draw it. I am going to yell for him to drop the knife or I will shoot him. If he does not drop the knife I am going to shoot him.

Maybe in your world view it's reasonable to weild knives and charge at people but I somehow doubt it. That leads me to believe that you are willfully being disruptive. You are asking questions about which there is somewhat of a grey area but overwhelmingly there is general agreement. It seems like passive agressive behavior to me and I'm growing tired of it.

As pvn said, this is nothing specific to AC. These situations occur all the time at present. If you are so uncomforable with individuals making their own decisions in which their own lives are at imminent risk because the person with the knife might have a heart attack and drop to the ground 10 feet before reaching some childs throat with a knife, or because a prehistoric dinasour is around the corner and he is going to fight it and be a hero for us all I feel really sorry for you. I hope you explore the link I provided and wish you luck.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you have to wait until he wields and/or charges? As I've already asked, at what point does it become okay to violently preempt what you believe will become his attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a man is weilding a knife and his demeanor is agressive and he is charging at someone and I have a gun I am going to draw it. I am going to yell for him to drop the knife or I will shoot him. If he does not drop the knife I am going to shoot him.

Maybe in your world view it's reasonable to weild knives and charge at people but I somehow doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, in my worldview we legislate against threatening behavior. In your worldview as I understand it, "my right to swing your fist stops at the end of your nose" - except, you now apparently believe my "right" to swing my fist stops at some arbitrary point well short of your nose. So I'm wondering: which is it, and where exactly is this arbitrary point? For instance, I might feel that your hoarding guns in your basement was threatening...

[ QUOTE ]
That leads me to believe that you are willfully being disruptive. You are asking questions about which there is somewhat of a grey area but overwhelmingly there is general agreement. It seems like passive agressive behavior to me and I'm growing tired of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well gosh bro, if you're "growing tired of it", allow me to elaborate: your stated philosophy, assuming the above is a fair representation of it, is inconsistent with your actions. *Exactly* what "rights" does your philosophy assign me?

[ QUOTE ]
As pvn said, this is nothing specific to AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
(tangential stuff deleted)

[/ QUOTE ]

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
...With a government in place there are (presumably, though not necessarily) public lands and roadways where you have a right to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that under statism, dead people aren't automatically permitted to assign all of their property, post-mortem, to their designated successors without limit of any kind (and in the process, create an absolute hegemony of the landed).

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you have to wait until he wields and/or charges? As I've already asked, at what point does it become okay to violently preempt what you believe will become his attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If a man is weilding a knife and his demeanor is agressive and he is charging at someone and I have a gun I am going to draw it. I am going to yell for him to drop the knife or I will shoot him. If he does not drop the knife I am going to shoot him.

Maybe in your world view it's reasonable to weild knives and charge at people but I somehow doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


Nope, in my worldview we legislate against threatening behavior. In your worldview as I understand it, "my right to swing your fist stops at the end of your nose" - except, you now apparently believe my "right" to swing my fist stops at some arbitrary point well short of your nose. So I'm wondering: which is it, and where exactly is this arbitrary point? For instance, I might feel that your hoarding guns in your basement was threatening....

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your world you go down into your basement and write on a blackboard: Rule: "Dont do bad stuff A". "Don't do bad stuff B". Etc ad nauseam

That does not seem to be a very effective means of preventing violent maniacs hellbent on murder from plunging knives into people. In fact we currently have that system AND the system of shooting people who are agressing with lethal force. And guess what? It still happens. And your advocating removing the means to defend from being murdered when there is an eminent threat to one's life? It is an interesting concept. Good luck with that.

And the right to swing one's fist has never been allowed up to the end of the point of my nose. There is a legal concept called 'assault'. Maybe you have heard of it. Here is one of a multitude of definitions: the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force.

As far as where the arbitrary point is, I will use my conscience as my guide NOT YOURS. Same goes for the guns in my closet. Same goes for all the choices I make. Stop trying to impose your will on other people. It is selfish and egotististical.


[ QUOTE ]
That leads me to believe that you are willfully being disruptive. You are asking questions about which there is somewhat of a grey area but overwhelmingly there is general agreement. It seems like passive agressive behavior to me and I'm growing tired of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


Well gosh bro, if you're "growing tired of it", allow me to elaborate: your stated philosophy, assuming the above is a fair representation of it, is inconsistent with your actions. *Exactly* what "rights" does your philosophy assign me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I welcome you to start a thread to examine my philosophy and look forward to participating. Please do so in the philosophy forum. There are aspects of my belief system and actions that are hyppocritical and I readily admit that. I, unlike you, do not aim to be perfect OR expect perfection from others.

And as to what rights my philosophy assign you: My philosophical does not presuppose to have any authority over your person so it can not assign you any rights. I do not think I am in charge of your rights or anyone elses rights, just mine. YOU, on the other hand, seem to think you have been granted some kind of authority (by yourself? or some other entity?) to oversee my rights or behavior.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...With a government in place there are (presumably, though not necessarily) public lands and roadways where you have a right to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that under statism, dead people aren't automatically permitted to assign all of their property, post-mortem, to their designated successors without limit of any kind (and in the process, create an absolute hegemony of the landed).

[/ QUOTE ]

The property is assigned pre-mortem.

Would you have a problem with Mr. X signing a contract in which he transfers all of his property to Mr. Y one week from today? Would that contract become invalid if Mr. X died before the assigned time elapsed? If so, why?

Who has any greater claim to the property, any right to overrule the benefactor's own decision as to the disposal of his rightful property?

Also, note that the fact that primogeniture is no longer in vogue has a lot more to do with the lack of "absolute hegemony of the landed" than any currently-in-place estate tax.

Off topic: do you prefer a tax on estates or on heirs?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
In the absence of such publicly owned land (because it is neither a certainty, nor a likely event in my opinion) where do you have a right to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think publicly owned land is such an unlikelihood? Any case where land was homesteaded not by a particular individual/family but by people more generally there is a good candidate for publicly-owned property. And as I've argued elsewhere on this board, I think that much government property and corporation property ought to be turned over to the people who homesteaded it (which in many cases might mean a community at large).

That said, I'm not sure what you mean by asking "where" someone has a right to exist. No one has a "right to exist" at the expense of others--all we have is the right of self-ownership, and what follows from it. So the answer to where is "anywhere where I'm not violating another's rights".

[ QUOTE ]
And I think you are on crack ---- do you have any reason for this belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems to me that perhaps the biggest reason why it is so difficult for some to own land is that wealth (and land) get concentrated in the hands of a few. I'm not going to go into the details of how or why I think this is, suffice to say that I think having a powerful centralized state that caters to big business has a lot to do with it. So there is every reason, in my mind, to believe that people who would want to own land would have far greater ability to do so in a decnetralized anarchist society than they do now. As for a 12 year old, I'm not sure it even matters since very few 12 year olds own land now (answering this question would require delving into the question of children/minors, and I'd really rather not do that [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).

Let me ask you this--what makes you think it would be harder for somebody to own land in an anarchist society than in something like our current one?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ShakeZula06]

It doesn't matter what you see as aggression and what isn't. This whole "debate" is worthless. If you shoot someone when it seems obvious you weren't in harms way, you'll probably be called to arbitration.

[BCPVP]

[/ QUOTE ]What constitutes a demonstration of aggression?

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably millions of things.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]What constitutes a demonstration of aggression?

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably millions of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol I think he wants to have us list each one and explain how we would act in each instance and morally justify each instance lol