You are equivocating. First you say that coercion requires either force or threats against a person’s property, and then you say that Jack the Ripper is coercing a woman he has never contacted, and therefore could never have threatened, merely because he has coerced someone else before. You are using different definitions of coercions to make those statements work.
Nobody. What reason does one have to believe that the rapist chooses his victim discriminately?
Someone who rapes a person or persons. Let’s say the rapist in the scenario has raped a woman in the area in her house, ran away, and now is on the loose.
Nobody says that, haha. I mean to say whatever measures one takes to protect against a threat.
No, I wouldn’t go that far. Like I said earlier about starvation, I’m only talking about taking security measures against agents who threaten your rights. So what I’m thinking is buying protection, locks, and stuff isn’t really voluntary. But I could be wrong.
Nah, you just don’t see how we’re using “threat” differently. You’re using it in the sense of a “direct threat”.
In case I didn’t answer this clearly enough in the response I posted after yours:
No, I just mean that he has killed people in the past, and thus is not a safe person to be around. In his past actions he’s demonstrated a willingness to violate the rights of persons.
Because, from what I understand, people who have committed rape have done so with discretion and discrimination.
So you have a person on the loose after committing a crime. That in no way means he’ll commit any other crimes while on the loose.
You yourself said it. I quote: “you have to hide your kids and hide your wife to protect them”.
Well again, if (as you seem to be saying) everyone presents a constant threat to everyone else, then no security measure taken is ever really voluntary.
And indeed, why stop at “buying protection, locks, and stuff”? Why not go so far as to kill everyone else to eliminate the constant existential threats they pose?
I have no idea what you mean by direct threat versus indirect threat. You are equivocating over coercion. The fact is that you have yet to demonstrate how Jack the Ripper has threatened this particular woman. Certainly he is a danger, but he needs to actually threaten someone for him to coerce. Jack the Ripper does not have to explicitly threaten this woman, he could implicitly threaten her through certain actions, but the fact that he has coerced another person in the past in and of itself does not constitute either an explicit or implicit threat against this woman now.
Say the person in the scenario just broke into a random person’s house and raped that person.
As in what you feel you have to do to protect your family. Maybe instead of hiding your kids and hiding your wife, you buy a lock for your front door. Same principle.
I’m not saying every person poses a threat. I’m saying that there are people that pose a threat to your rights, like Jack the Ripper and a rapist on the loose. If those people can be contained without using deadly force, then they should be. If it requires using deadly force, then deadly force should be used.
That directly contradicts what you said, which again I quote: “he kills people”. You use the verb “to kill” in the simple present tense, which is typically taken to connote habituality, i.e. he habitually kills people. But to have killed one or more people in the past in no way implies that one will necessarily kill ever again.
Come on. Really? So if she’s alone in an alleyway with Jack the Ripper, she has no reason to feel threatened?
You are definitely equivocating. Here are the three definitions that wiktionary provides for the word threat:
The first definition is how Rothbard defined it. You claimed that was the definition that you were using, but you have been using “threat” to mean “a person that is regarded as a danger”. You have to pick one or the other in argumentation. You cannot equivocate back and forth between the two.
What proof do you have that he doesn’t kill habitually?
Jack the Ripper is regarded as a danger; a menace. Thus coercion.
I’m not going to answer this ridiculous equivocation.
Why?
Earlier you said nothing about feelings. What you said implied (at least to me) the notion that hiding one’s wife and kids is necessarily the only way to protect them in such a situation. That notion is what I’m disputing. Furthermore, I’ll dispute the notion that one cannot know whether something will protect him, as the future is inherently uncertain.
I now invite you to prove that such people necessarily “pose threats to one’s rights”. Notice that this will require elaborating on what you mean by that phrase.
Because it happens.
Here’s an example from the real world. It’s a 2-minute video of a news report. Hiding yo kids and hiding yo wife and hiding yo husband is what is recommened.
So first I challenged you on your statement that “he kills people”, and you said that you meant he killed people in the past. Now, after I pointed out that that directly contradicts what you said earlier, you ask me what proof I have that he doesn’t kill habitually. Perhaps you’d like to explain to me how you’re not either moving the goalposts or throwing a red herring my way.
That’s not what I was asking why about. I was asking why I should follow you in now assuming that the person in the scenario just broke into a random person’s house and raped that person. In other words, why should I go along with you changing the scenario willy-nilly?
It was a rhetorical question. I should have made it more clear.
The third dictonary definition you provided proves me right.
You still can.
I invite you to lay out the proof.
The first definition is what you claimed you were using. That is the one that Rothbard uses. You have been equivocating between the first and third definition. Thank you for admitting this.