Yeah, you are.
Yeah, it is.
Remember this: emotive pleas have no place.
Blasted trade offs.
That is because they are coerced, threatened with force, to do so.
You are not entitled to others trading with you.
If the state had somehow developed a legitimate monopoly on a certain good (which is neigh impossible on the free market) they would be able to withold trade from individuals they didn’t like for whatever reason they had.
Uhm, no it isn’t. An example would be how the child would exercise a slave condition on the parent.
I’m not making emotive pleas. Your argument may be righteous, and you may be righteous, but you’ll never make any headway promoting libertarianism, if you refuse to confront emotional arguments. Telling emotional beings to think and behave unemotionally is a pipe dream.
Nonsense. They know the state is wrong, they know the state cannot stop a mass movement. It’s their own fear of going it alone that paralyzes them. If there were 20 million people not paying their taxes, then the libertarians would suddenly find their testicular fortitude.
Ok, I’ll admit some ignorance, but this is just silly. You’re stating the obvious.
But I’m not necessarily talking only about the state. I see posted here often, that ostracism is a legitimate punishment or enforcement tactic. That you could stop doing business with someone. Now you don’t need a death pact between multiple suppliers of a rare good, but smart business says, if 99% of my customers want me to stop dealing with X, then it is in my best interest to not deal with X. I can’t keep 1 customer over 99.
The threat of being ostracised by a group could have tangible physical consequences.
As Byzantine said, it is easy to argue righteousness when you’re a single, childless male. When someone has kids, I’m not so sure they would be willing to acknowledge that the children are property and can be discarded like an old pair of shoes.
…and?
-Jon
I’m sure they’d find it unimaginable and horrific, and quite rightly so, that doesn’t however exclude the posibility that they’d understand the parent is well within their rights to do so.
Of course even a society in which this is possible is preferable to what we have today, as it is kids are required to attend schools to be taught exactly what the state wants them to learn, moreover kids are often taken away from their parents by the state for merely trying to do their best as a parent.
And what is that based on?
Bodily harm.
Again, this is not coercion. It’s a legitimate use of property. You are entitled to people not aggressing against you, but not them trading with you. Ostricism is not coercion.
Who’s said children are property?
And I am asking what the difference between being coerced and being ostracized is.
Yeah, it actually is. You can whine all you like, but it’s an example.
Yeah, you are. Your argument is based on the emotive plea of “living things have the right to live” to evoke sympathy.
And I never said for thinking beings to behave unemotionally. You REALLY should learn to not construct strawmen.
Nope, I defeated you for like the 20th time now on this one.
Speaking of strawmen, where did I state that “living things have the right to live”? You’ll have to prove that or you have lost the argument.
One denies you use of your own property, the other entails others refusing you use of theirs.
-Jon
Ok, got it. Thank you.
But does that mean it’s not coercive? I go through this big ordeal to determine that under all circumstances, a woman can always abort a pregnancy, and then we find out that if her health or safety is threatened by the withdrawl of service meant to coerce her to perhaps not have an abortion, her right to an abortion is meaningless, because exercising it could mean death.
I don’t understand how this is any different than paying your taxes only because of the threat of violence. Surely the state beating you over the head, or withdrawing it’s pseudo-protection and allowing bandits to beat you over the head if you do not comply, is really not that dramatically different, is it?
I understand the right to ostracize, property etc. But it can be used to compromise or threaten other’s rights to determination, can it not?
Yes, you actually go beyond that by saying that some severely mentally handicapped people might not qualify as human and therefore in your world those people can just be taken out and shot I guess. Yeah, give me a break.
It’s the hidden premise of your argument, which is why I said you begged the question.
Silly child, you cannot best me.
Coercion? In a sense that mandates forceful retaliation? No. It might make life more difficult, but if a group of individuals do not wish to consort with women who abort their children that is within their right, and to force them to cooperate is to enslave them and thus destructive of the very notion of liberty. So, what it does mean is that in some communities abortion will be frowned upon, and in others it will be openly tolerated. But refusing to associate with someone is never “coercive” in the sense that force may be used against the discriminator. This is really basic to libertarianism. Her basic. negative right to liberty remains untainted - her options are simply limited. But no one ever said liberty (which is negative) entails a plethora of options…
-Jon
OK. Thanks.
A “hidden premise”? So basically you can’t prove it, and have lost again. Before you lecture me on strawmen, you should make sure you are not susceptible to the same charge!
Because I don’t care, you are already defeated.
Yes. That’s what begging the question means, little one. It is to create an unstated secondary proposition related to the first proposition, and which the first proposition relies on but yet is not proven. Thus, the question is “begged” because it’s not been proved. Examples are “who created the universe”–begging the question that the universe was created in the first place, and “have you stopped beating your wife”, begging the question that you have, in fact, beaten your wife.
Can you show the exact phrase or phrases where I begged the question? If you can’t prove it, then you have lost and should leave the argument.
Already did. You should re-read the exchange.