The government/market distinction depends on a cultural artifact.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our problem is this: the good people have to find a way to violently coerce the bad people into being less violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-defense != violent coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is, sort of, in a trivial sense. But this isn't a useful way to use the word since he's conflating initated violence with reactive violence. And there's a good possibility he's conflating these on purpose, since he's been around this forum enough to know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

See what I mean? His response:

[ QUOTE ]
That's just semantics, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's pulling the bait and switch. This thread is over before it begun.

[Subfallen]

I just don't see how AC proposes to handle bad people without "democratizing" the practice of violence.

[Subfallen]

I don't know what would happen if we removed non-violence norms from the general population. It just seems an enormous risk.

Like a really, really enormous risk.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Without this cultural norm for non-violence in the private sector, society would be pure AC.


[/ QUOTE ]

Close, but it's the other way around. Without the cultural norm for accepting violence from government agents that you wouldn't accept from normal people you'd have AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! So if free market agents stopped voluntarily refraining from violent resistance, there would no longer be a distinction between "government" and "free market."

Exactly.