Coercion, how I see it

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In other words, STFU or GTFO.

I'm done with this line of discussion. It's ridiculous. If it were true it would justify anything that any government does. Jews don't like getting exterminated? STFO or GTFO.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell? You are really a piece of work. I'm saying it's all coercive, not that none of it is. What I'm trying to show is you can't say one situation is while the other isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly appear to be trying to justify government coercion through STFU or GTFO to me. Otherwise, why claim that you have the "choice" to either pay your taxes (STFU) or not pay your taxes and flee the country (GTFO)?

Your argument that both are coercive was already defeated. Read the thread. Not continuing to provide a benefit is not the same thing as inflicting a harm, unless it violates a contract agreed to by both parties. I notice you conveniently neglect the fact that your hypothetical employer is almost certainly violating the employment contract of the employee, and thus he cannot, in fact, fire her for failing to provide sexual services that were not a part of their employment agreement, at least not without incurring liability for the damages (loss of employment) he causes.

Your whole hypothetical scenario is disanalogous to government.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]


You certainly appear to be trying to justify government coercion through STFU or GTFO to me. Otherwise, why claim that you have the "choice" to either pay your taxes (STFU) or not pay your taxes and flee the country (GTFO)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the point of that was to show both situations are coercive, by showing the claims of government are analagous to that of a capitalist. It was certainly not to justify government.


[ QUOTE ]

Your argument that both are coercive was already defeated. Read the thread. Not continuing to provide a benefit is not the same thing as inflicting a harm, unless it violates a contract agreed to by both parties. I notice you conveniently neglect the fact that your hypothetical employer is almost certainly violating the employment contract of the employee, and thus he cannot, in fact, fire her for failing to provide sexual services that were not a part of their employment agreement, at least not without incurring liability for the damages (loss of employment) he causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware of the negative/positive rights distinction.

I really doubt the employment contracts mention anything about sexual harassment, in the type of jobs that I am talking about (low skill, blue collar work). But let me get this straight, everything is allowed unless explicitly not mentioned in this supposed contract? That seems ridiculous. Do you envision a society where we all have to carry around contracts for everything?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You certainly appear to be trying to justify government coercion through STFU or GTFO to me. Otherwise, why claim that you have the "choice" to either pay your taxes (STFU) or not pay your taxes and flee the country (GTFO)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the point of that was to show both situations are coercive, by showing the claims of government are analagous to that of a capitalist. It was certainly not to justify government.


[ QUOTE ]

Your argument that both are coercive was already defeated. Read the thread. Not continuing to provide a benefit is not the same thing as inflicting a harm, unless it violates a contract agreed to by both parties. I notice you conveniently neglect the fact that your hypothetical employer is almost certainly violating the employment contract of the employee, and thus he cannot, in fact, fire her for failing to provide sexual services that were not a part of their employment agreement, at least not without incurring liability for the damages (loss of employment) he causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware of the negative/positive rights distinction.

I really doubt the employment contracts mention anything about sexual harassment, in the type of jobs that I am talking about (low skill, blue collar work).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Employment contracts lay out explicitly what the responsibilities and duties of the employee are, not what they aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
But let me get this straight, everything is allowed unless explicitly not mentioned in this supposed contract? That seems ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems ridiculous because that's not what I said? For example we don't need a contract that says that you can't take my [censored], kill me, enslave me, etc. We need a contract when we are going to voluntarily exchange things of value. The more valuable those things are, the more rigorously written will be the contract.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you envision a society where we all have to carry around contracts for everything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Barring the hyperbolic use of the word "everything", we already have that society, except it is rarely necessary to carry the contracts around. We put them in safe places in case we need them, like if our bosses try to fire us for not blowing them.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You could if you moved to certain areas of the Earth basically be without government control, like Somalia.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a government in Somalia. But this is irrelevant because I shouldn't have to leave my own property. The factory worker is on someone elses property so your analogy doesn't fit.

[ QUOTE ]
We are merely talking about a choice between business/government X and another business/government Y, not creating your own.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's one more option that you have in a free society that you don't have under a government. It goes to show how your analogy is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
For example Walmart has had huge issues with sexual discrimination in the workplace

[/ QUOTE ]
But this is a small fraction of the workforce at WalMart. And that's only a fraction of the workforce in the US. My point remains that everyone is not being constantly harassed by their bosses.

[ QUOTE ]
lawsuits that wouldn't exist if libertarians were in charge

[/ QUOTE ]
Says who?

[ QUOTE ]
If the market responded as libertarians say it should, walmart would be out of business, because they have about as bad of employee relations as any business out there.

[/ QUOTE ]
WalMart might not be out of business, but those particular WalMarts might or those responsible would be fired. Do you think that bosses who've been charged with sexual harassment are going to keep on working there?

[ QUOTE ]
You said without the "free market" which I guess means capitalism she'd have nowhere to go.

[/ QUOTE ]
The free market is a cooperative society. And the market provides thousands of different jobs, many of which she doesn't have to do anything but leave the oppressive company.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She can quit. When the government wants to [censored] you, you have no choice.

Next.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can quit the job and the US the same way, by leaving. You do have a choice. No one is forcing you to stay in this country.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just going to stop arguing on this godforsaken forum. It's the same arguments over and over and over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why you should bookmark your good posts, so you can just copy and paste them when the same argument comes up for the four xillionth time.

EG:

I have some hot dogs. I am selling them for $100 each. Since you probably like to eat (or know somebody who does), I'm going to force you to buy them (for your own good - you just said you need to eat something!). If you don't want to buy them, you need to move to siberia, because I'm giving myself the monopoly on food distribution for everywhere except there. Your presense in my monopoly territory is tacit consent to my distribution scheme.

Oh, and as a bonus, I give free wedgies (retail value: $500 each, just because I arbitrarily placed that value on them) with each hotdog. Enjoy!

[neverforgetlol]

Obviously if it is going to be me vs. every AC on the forum this won't go well. There is a complete misunderstanding of the point of my OP, but whatever, it doesn't matter, this [censored] doesn't mean anything anyway.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
The man is free to quit his job, but he is subject to the inherent coerciveness of his own human nature. That doesn't, however, mean that his boss is the coercing agent; his personal needs are.


[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a strange argument to me. By the same logic, say my friend is in bad gambling debt and comes to me (his rich friend) for help. I offer to pay off his debt, with the stipulation that he pays me back tenfold what I loan him. Basically, he would be my indentured servant for life. But this isn't me being exploitative or coercive, it's him being coerced by his own need not to be killed and dumped in the East River.

This seems clearly untrue--it's obviously exploitative, and is coercive by the OP dictionary definition.

"the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will"

In my example, I'm using a situational threat from a third party to get someone to act against his will. It's less direct than the loan shark threatening to murder him, but it's still coercive.

[neverforgetlol]

I should also mention most libertarians don't object to blackmail, which is pretty much the definition of coercive.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

STFU and GTFO for the win. What a joke. This argument is so incredibly old and busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a response?

[ QUOTE ]
Employers are numerous and not territorially monopolistic. You can get any of thousands of jobs without having to leave your entire life and move to Antarctica.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either are governments, there is no world government. This is completely subjective as to how you define a territory. If you define a territory as each country, that's very convenient, but if you define territory as the earth, or the northern hemisphere, etc. no single governments holds a monopoly.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, if you tried to "quit" the US when Uncle Sam tried to [censored] you, he would not permit it. Or are you under the delusion that fleeing the country for things like tax evasion is not also a crime?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all, but if you do not wish to voluntarily remain in the US, you may leave and pay no more taxes after you do so (as long as you renounce your citizenship).

[ QUOTE ]


Is this a joke? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can choose to move if you'd like. No one is stopping you from making that choice. I agree it's move inconvenient than changing jobs, but since when is convenience a litmus test for anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear: I do not think that there is a single ACer here that does not know that they are allowed to leave and denounce citizenship. Any or all of us certainly 'could' do that.

Now I am curious:

Do you support or renounce unions organizing strikes?

Do you support or renounce civil disobedience?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]


Now I am curious:

Do you support or renounce unions organizing strikes?

Do you support or renounce civil disobedience?

[/ QUOTE ]

Support both, my arguments did not intend to support government, rather attack capitalism by showing it is just as coercive.