Coercion, how I see it

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a pretty convincing case as to why people should not incur debts when they do not have the money available to pay that debt off. I encourage you to continue to spread the word at your leisure. I support your efforts to educating people about why gambling with money one can not afford to loose is generally something to be avoided.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a pretty convincing case as to why people should not incur debts when they do not have the money available to pay that debt off. I encourage you to continue to spread the word at your leisure. I support your efforts to educating people about why gambling with money one can not afford to loose is generally something to be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great but you didn't address his comment. If everyone was a genius that never did dumb things that would be great, but that's not reality.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand and appreciate your intentions. I assume you understand the point I am making?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a pretty convincing case as to why people should not incur debts when they do not have the money available to pay that debt off. I encourage you to continue to spread the word at your leisure. I support your efforts to educating people about why gambling with money one can not afford to loose is generally something to be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great but you didn't address his comment. If everyone was a genius that never did dumb things that would be great, but that's not reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

He does not sound like this persons 'friend' to me. His little comment puts up one possible scenario, like a false dichotomy. I do not feel any obligation to respond when he is attempting to box in a discussion in such a manner.

[hmkpoker]

EDIT: No, I'm not even going to bother.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand and appreciate your intentions. I assume you understand the point I am making?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess?

[Copernicus]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do, although they claim they dont. Thats where their IP argument fell apart 5 or 6 months ago. Patents were turned into a Rube Goldberg structure of individual contracts and enforcement mechanisms so complex as to be unworkable or carry huge costs, to the detriment of the consumer.

[Borodog]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do, although they claim they dont. Thats where their IP argument fell apart 5 or 6 months ago. Patents were turned into a Rube Goldberg structure of individual contracts and enforcement mechanisms so complex as to be unworkable or carry huge costs, to the detriment of the consumer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally wrong. If IP was the cultural norm in a free market anarchist society, there would be firms that you could register patents or copyrights with to document claims, just like such offices existed to prove real property claims, even in the absence of government. See the American west, Alaska, and innumerable other instances where the market provided various services to prove title, the latest example of which being title insurance.

Why do you insist on pontificating about something you clearly have no understanding of? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[nietzreznor]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Most people I know object to blackmail. A lot of people I know (myself included) also object to smoking. However, I don't think either one constitutes a violation of self-ownership, and thus

2. I think libertarians (or rather, all people) ought to find blackmail distasteful and unethical (and it might be coercive, depending on the defintion), but it isn't aggressive, so it seems 'fine' under a thin conception of libertarianism.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
That's great but you didn't address his comment. If everyone was a genius that never did dumb things that would be great, but that's not reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, do you have some type of system in which people don't have to act? Do angels guide us through all of our actions?