“You are joking , right?”
No. Again maybe I am just an insensitive bastard lol.
Yes, I agree that private property is a requirement for civilization. But a starving person (or anyone for that matter) who is being forced to abide by private property when they don’t agree with it is being coerced.
No, they’re not being coerced - because its not tortious. They are submitting to a superior power but - so what? That’s how reality works. The whole point is to have power directed to generate outcomes you want. If they failed then - they failed. If their idea of ‘private property’ doesn’t agree with the actual law - too bad?
“No. Again maybe I am just an insensitive bastard lol.”
Yea, maybe you could just keep such beliefs to yourself so you don’t make the rest of us look like idiots. I mean, that is prime material to be taken and used by opponents as examples of how insane we are.
Ok so instead of name calling, explain to me why that is insane.
It seems to me the people who get all weepy about the ignorant, malformed, botched, incompetent and strangers they don’t know tend to be the stupid ones; not the smart ones. Nobody ‘owes’ anything to anyone, and if you can’t provide a useful service to me with your life, why ought I care whether you live or die?
Whatever ‘most people’ think is likely to be wrong.
I wish them the best of luck so I don’t necessarily agree with you , but if you look at things from a different perspective, say if I had the choice between living for 30-40 years on an Auschwitz diet plan in very miserable conditions or not living at all, I’d probably choose the latter.
It’s one thing to live in say South America in a mostly pre industrial agrarian society and be dirt poor, this is pretty much the human condition, however to have most of your population on the brink of starvation, I don’t know what caused it but there is definitely something wrong with it. My environmentalist teacher said “they have to have so many kids because they have such a high death rate” to be honest I think their high birth rate is contributing to their high death rate.
I say we send them massive amounts of birth control, regardless of what the pope says
“No, they’re not being coerced - because its not tortious. They are submitting to a superior power but - so what? That’s how reality works. The whole point is to have power directed to generate outcomes you want. If they failed then - they failed. If their idea of ‘private property’ doesn’t agree with the actual law - too bad?”
They are submitting to a superior power that they view as illegitemate and immoral. If they violate the laws which they do not view as legitemate, they are punished. I don’t see how this isn’t coercion. It is just as crazy to tell a socialist who is living in a society which supports private property that they aren’t being coerced as it is for a socialist to tell an AnCap living in a socialist society that they aren’t being coerced. I know that the capitalist society would end up being more prosperous and whatnot, but that obviously misses the point.
“I wish them the best of luck so I don’t necessarily agree with you , but if you look at things from a different perspective, say if I had the choice between living for 30-40 years on an Auschwitz diet plan in very miserable conditions or not living at all, I’d probably choose the latter.”
I wish them the best of luck as well, but I wouldn’t exactly see their passing as a tragedy.
Your definition of coercion seems to range from
coercion- some aspect of interaction that is not liked by someone
coercion- some interaction that one doesn’t entirely agree with
here is the correct definition
coercion - using threats of violence to make someone carry out orders
So if a boss at work said: “take out the trash or you’re fired” that wouldn’t be coercion.
But if a boss at work said: “take out the trash or you get a spanking” that would be considered coercion.
“coercion - using threats of violence to make someone carry out orders”
Alright, sure, that fits fine with what I have been saying.
“So if a boss at work said: “take out the trash or you’re fired” that wouldn’t be coercion.”
Actually, there is not enough information here. Look back at what I have been saying earlyer regarding the enforcement of private property over people who find it immoral and illegitemate.
They are submitting to a superior power that they view as illegitemate
I think you need to read the thread on the proper use of the word legitemate. ‘In line with the law’. So, if they view the actual law as not being ‘in line with the law’, then they are simply wrong and/or don’t understand the meaning of the word.
and immoral.
So what? As I said before, justice and morality are different spheres.
If they violate the laws which they do not view as legitemate, they are punished.
Yes, because they’re wrong - the law is legitemate. By definition.
I don’t see how this isn’t coercion.
Because forcing people to comply with the law is not tortious, therefor, it is not coercion.
It is just as crazy to tell a socialist who is living in a society which supports private property that they aren’t being coerced as it is for a socialist to tell an AnCap living in a socialist society that they aren’t being coerced.
Because Socialists and ‘AnCaps’ are both smoking crack.
So if one person stops interacting with another person, specifically stops making exchanges with them. That is coercion?
Oh and I’m assuming a conventional definition of violence, I guess some people consider economic exchange to be inherently violent, I do not subscribe to that definition.
“I think you need to read the thread on the proper use of the word legitemate. ‘In line with the law’. So, if they view the actual law as not being ‘in line with the law’, then they are simply wrong and/or don’t understand the meaning of the word.”
Alright well I will read that thread. But as of now, before reading that thread, for me whether or not I recognize something as legitemate has nothing to do with whether or not it is in line with the law. Regardless, I can just replace the word “legitemate” with another word that is more in line with what I was trying to get at anyways.
“So what? As I said before, justice and morality are different spheres.”
Could you expand further on this? I am having a difficult time seperating the two into two different spheres.
“Yes, because they’re wrong - the law is legitemate. By definition.”
I don’t see why I couldn’t find a law to be illegitemate. But it doesn’t matter anyways as I stated above.
“Because forcing people to comply with the law is not tortious, therefor, it is not coercion.”
So slaves were not being coerced in all the societies where slavery was legal?
Could you expand further on this? I am having a difficult time seperating the two into two different spheres.
Justice has to do with what people are due and what people are forbidden, not with what they ought to do or what they are allowed. Aside from the fact that I find morality to be incoherent gibberish, jurisprudence is quite simply a profession and a body of procedural methods developed by the parties involved to serve their own interests. There is no question of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ to it than there is to the production of hamburgers or pornography.
Read Lon L. Fuller and Anthony de Jasay on the subject, also David Schmidtz has some good points though I would not agree fully with him.
I don’t see why I couldn’t find a law to be illegitemate. But it doesn’t matter anyways as I stated above.
Because its a contradiction in terms. The only possible exception I can think of is where two laws (be they statuatory or customary) are in apparent contradiction, and even then what you have is not ‘illegitemate’ law but rather incoherency within a particular jurisprudential body.
So slaves were not being coerced in all the societies where slavery was legal?
No, they were not, because forcibly keeping someone (say, blacks) of a certain historical origin and position was not a tort at the time. Though I would say there was rather some peculiarity and contradiction to the statuatory law of the United States at the time. There are numerous epistemic, procedural and practical problems with statuatory law as a means of resolving disputes and establishing norms and torts. That being so, statuatory (or ‘positive’) law is the law nonetheless, though in actual social relations customary law still makes up a large part of dispute resolution.
"Justice has to do with what people are due and what people are forbidden, not with what they ought to do or what they are allowed. Aside from the fact that I find morality to be incoherent gibberish, jurisprudence is quite simply a profession and a body of procedural methods developed by the parties involved to serve their own interests. There is no question of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ to it than there is to the production of hamburgers or pornography.
Read Lon L. Fuller and Anthony de Jasay on the subject, also David Schmidtz has some good points though I would not agree fully with him."
Hmm. I guess that makes sense at first glance. I will obviously have to read into it further before I can say I agree though.
“Because its a contradiction in terms. The only possible exception I can think of is where two laws (be they statuatory or customary) are in apparent contradiction, and even then what you have is not ‘illegitemate’ law but rather incoherency within a particular jurisprudential body.”
Alright, I will just assume you are correct on this. So I should have worded myself differently. But I still think the actual point I was trying to make stands even if some of my termonology was off.
“No, they were not, because forcibly keeping someone (say, blacks) of a certain historical origin and position was not a tort at the time. Though I would say there was rather some peculiarity and contradiction to the statuatory law of the United States at the time. There are numerous epistemic, procedural and practical problems with statuatory law as a means of resolving disputes and establishing norms and torts. That being so, statuatory (or ‘positive’) law is the law nonetheless, though in actual social relations customary law still makes up a large part of dispute resolution.”
I am not so sure about this. If you just asked me (or anyone really) casually if slaves were being coerced you would get a definite yes. I really don’t want to get into an argument over semantics though, so ill just leave it at that.
Symmetry?
I view the law of gravity as illegitimate and immoral. If I violate the law of gravity (e.g., walk off a cliff), I am punished (smashed on the rocks below). I don’t see how this isn’t coercion.
(Well, no, actually, I do, because I’m not a moron…)
"I view the law of gravity as illegitimate and immoral. If I violate the law of gravity (e.g., walk off a cliff), I am punished (smashed on the rocks below). I don’t see how this isn’t coercion.
(Well, no, actually, I do, because I’m not a moron…)"
You really misunderstood what was meant by “superior power.”
Over 70 times the combined net worth of every RevLeft member.
Don’t you see what this means!? If Chomsky joins RevLeft, his wealth will explode into infinity by recursion! Think of the possibilities man!
Coercion requires the negation of one’s will in such manner that they would not done otherwise under the same conditions without the element that is coercive (state monopoly, and other such instruments come to mind). Saying you don’t have the right to eat someone’s bread or rape a person isn’t coercive as it does’t negate the action of finding food or sexual satisfaction. It merely states only certain actions are viable as a means to fulfill those ends as the alternates (prohibited) are coercive to the other individual(s) involved (the baker who made/owns the bread, the woman who owns her body). When you drop context of one’s actions in relation to that of another’s then you can justify just about anything, but context is key here as it allows for decisions which are mutually beneficial to be known versus those which are truly coercive (or simply put, a form of rent seeking).