The action was brought about involuntarily, so the consent of person B cannot be understand as abiding by his/her will. It is in fact the will of person A.
Excuse me but that is the property of the dead individual which could be passed on through posterity. normative rights don’t just suddenly disappear because de facto rights are violated.
In the defense of an individual or their property but not for aggressive initatitory actions against another individual. Since this topic is about the NAP then I am guessing you don’t follow it since you propound that all coercion is in fact valid.
Since I consider transaction and trade to be voluntary, purposeful actions and these individuals are not making voluntary or purposeful actions then yes I do assume they will not be better off. No more then we are better off when the government steals from us, a murder takes our life, or a rapist takes our most sacred property.
All actions are voluntary, all that coercion can do is make it so that not doing what the coercer demands is far more costly than doing what he demands. All action is voluntary, and the product of the actees free-willed decision.
A dead man cannot own property; but, nevertheless, it is a non-sequitur for there is no transaction even if the dead man could own property for theft is not a transaction.
Then it seems I am correct in my responce, which is what you quote:
Nor do I say that coercion is always a valid tool, but I am not going to have any aversion to coercion stop me from putting a 9mm round in the forehead of someone trying to kill me, or someone else.
A trade done under the threat of coercion is still a voluntary, purposeful action, and the actor believes, when making the action, that it will result in a better conclusion than his other options. The question is: are they better $20.00 poorer, or dead?
And this pertains to the above how, or is this you sneaking libertarian politics into the analysis?
Laughing Man, I think lam. is splitting hairs and I’m inclining to agree with him. I think each person always has liberty. It is inalienable. Yet what that means is somebody can coerce somebody to make choices, but such choices eventually due to coercion reach: Person Z is coerced to do A or else be killed. Person Z can still choose not to do A, but that would mean they will be killed. If Person Z had the possibly of self-defense, then that could be an intermediary act making it challenging for Person Z to be killed right away. There are still choices involved.
They always have the right to liberty but not always the ability to enact it.
Such person is not under their own will. The definition of coercion is the forcing of an individual into the will of another by violence or the threat of violence therefore if it is not done of free-will it is not a choice. It is ridiculous to assume that I choose anything if the will to make such a choice is not even mine in the first place.
Person Z can choose to disobey the coercer. I think to suggest that isn’t possible takes away any fighting back chance, self-defense, and/or rebellion away from Person Z, but I think Person Z still retains that free-ability to do so even if it means certain, immediate death.
Everything we act towards in life can be see as the progression of a happy existence in some form. To be force to end that/discontinue in a single event, I would say is beyond choice. We maybe seem bold enough to die for a cause but when the gun is truly pointed at us, we’d beg for life and really there is nothing shameful about it.
Of course, in LaughingMan’s world no one has ever sacrificed himself for a higher ideal, nor has anyone ever died because they are too proud to beg for life.
The fact that individuals have not done so blows your entire proposition into little, tiny pieces. Really, it is just a sad defense for a false world-view.
I’d beg for life too. I see no shame in that at all. But I also see how a person has free-will and can rise up in self-defense against their aggressors. I’m not a pacifist. Like this song: ‘Blaze of Glory’
What higher ideal is there then the self? Perhaps natural rights but dying for something like libertarianianism is a useless jeasture. One of the implied points of libertarianism is not to die but to live free.
Right, everyone is a galabanding hero ready to scarifice their life at the drop of a hat. Or well at least you are.
Nor am I but is defense a reaction or an actual thoughtout purposeful choice? What I mean to say is ‘are we instinctually hard-wired to defend our body [ and are instincts REALLY a choice ] or do we have to choose to carry out defense through some kind of cost/benefit, means/ends program?’
