The difference between being coerced and coercing

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it does. It wasn't specified.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile?

[/ QUOTE ]

I surely can.

[ QUOTE ]
I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I was wondering when you were going to throw in your customary inflamatory logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point may you preemptively shoot someone, according to your moral tenets? In what manner are you determining intent? Naturally I'm quite interested in your position on thoughtcrime, which I had erroniously believed you opposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting someone for imagining charging at you with a knife and stabbing you is a reacation to a 'thought crime.'

Weilding a knife and 'charging' is agression. That is plainly obvious. It is insane to suggest that you have no right to act until the knife plunges into you. Simply insane.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you have to wait until he wields and/or charges? As I've already asked, at what point does it become okay to violently preempt what you believe will become his attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a man is weilding a knife and his demeanor is agressive and he is charging at someone and I have a gun I am going to draw it. I am going to yell for him to drop the knife or I will shoot him. If he does not drop the knife I am going to shoot him.

Maybe in your world view it's reasonable to weild knives and charge at people but I somehow doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, in my worldview we legislate against threatening behavior. In your worldview as I understand it, "my right to swing your fist stops at the end of your nose" - except, you now apparently believe my "right" to swing my fist stops at some arbitrary point well short of your nose. So I'm wondering: which is it, and where exactly is this arbitrary point? For instance, I might feel that your hoarding guns in your basement was threatening...

[ QUOTE ]
That leads me to believe that you are willfully being disruptive. You are asking questions about which there is somewhat of a grey area but overwhelmingly there is general agreement. It seems like passive agressive behavior to me and I'm growing tired of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well gosh bro, if you're "growing tired of it", allow me to elaborate: your stated philosophy, assuming the above is a fair representation of it, is inconsistent with your actions. *Exactly* what "rights" does your philosophy assign me?

[ QUOTE ]
As pvn said, this is nothing specific to AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
(tangential stuff deleted)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like you are making a pretty fundamental mistake, and that is equating laws with the state. The state currently enforces the laws, no doubt about that, but the state is neither necessary nor sufficient for the development of laws. You make some privileged claim to assault laws, as if these are evidence of the superiority of the state. What makes the state so special? Why can't ANYONE develop and enforce assault laws?

[bkholdem]

38 to 1 lol this is a landslide. I don't think I've ever read a poll that was more of a landslide than this one.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
38 to 1 lol this is a landslide. I don't think I've ever read a poll that was more of a landslide than this one.

[/ QUOTE ]
So Jogger was the only one i'm guessing?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said this encounter takes place on your property?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps even sooner

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it does. It wasn't specified.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile?

[/ QUOTE ]

I surely can.

[ QUOTE ]
I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I was wondering when you were going to throw in your customary inflamatory logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what point may you preemptively shoot someone, according to your moral tenets? In what manner are you determining intent? Naturally I'm quite interested in your position on thoughtcrime, which I had erroniously believed you opposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shooting someone for imagining charging at you with a knife and stabbing you is a reacation to a 'thought crime.'

Weilding a knife and 'charging' is agression. That is plainly obvious. It is insane to suggest that you have no right to act until the knife plunges into you. Simply insane.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you have to wait until he wields and/or charges? As I've already asked, at what point does it become okay to violently preempt what you believe will become his attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a man is weilding a knife and his demeanor is agressive and he is charging at someone and I have a gun I am going to draw it. I am going to yell for him to drop the knife or I will shoot him. If he does not drop the knife I am going to shoot him.

Maybe in your world view it's reasonable to weild knives and charge at people but I somehow doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, in my worldview we legislate against threatening behavior. In your worldview as I understand it, "my right to swing your fist stops at the end of your nose" - except, you now apparently believe my "right" to swing my fist stops at some arbitrary point well short of your nose. So I'm wondering: which is it, and where exactly is this arbitrary point? For instance, I might feel that your hoarding guns in your basement was threatening...

[ QUOTE ]
That leads me to believe that you are willfully being disruptive. You are asking questions about which there is somewhat of a grey area but overwhelmingly there is general agreement. It seems like passive agressive behavior to me and I'm growing tired of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well gosh bro, if you're "growing tired of it", allow me to elaborate: your stated philosophy, assuming the above is a fair representation of it, is inconsistent with your actions. *Exactly* what "rights" does your philosophy assign me?

[ QUOTE ]
As pvn said, this is nothing specific to AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
(tangential stuff deleted)

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like you are making a pretty fundamental mistake, and that is equating laws with the state. The state currently enforces the laws, no doubt about that, but the state is neither necessary nor sufficient for the development of laws. You make some privileged claim to assault laws, as if these are evidence of the superiority of the state. What makes the state so special? Why can't ANYONE develop and enforce assault laws?

[/ QUOTE ]
Enforcement of anything is non-voluntary, on the enforcee. You asked what makes the state special? If the objection of ACists to the state is that it employs coersion to gain its desired ends, what's the difference between the state and anyone else who "enforces" "laws"?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter what you see as aggression and what isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it does matter what you see as aggression? Because you've been calling my government aggressive since day 1. Why are you running from specifically defining aggression now?

[ QUOTE ]
This whole "debate" is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good technique: when you can't address, dismiss.

[ QUOTE ]
If you shoot someone when it seems obvious you weren't in harms way, you'll probably be called to arbitration.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find your "probably" somehow not comforting.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do you have to wait until he wields and/or charges? As I've already asked, at what point does it become okay to violently preempt what you believe will become his attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If a man is weilding a knife and his demeanor is agressive and he is charging at someone and I have a gun I am going to draw it. I am going to yell for him to drop the knife or I will shoot him. If he does not drop the knife I am going to shoot him.

Maybe in your world view it's reasonable to weild knives and charge at people but I somehow doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


Nope, in my worldview we legislate against threatening behavior. In your worldview as I understand it, "my right to swing your fist stops at the end of your nose" - except, you now apparently believe my "right" to swing my fist stops at some arbitrary point well short of your nose. So I'm wondering: which is it, and where exactly is this arbitrary point? For instance, I might feel that your hoarding guns in your basement was threatening....

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your world you go down into your basement and write on a blackboard: Rule: "Dont do bad stuff A". "Don't do bad stuff B". Etc ad nauseam

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah - sort of like contract law, the joy of ACism.

[ QUOTE ]
That does not seem to be a very effective means of preventing violent maniacs hellbent on murder from plunging knives into people. In fact we currently have that system AND the system of shooting people who are agressing with lethal force. And guess what? It still happens. And your advocating removing the means to defend from being murdered when there is an eminent threat to one's life? It is an interesting concept. Good luck with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm advocating eliminating nothing. It's you who wants to get rid of government, not me. You are "advocating" a philosophy of self-ownership and non-coersion whose limitations, so far, you haven't even defined. Even more impressive, some ACists on here are expressing dubiousness that such definition is even possible.

[ QUOTE ]
And the right to swing one's fist has never been allowed up to the end of the point of my nose. There is a legal concept called 'assault'. Maybe you have heard of it. Here is one of a multitude of definitions: the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're a fan of the law again? If not, please tell me exactly where my right of self-ownership stops.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as where the arbitrary point is, I will use my conscience as my guide NOT YOURS.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your conscience will guide you as to when you can and cannot shoot me? Sounds great. Surely you don't mind universalizing this "principle" of your morality? Because my conscience rests quite easy in implementing a government to protect me from the threats it tells me that you pose.

[ QUOTE ]
Same goes for the guns in my closet. Same goes for all the choices I make. Stop trying to impose your will on other people. It is selfish and egotististical.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really have nothing to add here. You have justified government.

[ QUOTE ]
That leads me to believe that you are willfully being disruptive. You are asking questions about which there is somewhat of a grey area but overwhelmingly there is general agreement. It seems like passive agressive behavior to me and I'm growing tired of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Well gosh bro, if you're "growing tired of it", allow me to elaborate: your stated philosophy, assuming the above is a fair representation of it, is inconsistent with your actions. *Exactly* what "rights" does your philosophy assign me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I welcome you to start a thread to examine my philosophy and look forward to participating. Please do so in the philosophy forum. There are aspects of my belief system and actions that are hyppocritical and I readily admit that. I, unlike you, do not aim to be perfect OR expect perfection from others.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing like aiming low. If nothing else, it's so easy to hit the target, after all.

[ QUOTE ]
And as to what rights my philosophy assign you: My philosophical does not presuppose to have any authority over your person so it can not assign you any rights. I do not think I am in charge of your rights or anyone elses rights, just mine. YOU, on the other hand, seem to think you have been granted some kind of authority (by yourself? or some other entity?) to oversee my rights or behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
How the hell can you tell me that you don't even know whether or when you might shoot me, and in the same breath tell me I haven't got a right to oversee your behavior? Are you mad?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what??? It's a big deal that the one universal right upon which the foundations of AC are built (the right to your personhood) is ultimately contingent upon the whims of others. The right to life/"controlling the fruits of one's labor" is a fairly hollow right if it doesn't include the right to exist in any tangible place.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The state doesn't do anything to solve this scenario. A person could be refused a job everywhere, but it simply doesn't because it's a pathological scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguing that a state (really a specific state, in this case) isn't better than your morality is in no way an argument for your morality.

You're advocating a right to control one's labor that must eventually conflict with someone else's right to do the same. It doesn't even matter if the chance of a "practical" conflict between my rights and yours is 1/google; you're making a claim for the logical necessity of property ownership on the basis of self-ownership, and I've shown that your logical "necessity", isn't.

[jogger08152]

[ 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 ]
Would that contract become invalid if Mr. X died before the assigned time elapsed? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]
N/A

[ 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 ]
Also, note that the fact that primogeniture is no longer in vogue has a lot more to do with the lack of "absolute hegemony of the landed" than any currently-in-place estate tax.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, are you saying, "the fact that primogenitur is no longer in vogue" and "current estate taxes" both have to do with the lack of an absolute hegemony of the landed, and you'd like to remove one of these two barriers to that hegemony?

[ QUOTE ]
Off topic: do you prefer a tax on estates or on heirs?

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you see as the difference?

[pvn]

[ 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 ]
[ 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.

Meanwhile, you accuse me of not providing sources when I did and you just didn't bother to read them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, note that the fact that primogeniture is no longer in vogue has a lot more to do with the lack of "absolute hegemony of the landed" than any currently-in-place estate tax.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, are you saying, "the fact that primogenitur is no longer in vogue" and "current estate taxes" both have to do with the lack of an absolute hegemony of the landed, and you'd like to remove one of these two barriers to that hegemony?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying the estate tax is not such a barrier. Not an effective one, at least. Bill Gates is devoting 95% of his estate to philanthropy. Warren Buffet, also above 90%. How many Carnegies, Rockefellers, Morgans are at the top of the Forbes 400? There are many, many factors that are more important in explaining the breakup of large concentrations of wealth than the estate tax.

[ 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?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what??? It's a big deal that the one universal right upon which the foundations of AC are built (the right to your personhood) is ultimately contingent upon the whims of others. The right to life/"controlling the fruits of one's labor" is a fairly hollow right if it doesn't include the right to exist in any tangible place.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The state doesn't do anything to solve this scenario. A person could be refused a job everywhere, but it simply doesn't because it's a pathological scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguing that a state (really a specific state, in this case) isn't better than your morality is in no way an argument for your morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also no argument for the state. Which really is all we need here.

[ QUOTE ]
You're advocating a right to control one's labor that must eventually conflict with someone else's right to do the same. It doesn't even matter if the chance of a "practical" conflict between my rights and yours is 1/google; you're making a claim for the logical necessity of property ownership on the basis of self-ownership, and I've shown that your logical "necessity", isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you haven't. You've asserted it.