The difference between being coerced and coercing

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
P6. If humanity does not kill itself first, someday all territory will be improved, and therefore owned.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must be advocating some odd society, because this is already the case in the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
To the best of my knowledge I've never advocated the status quo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
C: The human born after P6 will be unable to occupy space without the consent of another, demonstrating that his self-ownership is not absolute and falsifying P2.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not. Self-ownership doesn't mean freedom to do whatever you want on someone elses property.

[/ QUOTE ]
If all land is owned, I am not free to exist without someone else's consent. Remember that existence happens in territory, per P3.

[Nielsio]

Shake, likey?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Shake, likey?



[/ QUOTE ]
Sh*t, I like this. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] And no, not leveling.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Shake, likey?



[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, very nice work. Thanks a lot.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is going in circles. Enforcement of assault laws are self-defense. Is it coercive of me to shoot you when you are trying to kill me? Maybe, but who cares? I really don't think this is the type of state-sponsored coercion that the ACers here are against, the coercive nature of enforcing laws. I could be wrong, but I think they are against the coercive nature of forced participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're exactly right. Self-defense is coercive, in a trivial sense, but the coercion is focused against someone who *initiated* coercion. When the aggressor initiates a force transaction with his victim, and does so withuot consent, without terms and conditions, without a contract, he by necessity does so without any legitimate expectation of how that transaction will be *closed*.

You can't force someone to interact with you then get indignant when that person shoots back.

Jogger ignores the coercion that opened the interaction. I suspect he knows what he's doing here, which would make him (as we say) intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're (still) ducking the question. When exactly does this initiation of force (the "initial" one, IE, the knife-wielder's "attack") begin?

[/ QUOTE ]

When a vicious dog gets loose from its tether and attacks you while you are out jogging, at what point, exactly, did the vicious dog's attack begin? At what point would you be justified in shooting, clubbing or pepper-spraying the dog?

The "exactly" part of the question is meaningless, for all practical purposes. The dog decided to attack and put the attack into motion. Hopefully, you responded in time if you were aware, and prepared.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, on what basis?

[/ QUOTE ]
Aristocracy has already been tried and found inferior (for the great majority of people - it's probably okay for some of the aristocrats) to mixed market democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone who will be harmed by his assignation has, at minimum, a right to self-defense. (And of course, the creation of a landed aristocracy qualifies as harm to anyone not a member. We could argue about whether or not it's harmful to the members as well, pointing at the Kennedy children, Paris Hilton, etc., but that's for another thread, probably in another forum.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain this harm. If the harmed party has a right to the property being assigned, please explain where that right originates from. Otherwise, the disposal of property that Mr. X has no right to is extremely unlikely to damage Mr. X (but I'd love to hear any particular wacky edge case you can dream up). Issac asked you a variation on this question, if an individual does not have exclusive rights to his body, WHO DOES, and you dodged it, twice.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I've ever dodged this. The answer is: whoever we say has the right. (An answer which I hope you find not terribly surprising: to the best of my knowledge (and yours, I strongly suspect, unless Jesus is talking to you personally), rights are an invention of mankind.)

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, you accuse me of not providing sources when I did and you just didn't bother to read them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not only did I read them, I *had read* two of them before you posted them. They do not support your claim, a fact of which you are no doubt aware.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, are you saying, "the fact that primogenitur is no longer in vogue" and "current estate taxes" both have to do with the lack of an absolute hegemony of the landed, and you'd like to remove one of these two barriers to that hegemony?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying the estate tax is not such a barrier.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well yes, you do assert this, but you neither can nor do offer support for your position. I'll answer each of your pieces of "supporting" nonsense below:

[ QUOTE ]
Not an effective one, at least. Bill Gates is devoting 95% of his estate to philanthropy.

[/ QUOTE ]
And hence, no Gates aristocracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Warren Buffet, also above 90%.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it's well above 99%, and yep, you guessed it - no Buffett aristocracy either.

[ QUOTE ]
How many Carnegies, Rockefellers, Morgans are at the top of the Forbes 400?

[/ QUOTE ]
What possible relevance can this have? Are you postulating that an aristocracy can comprise no more than 400 people?

[ QUOTE ]
There are many, many factors that are more important in explaining the breakup of large concentrations of wealth than the estate tax.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which, even if it were true - ah yes, let me add: "Source please!" - in no way indicates the estate tax is not a factor... which is not surprising, since it in fact does prohibit the unlimited accumulation of wealth (and therefore, concentration of power) by nepotism.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you see as the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're worried about breaking up large estates, there's a big one. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Please explain.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter what you see as aggression and what isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it does matter what you see as aggression? Because you've been calling my government aggressive since day 1. Why are you running from specifically defining aggression now?

[/ QUOTE ]
You know that's not what I mean. The situation in question is one where you must debate when you have a right to self defense, or when exactly you can exercise it. There's no reason to go through thousands of little examples and see.

[/ QUOTE ]
You guys are arguing preemption is self-defense. I want to know precisely when I can preempt. Is government a legitimate form of preemption?

[/ QUOTE ]
Being that I've never read an argument for government as only being used for preemption, I doubt it.
[ QUOTE ]
No, you said that if I did something you found threatening and you shot me over it, it would "probably" go to arbitration. That isn't an answer to my question. I want to know exactly when I may preempt aggression from someone I feel is threatening me.


[/ QUOTE ]
There isn't a simple black and white answer in all situations. If you choose a spot where it doesn't look like self defense, arbitration may be right around the corner.
[ QUOTE ]
Except every realistic scenario (troll attack snipped) doesn't require me to rely exclusively on the judgment of some ACist yahoo with an uzi.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't I just get done telling you about arbitration? It's not. And what makes AC people more likely to shoot you for no reason people in a statist world?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is going in circles. Enforcement of assault laws are self-defense. Is it coercive of me to shoot you when you are trying to kill me? Maybe, but who cares? I really don't think this is the type of state-sponsored coercion that the ACers here are against, the coercive nature of enforcing laws. I could be wrong, but I think they are against the coercive nature of forced participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're exactly right. Self-defense is coercive, in a trivial sense, but the coercion is focused against someone who *initiated* coercion. When the aggressor initiates a force transaction with his victim, and does so withuot consent, without terms and conditions, without a contract, he by necessity does so without any legitimate expectation of how that transaction will be *closed*.

You can't force someone to interact with you then get indignant when that person shoots back.

Jogger ignores the coercion that opened the interaction. I suspect he knows what he's doing here, which would make him (as we say) intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're (still) ducking the question. When exactly does this initiation of force (the "initial" one, IE, the knife-wielder's "attack") begin?

[/ QUOTE ]

When a vicious dog gets loose from its tether and attacks you while you are out jogging, at what point, exactly, did the vicious dog's attack begin? At what point would you be justified in shooting, clubbing or pepper-spraying the dog?

The "exactly" part of the question is meaningless, for all practical purposes. The dog decided to attack and put the attack into motion. Hopefully, you responded in time if you were aware, and prepared.

[/ QUOTE ]
So when would it be okay to institute government as a preventative measure against the threat posed by my fellow inhabitants of North America?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
P6. If humanity does not kill itself first, someday all territory will be improved, and therefore owned.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must be advocating some odd society, because this is already the case in the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
To the best of my knowledge I've never advocated the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so what are you advocating? Because the "flaws" your accusing AC land of certainly aren't isolated to itself.
[ QUOTE ]
If all land is owned, I am not free to exist without someone else's consent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I guess right now you're not free to exist without someone else's consent.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
So when would it be okay to institute government as a preventative measure against the threat posed by my fellow inhabitants of North America?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, if you can show government is the only way to do that. Better get to work.