The difference between being coerced and coercing

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no position, you do. Please tell me what it is. Exactly when may you shoot him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you do have a position, and it was expressed directly above. Your position (apparently) is that he is not initiating an attack against you unless you get injured by that attack (as per the dog example directly above in the quotes). You said that if someone took violent action against a charging dog which was apparently intent on attack, that the dog didn't initiate anything [specifically, it didn't initiate "an attack". -Jogger] with them unless the dog had actually bitten them (see above). I'm applying this to the charging axe-wielder also, and asking you to confirm that you believe the charging axe-wielder isn't initiating against anyone unless he actually harms them. Is that indeed your position with regard to the charging dog and the charging axe-wielder?

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. However, unlike you, I don't care whether or not they're initiating an attack. I have no moral qualms about "initiation of force", so it doesn't matter (from my standpoint) when exactly the attack begins. I'm perfectly comfortable preempting them on the chance that they are about to attack.

But you say that they, or at least the human, has a right to not have you "initiate a force transaction" against him. Please tell me exactly when it's okay to shoot him because you feel he may be about to harm you, according to your morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jogger is trying to justify his turning human beings into slaves to meet his own selfish ends by this line of argument. He is questioning the 'exact point' and trying to point out that since there is no concrete objective 'exact point' at which it is ok to defend against attack that this justifies him controlling humans lives as someone might do something bad and since there is not objectiv exact point it is reasonalbe for him to begin controlling you and me and our children from birth as an act of self defense. What a swell guy.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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...

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of my paranoid schizophrenic clients 'feel threatened' too.

I, unlike you, am not so arrogant to presuppose that I have any authority over you therefore I am not in a position to give you permission to 'start preempting'.

You are trying to sidestep the fact that you grant yourself the authority to turn human beings into slaves and servants to meet your own needs by focusing on me when it is quite obvious you are not looking for guidance at all. You made up your mind a long time ago and are merely trying to justify your sinster controlling of others much in the same way that a paranoid justifies his preemptive strikes.

In addition to getting help here:

http://www.coping.org/control/idealism.htm

as I recommended previously I also recommend that you consider changing the manner in which you evaluate things from how you 'feel' and begin using rational thought and expose your ideas to reality testing.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

When it made the decision to attack and put the plan into motion, charging forward at you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great, now let's talk about humans: if you buy a gun, does that indicate a decision/plan to attack me? Or rather, to express more clearly: if you decide to attack me, will that sometimes begin by buying a gun? If the answer is "sometimes", please tell me how to differentiate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone buying a gun does not indicate a desire or plan to attack you. If someone plans to attack you, they might begin by buying a gun, or by getting a kitchen knife out of the drawer, or by buying a baseball bat, or a chainsaw, or whatever. The buying of a tool (even a deadly tool) does not indicate a desire or plan to use it against you. If the guy comes at you waving his gun and shouting madly and aggressively at you, then you might have reason to think you were being attacked.

[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. You might have reason to think you were *about to be* attacked. Is "thinking you're about to be attacked" adequate justification to initiate a force transaction against someone?

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, if a home invader confronts you menacingly with a gun, you may have reason to think you are being attacked.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depending upon the nature of the confrontation, this can be true. Now: would it be okay to shoot him if he were walking toward your front door while carrying a gun? How about if he were walking down your street while carrying a gun? How about driving across your state line while carrying a gun? At exactly what point is it okay to initiate a force transaction against him because you feel he might be going to initiate one against you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You must use your judgment and it had better be good judgment. If your standards or perception vary dramatically from those of most people on this sort of issue, you may expect to encounter problems if you apply those standards (for instance, a paranoid schizophrenic experiencing a psychotic episode mistakenly thinks that the postman, who is actually delivering mail, is about to attack him, so he pre-emptively runs out and stabs him with a steak knife).

edit: Another example: if you think that your neighbors and townsfolk who legitimately own guns, who have no criminal records, and who have never made threatening noises or gestures towards you, are planning to shoot you and that that is the reason they have guns in their houses, then your judgment would be very poor. Depending upon what you might attempt based on that bad judgment or misperception, your actions could run from nothing, to merely misguided, to actively insane. As earlier, I will stress that (in my opinion) the matter calls for good judgment more than it calls for a precise line of definition.



[/ QUOTE ]
So the standard is "whatever you guys vote it is"? Interesting.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending upon the nature of the confrontation, this can be true. Now: would it be okay to shoot him if he were walking toward your front door while carrying a gun? How about if he were walking down your street while carrying a gun? How about driving across your state line while carrying a gun? At exactly what point is it okay to initiate a force transaction against him because you feel he might be going to initiate one against you?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is impossible to make a list of every possible situation and the point in each where it is OK to defend yourself. We trust you to make this decision on your own. If others disagree with you, you may be called to arbitration (think free market court) to defend your actions.

You have been told this many, many times now. We should all stop repeating ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
So really, there is no standard, nor expectation that I won't initiate a force transaction against somebody. Rather, I can initiate any force transaction I wish, whenever I wish, so long as I think I can convince some other third party that it was somehow "okay" for me to do so. Is this an accurate description of your "morality"?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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...

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of my paranoid schizophrenic clients 'feel threatened' too.

I, unlike you, am not so arrogant to presuppose that I have any authority over you therefore I am not in a position to give you permission to 'start preempting'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want to know when you give yourself permission to start preempting.

[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to sidestep the fact that you grant yourself the authority to turn human beings into slaves and servants to meet your own needs by focusing on me when it is quite obvious you are not looking for guidance at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
A new and interesting way to duck the question: pretend it isn't a question. Well done, and novel too!

[ QUOTE ]
You made up your mind a long time ago

[/ QUOTE ]
So help me unmake it. Please tell me when I may preempt someone from attacking me.

[ QUOTE ]
and are merely trying to justify your sinster controlling of others much in the same way that a paranoid justifies his preemptive strikes.

In addition to getting help here:

http://www.coping.org/control/idealism.htm

as I recommended previously I also recommend that you consider changing the manner in which you evaluate things from how you 'feel' and begin using rational thought and expose your ideas to reality testing.

[/ QUOTE ]
This last is a great idea! Tell me exactly when you think it's acceptable to shoot someone who you think is about to attack you.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
No, if you look at the context out of nowhere you interject this "bogus ac premise" which has nothing to do with the conversation.

Your worry is that in an AC society people will eventually only live based on the consent of others. Your reasoning is because all land will eventually owned, but THIS IS THE CURRENT SITUATION, AND THIS PATHOLOGICAL SCENARIO HASN'T HAPPENED.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't seem to get it: land "ownership" isn't absolute in the world as it exists now. So of course this consequence has not come to pass. Reflect on the closest example that the real world has seen, serfdom, and tell me how it's greatly different because, in AC, the serfs can move to a new land-owner's holding.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've already done this dozens of times, specifically for you (don't you remember us having this exact conversation?). I'm not doing it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes Shake, I remember every post you've ever written. Out of curiosity, did I even agree with whatever distinction you're referring to? If you want to discuss it, do, if not, not. You say "labor mixing" doesn't qualify as a means for property acquisition. If not that, what? (And please, oh please, don't tell me "gifting, selling, trading, etc". That right is incorporated into property ownership (for these purposes) already. I'm talking about how property is claimed for these purposes in the first place.)

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

[ 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...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Some of my paranoid schizophrenic clients 'feel threatened' too.

I, unlike you, am not so arrogant to presuppose that I have any authority over you therefore I am not in a position to give you permission to 'start preempting'.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I want to know when you give yourself permission to start preempting.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't want to know that. You want to justify your sinister authoritative actions whereby you control others nad subjugate them to serve your will and engaging in this line of questioning in an attempt to rationalize and justify treating human beings as slaves through control through government.



[ QUOTE ]
You made up your mind a long time ago

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

So help me unmake it. Please tell me when I may preempt someone from attacking me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have told you several times already that I, unlike you, do not presume to have authority over other people's actions.

[ QUOTE ]
and are merely trying to justify your sinster controlling of others much in the same way that a paranoid justifies his preemptive strikes.

In addition to getting help here:

http://www.coping.org/control/idealism.htm

as I recommended previously I also recommend that you consider changing the manner in which you evaluate things from how you 'feel' and begin using rational thought and expose your ideas to reality testing.

[/ QUOTE ]
This last is a great idea! Tell me exactly when you think it's acceptable to shoot someone who you think is about to attack you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am done addressing this point with you. You are a big boy. Simply admit that you are trying to rationalize your control of others through this line of questioning or I am done engaging you here. I have grown tired of engaging you with your willful avoidance of outlining your position.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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,

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you do.

[ QUOTE ]
because if you park it anywhere, someone has a right to tell you what to do with it,

[/ QUOTE ]

No they can't. They can exclude it from their property, that's all.

[ QUOTE ]
so if any component of ownership entails control, you do not own it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Control of property is a different matter than control of the car. When you bring your car to my parking garage, you do so under terms we mutally agree to. This does not constitute a surrender of any ownership interest in the car.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intellectual dishonesty again. I've never asserted any such thing, and you know it.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

OK, so any scenario I can imagine can form a justifiable basis for any action I may undertake?

Then why are you asking when it becomes acceptable to shoot a guy charging at you with a knife? Obviously, I can shoot anyone I want at any time because it is concievably possible that he could harm me in the future.

[pvn]

[ 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)?

[/ QUOTE ]

More intellectual dishonesty. You're moving the goalposts. Earlier it was "charging at you." Now it's "running in your vicinity."