When did Rothbard define “threat”?
Are you kidding me?
Do you know what “thereof” means?
I’m wondering what QuisCustodiet’s real point is with this thread.
I can never tell with him.
You’re claiming Rothbard used this definition of “threat”
But you haven’t demonstrated that Rothbard said “threat” means an expressed threat.
I’m saying Jack the Ripper’s existence threatens the invasive use of physical force.
and @Autolykos
I started off not knowing the answer to my question, but at this point I’m convinced. A “voluntary alternative” to our statist system today, i.e. anarcho-capitalism with private defense agencies, would still be involuntary. But I didn’t start the thread to debate, I started to really to ask the question.
And by debate I mean try to nudge someone in the direction of a previously-held view; to persuade.
Quite frankly, I’m not sure whether to believe you when you say that you started off not knowing the answer to your question. But by your apparent reasoning and semantics, a “voluntary” system of protection is impossible.
QuisCustodiet,
I honestly can’t tell if you are being intentionally dishonest or just obtuse. This is not hard stuff to understand, but I will walk you through step by step:
Here is Rothbard’s quote:
Let us first insert the meaning of “thereof”:
Now let us insert each definition of threat from wiktionary:
We can see that fully inserting the first definition does not quite make sense as “of that” already covers much of what he is referring to. So we must crop it off at “expression of intent”:
Now let us work with the second definition:
Again, fully inserting the definition does not make sense, so we crop it to “indication”:
For the third and final definition:
Again, this does not make sense unless we crop it. In order to be charitable to your reading, we must crop it to “person that is regarded”:
Here is the problem, QC. No matter how you read it, the agent in question must be against someone else’s person or (just) property. Mere existence is not being “against” someone else. Whichever person you think is a threat, you have to demonstrate how that person is a threat to someone’s person or rightful property.
You keep claiming that JtR is a threat to this woman, but if we are to use Rothbard’s own quote, JtR must be a threat against her person or property. His mere existence is not a threat against her. All you can show is that she regards his as a danger, but that completely disregards any possible interpretation of that quote by Rothbard.
Furthermore, if you have ever read any Rothbard whatsoever, you would know that many times he has defined the NAP, aggression, and coercion. Here is another such example from For a New Liberty:
Notice the phrase “of the use or threat of physical violence”? Notice how he contrasts the word “use” with the word “threat”? Furthermore, notice how he says that “aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion”? Do you think that JtR is invading others by his mere existence? In other words, he doesn’t have to actually act against others in any way for him to be invading them?
Your position is ridiculous. It has no bearing on what Rothbard actually wrote. If you want to self-congratulate yourself for agreeing with yourself, so be it. But please do not be dishonest about the way you do it. You have to redefine the whole English language in order to make your position tenable.
Right.
So then what’s your real point? That anarcho-capitalism is therefore no better or worse than statism?
No, just that a voluntary system of protection is impossible.
… By your apparent definition of “voluntary”, that is.
So when anarcho-capitalists say that there’s a voluntary alternative to statism, they’re wrong. There is no voluntary system of protection.
EDIT: This post was written to clarify my earlier one before the latest post by Autolykos.
What do you mean by voluntary?
Not necessarily - it depends on the definition of “voluntary” being used.
But suppose we agree with you. So what?
Done of your own volition. It’s already been established that we disagree. I have to get to other things, so I’m getting off the forum.
By that definition, giving your money to someone who demands it while putting a gun to your head is also “voluntary”.
So nothing. Like I said, I didn’t start the thread to try to persuade anybody of anything.
And like I said, I’m not sure whether to believe you there.
Alright. Done of your own free will.