The difference between being coerced and coercing

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bzzzt. Wrong. There are a multitude of behaviors (including complex facial gestures, posture, etc) that are being demonstrated and the person is not merely running, they are 'charging at' someone. While it is possibly true that 1 in 100,000 times a person assuming the posture and demeanor of a knife weilding killer and charging with a menacing look about them may be a psychotic person not intent on murder or someone hallucinating on drugs and immagining that they are charging at the devil who has a child in his clutches and is intending on killing that devil, or the person just saw the man who raped his 3 year old daughter and is going to kill that man.... the overwhelming majority of the time by a landslide...the person is a dangerous maniac and is going to do severe bodily harm to someone (who doesn't deserve it). No system is perfect. No human is perfect. No person can see the future.

You are silmply looking for a rationale to justify your violent means of keeping slaves to do your bidding. Admit it.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is as threatening to the well-being of the world as if all rich folks transferred all their wealth directly to their children, but I'd just as soon it were taxed in this scenario as well.

Brief tangent: a lot of statist libertarians (myself included) object to almost all taxes, but not all taxes are equal. Property tax (for instance) is especially onerous in practice, because after retirement, people often rely upon fixed incomes, while their property value continues to rise. The result is higher taxes on less income, and specifically upon people least able to bear the burden. Inheritance tax - a partial tax on the dead - offers no such inherent liability, and has the added virtue of acting as a barrier to aristocracy.

[ QUOTE ]
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!

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to address this after you tell me exactly when I can shoot somebody to prevent what I feel might become an attack.

[ QUOTE ]
How much property should Mr. X be allowed to transfer?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dunno, I haven't given this much thought. My inclination would be to set an upper boundary of a few million bucks, but I'm open to discussion here.

[ QUOTE ]
Who gets to set that threshold, and what happens to the rest of it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Society and taxes, respectively.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
When did you come over into the "let's not discuss it if it isn't useful" camp? Everytime I've tried to engage you on the practical sides of ACism, you've tried to deflect the conversation to rights, and now once we're here, you want to talk utility? Whether or not rights need to be consistant, I can see you feel no such need yourself.

Aside from which, I'd thought your ACist axioms led to situations where one had the "right" to exist, so long as he didn't do it anywhere. Or did you see that as somehow useful?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Sure, if you're over that "2 million dollars in assets / 80k per year" poverty line you demarked in your post.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Do you think they aren't still part of the aristocracy? And the answers are many, and yes, I'd guess the inheritance tax is part of it. I'm quite sure it will be part of it with respect to (say) Charles Munger, who is on the current list.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's a hell of a safety net though.

[ 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".

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually this is false. Warren Buffett is worth somewhere between 30 and 50 billion, depending on how BRKA is doing. Do you really think .33 to .5 billion is chump change?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bzzzt. Wrong. There are a multitude of behaviors (including complex facial gestures, posture, etc) that are being demonstrated and the person is not merely running, they are 'charging at' someone. While it is possibly true that 1 in 100,000 times a person assuming the posture and demeanor of a knife weilding killer and charging with a menacing look about them may be a psychotic person not intent on murder or someone hallucinating on drugs and immagining that they are charging at the devil who has a child in his clutches and is intending on killing that devil, or the person just saw the man who raped his 3 year old daughter and is going to kill that man.... the overwhelming majority of the time by a landslide...the person is a dangerous maniac and is going to do severe bodily harm to someone (who doesn't deserve it). No system is perfect. No human is perfect. No person can see the future.

You are silmply looking for a rationale to justify your violent means of keeping slaves to do your bidding. Admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I'm just waiting for you to tell me exactly when I can start pre-empting, 'cause I think government is a great preemptive tool and I sure "feel" threatened...

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what part of my "theory" did I say that new wealth would not be created? If you'd like to make a bet that 50% (of the survivors, natch) will be in the top .1% of the world's wealthiest people in ten years, let's talk stakes.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't intitiate anything with this dog.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't intitiate anything with this dog.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did if it didn't bite you.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't intitiate anything with this dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right, the dog initiated against him, and I guess that's the fine distinction he doesn't seem to get.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't intitiate anything with this dog.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did if it didn't bite you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a guy runs at you swinging a large axe while yelling that you are scum and about to get what you deserve, and you manage to shoot him dead just before he reaches you...he didn't initiate anything against you because you escaped injury? That's your position?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't intitiate anything with this dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right, the dog initiated against him, and I guess that's the fine distinction he doesn't seem to get.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very fine distinction. Exactly when did it initiate?