The difference between being coerced and coercing

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is going in circles. Enforcement of assault laws are self-defense. Is it coercive of me to shoot you when you are trying to kill me? Maybe, but who cares? I really don't think this is the type of state-sponsored coercion that the ACers here are against, the coercive nature of enforcing laws. I could be wrong, but I think they are against the coercive nature of forced participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're exactly right. Self-defense is coercive, in a trivial sense, but the coercion is focused against someone who *initiated* coercion. When the aggressor initiates a force transaction with his victim, and does so withuot consent, without terms and conditions, without a contract, he by necessity does so without any legitimate expectation of how that transaction will be *closed*.

You can't force someone to interact with you then get indignant when that person shoots back.

Jogger ignores the coercion that opened the interaction. I suspect he knows what he's doing here, which would make him (as we say) intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're (still) ducking the question. When exactly does this initiation of force (the "initial" one, IE, the knife-wielder's "attack") begin?

[/ QUOTE ]

When a vicious dog gets loose from its tether and attacks you while you are out jogging, at what point, exactly, did the vicious dog's attack begin? At what point would you be justified in shooting, clubbing or pepper-spraying the dog?

The "exactly" part of the question is meaningless, for all practical purposes. The dog decided to attack and put the attack into motion. Hopefully, you responded in time if you were aware, and prepared.

[/ QUOTE ]
So when would it be okay to institute government as a preventative measure against the threat posed by my fellow inhabitants of North America?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know but that's a far cry from an examples of a knife-wielding attacker or a vicious dog. Let's note in both examples that you did not have the right to act violently until you perceived an attack in progress. Now you're asking about a preventative measure which is an entirely different thing than a reactive measure.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
You know that's not what I mean. The situation in question is one where you must debate when you have a right to self defense, or when exactly you can exercise it. There's no reason to go through thousands of little examples and see.

[/ QUOTE ]
You guys are arguing preemption is self-defense. I want to know precisely when I can preempt. Is government a legitimate form of preemption?

[/ QUOTE ]
Being that I've never read an argument for government as only being used for preemption, I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, do you concede that government is an acceptable form of self-defense against my fellow man?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, you said that if I did something you found threatening and you shot me over it, it would "probably" go to arbitration. That isn't an answer to my question. I want to know exactly when I may preempt aggression from someone I feel is threatening me.


[/ QUOTE ]
There isn't a simple black and white answer in all situations. If you choose a spot where it doesn't look like self defense, arbitration may be right around the corner.
[ QUOTE ]
Except every realistic scenario (troll attack snipped) doesn't require me to rely exclusively on the judgment of some ACist yahoo with an uzi.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't I just get done telling you about arbitration? It's not. And what makes AC people more likely to shoot you for no reason people in a statist world?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, let's see... hmm... ah, I know! How about this: uzis has been outlawed by the inefficient government that runs my state. In those rare instances where automatic weapons are allowed - usually in the hands of certain government employees on duty at their jobs - the individual handling the weapon is inviably well trained, as is required by law.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is going in circles. Enforcement of assault laws are self-defense. Is it coercive of me to shoot you when you are trying to kill me? Maybe, but who cares? I really don't think this is the type of state-sponsored coercion that the ACers here are against, the coercive nature of enforcing laws. I could be wrong, but I think they are against the coercive nature of forced participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're exactly right. Self-defense is coercive, in a trivial sense, but the coercion is focused against someone who *initiated* coercion. When the aggressor initiates a force transaction with his victim, and does so withuot consent, without terms and conditions, without a contract, he by necessity does so without any legitimate expectation of how that transaction will be *closed*.

You can't force someone to interact with you then get indignant when that person shoots back.

Jogger ignores the coercion that opened the interaction. I suspect he knows what he's doing here, which would make him (as we say) intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're (still) ducking the question. When exactly does this initiation of force (the "initial" one, IE, the knife-wielder's "attack") begin?

[/ QUOTE ]

When a vicious dog gets loose from its tether and attacks you while you are out jogging, at what point, exactly, did the vicious dog's attack begin? At what point would you be justified in shooting, clubbing or pepper-spraying the dog?

The "exactly" part of the question is meaningless, for all practical purposes. The dog decided to attack and put the attack into motion. Hopefully, you responded in time if you were aware, and prepared.

[/ QUOTE ]
So when would it be okay to institute government as a preventative measure against the threat posed by my fellow inhabitants of North America?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know but that's a far cry from an examples of a knife-wielding attacker or a vicious dog. Let's note in both examples that you did not have the right to act violently until you perceived an attack in progress. Now you're asking about a preventative measure which is an entirely different thing than a reactive measure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Define "attack in progress".

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So when would it be okay to institute government as a preventative measure against the threat posed by my fellow inhabitants of North America?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, if you can show government is the only way to do that. Better get to work.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to show that government is the only form of self-defense? But you didn't have to do that in your example, and of course you can't, because it wouldn't even be true in your example. For instance, you could run away, mace me, call in a crew of ninjas to beat me to the ground with stunning but non-fatal blows to critical nerve plexii, etc. Are you now saying you have no right to shoot me if I merely run toward you while wielding a knife?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
P6. If humanity does not kill itself first, someday all territory will be improved, and therefore owned.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must be advocating some odd society, because this is already the case in the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
To the best of my knowledge I've never advocated the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so what are you advocating?

[/ QUOTE ]
A better version of statism.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the "flaws" your accusing AC land of certainly aren't isolated to itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all land is owned, I am not free to exist without someone else's consent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I guess right now you're not free to exist without someone else's consent.

[/ 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.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to show that government is the only form of self-defense?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to initiate violence against others, YOU must justify it.
[ QUOTE ]
But you didn't have to do that in your example,

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have an example.
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, you could run away, mace me, call in a crew of ninjas to beat me to the ground with stunning but non-fatal blows to critical nerve plexii, etc. Are you now saying you have no right to shoot me if I merely run toward you while wielding a knife?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you're talking about here.

[ShakeZula06]

[ 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.

edit: how often are you going to strawman us with the "mixing labor" term? Haven't we denied it enough yet?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have to show that government is the only form of self-defense?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to initiate violence against others, YOU must justify it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. Please explain exactly when I may initiate violence against someone because I feel he's a threat.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have to show that government is the only form of self-defense?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to initiate violence against others, YOU must justify it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. Please explain exactly when I may initiate violence against someone because I feel he's a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
When he's a legitimate threat. If people disagree with you then you'll have to go to court to show it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
P1. All humans own themselves.
P2. No human has claim on the person of another, absent the former's consent.
P3. No human can exist outside the physical confines of space (IE, "territory").
P4. All humans own their labor and the products of their labor, including any territory they improve.
P5. No human has claim on the labor or property of another, absent the former's consent.
P6. If humanity does not kill itself first, someday all territory will be improved, and therefore owned.
P7. A human will be born after all territory is owned.

C: The human born after P6 will be unable to occupy space without the consent of another, demonstrating that his self-ownership is not absolute and falsifying P2. He will also be unable to labor without the consent of another, demonstrating that his ownership of his labor is not absolute and falsifying P4.

[/ 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 ]
While P6 and P7 are not demonstrable, they are entirely consistant with and permissable within the bounds set by Premises 1-5, and they are consistent with the fact that humans have, throughout their history, shown the ability and inclination to both improve land and spawn more humans.

[/ 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.