#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The government/market distinction depends on a cultural artifact.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Our problem is this: the good people have to find a way to violently coerce the bad people into being less violent. [/ QUOTE ] Self-defense != violent coercion. [/ QUOTE ] Well, it is, sort of, in a trivial sense. But this isn't a useful way to use the word since he's conflating initated violence with reactive violence. And there's a good possibility he's conflating these on purpose, since he's been around this forum enough to know better. [/ QUOTE ] See what I mean? His response: [ QUOTE ] That's just semantics, right? [/ QUOTE ] He's pulling the bait and switch. This thread is over before it begun. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The government/market distinction depends on a cultural artifact.
I just don't see how AC proposes to handle bad people without "democratizing" the practice of violence.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The government/market distinction depends on a cultural artifact.
I don't know what would happen if we removed non-violence norms from the general population. It just seems an enormous risk.
Like a really, really enormous risk. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The government/market distinction depends on a cultural artifact.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Without this cultural norm for non-violence in the private sector, society would be pure AC. [/ QUOTE ] Close, but it's the other way around. Without the cultural norm for accepting violence from government agents that you wouldn't accept from normal people you'd have AC. [/ QUOTE ] Yes! So if free market agents stopped voluntarily refraining from violent resistance, there would no longer be a distinction between "government" and "free market." Exactly. |
|
|