The difference between being coerced and coercing

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Wow. Would this apply if he were attepting to transfer all his property to, say, a cancer research foundation? What if he gives 25% to cancer research, 25% to aids research, 25% to malaria research, and 25% to feeding the hungry. OK or not OK?

The fact that some number of people don't like something is not a basis for initiating force (appeal to majority). If the great majority of people want to kill Arabs, it's OK? Mob rule! Might makes right!

How much property should Mr. X be allowed to transfer? Who gets to set that threshold, and what happens to the rest of it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Wow. Rights are useless unless they are consistent. Your "whoever" position is obviously not a consistent one, and therefore cannot be descriptive of anything that could usefully be called a "right".

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Sigh. I suppose you didn't notice that I already went back and pulled sections from them. They all indicate that there is more involved than, as you said, simply removing yourself from the US, and more than, as you amended your claim, just removing yourself AND renouncing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

These people were all at or very near the top. Their heirs are no longer there. Do you think the estate tax is the reason they are not?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Well, the fact that heirs have to eat also reduces their ability to rapidly accumulate wealth. That doesn't mean it's a significant factor.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A benefactor could give his entire estate to one person, or he could divy it up between two people, or among 100 people. In the case where he divides it among 100 people, a tax on the entire estate can not be seriously put forward as a measure to discourage an "absolute hegemony".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
These people were all at or very near the top. Their heirs are no longer there. Do you think the estate tax is the reason they are not?

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, I have a long standing prop bet offer to anyone in politics. Perhaps you would be interested:

=====
Take a look at the current Forbes 400 list. I'll bet you straight up that in 10 years over 50% of the names on there are either no longer on the list or in a lower position than they are now.
=====

For this bet, we can exclude anyone who dies, to control for effects of estate taxes. If there really is a secret tendency towards absolute hegemony that is countered by estate taxes, estate divisions, whatever, then rich people should still be rich in 10 years. some will move up, and some will move down, of course, but they should roughly stay "rich". If your theory is correct, the end I'm offering should be a neutral EV wager for you.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have to show that government is the only form of self-defense?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to initiate violence against others, YOU must justify it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. Please explain exactly when I may initiate violence against someone because I feel he's a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
When he's a legitimate threat. If people disagree with you then you'll have to go to court to show it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a good approach to take with ACism. If you can persuade people that there will be less threats under Darwino-capitalism, perhaps they will abolish government.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, do you concede that government is an acceptable form of self-defense against my fellow man?

[/ QUOTE ]

A government isn't a form of self-defense. It's a tool, like a gun. That tool can be use in self-defense, but the tool itself isn't a form of self-defense.

This tool can be used in "acceptable" ways and in unacceptable ways. How is your government funded? Who is subject to it?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
P1. All humans own themselves.
P2. No human has claim on the person of another, absent the former's consent.
P3. No human can exist outside the physical confines of space (IE, "territory").
P4. All humans own their labor and the products of their labor, including any territory they improve.
P5. No human has claim on the labor or property of another, absent the former's consent.
P6. If humanity does not kill itself first, someday all territory will be improved, and therefore owned.
P7. A human will be born after all territory is owned.

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. He will also be unable to labor without the consent of another, demonstrating that his ownership of his labor is not absolute and falsifying P4.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Excluding Person A from occupying space X does not give one control over Person A's labor. I may own a car and not have anywhere to park it. Do I no longer own it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess that depends on what you mean by "own". You no longer have control over it, because if you park it anywhere, someone has a right to tell you what to do with it, so if any component of ownership entails control, you do not own it. (And of course, ownership without control is no argument against government, of course: you can own yourself, your property, your car, etc, as long as you submit to the government and do what it tells you with those things.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While P6 and P7 are not demonstrable, they are entirely consistant with and permissable within the bounds set by Premises 1-5, and they are consistent with the fact that humans have, throughout their history, shown the ability and inclination to both improve land and spawn more humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of the land on earth is already "owned" in practical terms for the purposes of this discussion. Even antartica, since governments have conspired to prevent any individuals from claiming it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and unsurprisingly, the rest of the world doesn't agree with your axiom that you have some "right" of absolute ownership over anything you've ever touched.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, do you concede that government is an acceptable form of self-defense against my fellow man?

[/ QUOTE ]

A government isn't a form of self-defense. It's a tool, like a gun. That tool can be use in self-defense, but the tool itself isn't a form of self-defense.

This tool can be used in "acceptable" ways and in unacceptable ways. How is your government funded?

[/ QUOTE ]
It extracts funds from some of those who I feel are a threat to me, in order to sustain itself and reduce their ability to do me harm. Sort of like me taking the knife from you when you charge at my child and using it to fend you off.

[ QUOTE ]
Who is subject to it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone I "feel" might harm me.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, do you concede that government is an acceptable form of self-defense against my fellow man?

[/ QUOTE ]

A government isn't a form of self-defense. It's a tool, like a gun. That tool can be use in self-defense, but the tool itself isn't a form of self-defense.

This tool can be used in "acceptable" ways and in unacceptable ways. How is your government funded?

[/ QUOTE ]
It extracts funds from some of those who I feel are a threat to me, in order to sustain itself and reduce their ability to do me harm. Sort of like me taking the knife from you when you charge at my child and using it to fend you off.

[ QUOTE ]
Who is subject to it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone I "feel" might harm me.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the knife weilder example we are not going on 'feel', we are going on observable behaviors that result in severe bodily harm in the immediate future.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That would only be true if I accepted your bogus axiom that you have some absolute right to property you've mixed your labor with, which of course I do not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whoa, what? You yourself said that if all land is owned you only exist at the consent of others. I pointed out that this is the scenario now and nothing crazy has happened.

This is an exercise in futility with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. Look at the context. I said
"<u>IF</u>" I accept ACist premises, here are the consequences. Please tell me you don't somehow think I've drunk from that particular batch of kool-aid.

[ QUOTE ]
edit: how often are you going to strawman us with the "mixing labor" term? Haven't we denied it enough yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
I had no intention of using this as a strawman, and apparently you haven't denied it enough. Please tell me exactly what it is that you feel is required to exert a right to property.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, do you concede that government is an acceptable form of self-defense against my fellow man?

[/ QUOTE ]

A government isn't a form of self-defense. It's a tool, like a gun. That tool can be use in self-defense, but the tool itself isn't a form of self-defense.

This tool can be used in "acceptable" ways and in unacceptable ways. How is your government funded?

[/ QUOTE ]
It extracts funds from some of those who I feel are a threat to me, in order to sustain itself and reduce their ability to do me harm. Sort of like me taking the knife from you when you charge at my child and using it to fend you off.

[ QUOTE ]
Who is subject to it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone I "feel" might harm me.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the knife weilder example we are not going on 'feel', we are going on observable behaviors that result in severe bodily harm in the immediate future.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Every time someone runs in your vicinity while wielding a knife they inflict severe bodily harm on you (or your kid or whoever)? Sorry bro, I was in the Boy Scouts. I call bullsh*t. You're trying to prevent an "attack" before it happens and you want to duck the question of when that attack begins.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know but that's a far cry from an examples of a knife-wielding attacker or a vicious dog. Let's note in both examples that you did not have the right to act violently until you perceived an attack in progress. Now you're asking about a preventative measure which is an entirely different thing than a reactive measure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Define "attack in progress".

[/ QUOTE ]

You have got to be kidding. How about YOU define "attack in progress" and tell me at what point you would determine that a dog charging at you while snarling and snapping his jaws is attacking you, or that a human waving a knife or club while rushing at you and yelling madly is "attacking". Is this anything more than an exercise in pointless mental masturbation?