The difference between being coerced and coercing

[iron81]

Sorry guys, survivor isn't permitted.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun has real bullets, but they don't work properly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I meant to ask something along these lines. Like what if the guy unloads on me but completely misses? He hasn't attacked me yet according to Jogger (he could have been shooting at the wall behind me, who am I to know his intentions?!) so unless I let him reload and try again, I'd be the one to INITIATE the violence right?

Edit: Question is meant for jogger, I agree with your points Nietz.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is (if we take out all the silly exaggerations) a pretty decent question. Not just for AC v. State, but in everyday life.

At what point have the rights (let's assume we agree on the rights to one's person and the safety thereof) of a person been imposed upon. I tend to favor the common sense explaination here, but attempting to apply it as law (AC or state law) is trickier because sense really isn't that common.

If a man shoots near you, but is shooting at the wall behind, then one could argue he's threatened you, and that he has a responsibility to caution those inbetween his gun and his target. But that may not be the opinion of everyone. Do we have any metrics that can be used across the board here?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's just common sense and social norms. How often is a stranger going to start opening fire at the wall right behind you? I don't know if I've ever heard a story where there was a mistaken self-defense shooting because the perp was taking target practice at a wall that a person was standing in front of.

Of course, according to Jogger, since we can't read minds,

[/ QUOTE ]

Link, liar.

[ QUOTE ]
(fabrication deleted)

[/ QUOTE ]

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
For stuff like this, I'm a big fan of the "man on the Clapham omnibus" test. It's quite hard to come up with a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for an action to be an assault, but everyone knows it when they see it.

[/ QUOTE ]
An assault need not be violent, per American jurisprudence.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have an idea. Let's have a poll, "Who is more of a troll on this forum, Vagos or Jogger?" Whoever wins the most troll votes is to be banned from this forum for life? Do you accept?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll set it up with a poll. Just to be clear, whoever gets more votes as being a troll is the loser and must leave 2+2 politics forever.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you prefer a poll, or should the mods get to decide?

If you want to do it via general voting, I propose the voting be via roll call - IE, not a "poll" but each voter posts his vote openly.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry guys, survivor isn't permitted.

[/ QUOTE ]
You won't make an exception? I'd be interested to see how such a poll turns out.

I'd be doubly interested, if the votes were by post only, IE you must post your name as you vote. That would also ensure against cheating.

[bkholdem]

Lets face it, like him or not, agree with him or not, jogger is just about the only poster who has provided the AC croud with any real stimulation in the politics forum in quite a while. I don't know if he's a troll or not but if he is I kind of like to think of him as pretty harmless yet interesting pet troll, like those little plastic figures with the colorful Don King hair.

http://troll.freeservers.com/

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets face it, like him or not, agree with him or not, jogger is just about the only poster who has provided the AC croud with any real stimulation in the politics forum in quite a while. I don't know if he's a troll or not but if he is I kind of like to think of him as pretty harmless yet interesting pet troll, like those little plastic figures with the colorful Don King hair.

http://troll.freeservers.com/

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was sorta thinking that that fact, coupled with at least some of the folks on here would both recognize the fact that I don't troll(though I've been hostile a couple times in response to what I perceived as trollishness), recognize the fact that Vagos does, and vote their conscience, would make the voting pretty interesting.

Worst-case scenario is I lose and go someplace else - and the resulting illustration that one can leave unharmed if the results of the voting are adverse would be/would have been such a wonderfully fitting end to my visit... and of course the wicked irony if Vagos got himself voted off the forum because of his own suggestion, as enforced by the voluntary (and completely non-compulsory!) voting of a group composed in large part of ACists would also warm my little heart...

Best regards,
Jogger

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets face it, like him or not, agree with him or not, jogger is just about the only poster who has provided the AC croud with any real stimulation in the politics forum in quite a while. I don't know if he's a troll or not but if he is I kind of like to think of him as pretty harmless yet interesting pet troll, like those little plastic figures with the colorful Don King hair.

http://troll.freeservers.com/

[/ QUOTE ]
Guys, enough throwing around the troll-accusation. Not everyone who disagrees with AC or plays devil's advocate is a troll.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
When she initiates violence against you. In this instance, it would be the moment she squeezes the trigger (while pointing the gun at you, not her own head).

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if there are no bullets in the gun, or only blanks? Would I be justified in tackling her and breaking here arm to halt further attack, even though she couldn't possibly have harmed me? Does it matter if I perceive to be attacked, or if I actually am attacked?

[ QUOTE ]
Me either: rational people preempt threats. Hence, rational people disregard the empty claim that one must never initiate a force transaction against another person. It doesn't surprise me that you'd take this position... but it does, a little, that you'd do so while self-identifying as an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line of reasoning isn't going to get us anywhere (setting aside for now that I disagree with you about what constitutes an intitiation of force by someone) since I've already stated in another thread that there are cases where a good person should disregrad property rights (at least temporarily). I don't take this to be an argument against anarchism, though, since I don't think the fact that, eg, I ought to steal to feed my child this one time, frees me from owing the guy restitution for my action. So as a rational person, I do think there are times when it is best to violate property rights (I also think that there are many things that one might do that are worse than some property-rights violations).

[ QUOTE ]
Preemption of threats is what government is (properly) about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What "threats" is it that you think government preempts (or ought to preempt)?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you prefer a poll, or should the mods get to decide?


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the one mod, who told me to lay off the troll accusations when you've called me a troll 3 times in this thread compared to my 0. Yea, that'd be real fair.

Also Iron, you're free to reply to my PM. If you don't want to make it obvious you're favoring against ACists, you should try and at least attempt to address legitimate concerns.