I tried to explain it to the best of my capabilities, but I wasn’t able to convince you.. I’ll leave at that.
The best explanation for the position I take that I’m able to give, is this one:
If you are not convinced, then fine. Someone else can try it.
You are, by the way, undermining the whole property structure of society, because pushing your argument means that we need universal approval on what is property and what is not. Property is not something ‘objective’, but subjective (just as the whole interpretation of the legal rules of natural law are). If you push your reasoning, you are also attacking property as such. You can do that - but I would say it is wrong for the very same reason.
iraq? or saddam? or the bathists? or the kurds?
weapons of mass defense?
if i pointed a gun at you on one side of a line. what would you do?
You seem to be resorting to a very narrow definition of aggression that pertains only to physical force. That is, physical contact must be present. But the concept of aggression cannot possibly refer to only physical contact unless you specifically define it as such. Any further argument then becomes an argument over terminology, for it is obvious that the “threat of physical force” does not contain physical force. I don’t care about terminology and I don’t want to argue about it.
It is a fact that in any situation when coercion is used, there is one party that is committing the coercion, and one that is its victim who is deprived of making a choice in the absence of any threat of being injured. Do you agree that coercion is a form of violence?
This sort of inquiry is pointless. What I would do is irrelevant.
That’s not completely untrue. Aggression is the initiation of force. Blackmail is coercion. Generally Libertarians accept blackmail, or that reputation (what others think of you, including thinking that they would be better off if you were dead) are not aggression because we don’t own what others think. Likewise, we don’t own what other people say.
That’s strange, because you jumped into a discussion on definition of terms.
A threat is not an injury.
No, I don’t believe blackmail for example is violence.
No, blackmail is not violence.
Ok, you are not limiting the use of coercion to compelling one to act against his voluntary choice by the use of some form of violence.
But then “Coercion” the way you are using it becomes a useless term for libertarianism. Perhaps it is not the proper term then. I think it was Rothbard who criticized Hayek for defining “coercion” the way you are.
What then is the proper term for when one party uses the threat of using physical force in order to compel another party to act against its voluntary choice?
If one takes the view that it cannot be established until physical injury has been committed, then there is no way to avoid chaos.
Let me put it in another way:
Do you not consider an armed robbery that did not result in physical injury or death an act of aggression?
We’re just talking past one another, and I am having a rough day, leaving me without the will to carry on.
Then I urge you to go to bed/have a nice meal/do something relaxing/or something in his area of activities.
I’m going to bed. It’s midnight.
I’m defining coercion as what it means. I don’t particularly care what Rothbard thought about it, I have my own thoughts about it, apparently so did Hayek.
Coercion.
By definining what constitutes injury, we can avoid chaos. Your assertion doesn’t make sense.
Sure, it is aggression against property. Threatening to rob the bank, or planning to rob the bank are not aggression.
I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
Why is it aggression, because the threat is occurring on the victim’s property? So if the threat is executed from remote (like a helicopter), it is not aggression. Sorry, but I just don’t follow your logic. perhaps, I am misunderstanding.
I agree, but if the threat is at a point where there is imminent threat like the gun pointed to your head, when can we agree on the fact that aggressive or violent behavior is taking place? Before or after the bullet is released?
the guy on ‘flip this house’ show said ‘perceptiion is reality’.
i guess threats occuer from evil people in different forms and threats occur from those who feel threatened.
if you perceive a threat and dont want to experience an outcome take whatever measures necessary.
You missed the point of that sentence imo. Things that are not scarce (i.e physical) cannot be property. Hence you cannot have a “right” to control over non-scarce things, in the meta-physical… like ideas and IP.
That’s what I got from that one sentence anyway. Having said that, I dunno who you are quoting or the proper context.
This may be what you’re looking for: Physical Invasion or “Aggression” versus “Harm” in Libertarianism
"The normative principle I am suggesting for the law is simply this: No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, or aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. There are degrees of seriousness of such invasion, and hence, different proper degrees of restitution or punishment. “Burglary,” simple invasion of property for purposes of theft, is less serious than “robbery,” where armed force is likely to be used against the victim. Here, however, we are not concerned with the questions of degrees of invasion or punishment, but simply with invasion per se."
If no man may invade another person’s “just” property, what is our criterion of justice to be?[11] There is no space here to elaborate on a theory of justice in property titles. Suffice it to say that the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another’s person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or “mixes his labor with.” From these twin axioms — self-ownership and “homesteading” — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.[12]
No, I didn’t. But thanks for your concern!
In particular kinds of interpretation of libertarianism; yes.
And this vision of law of Rothbard is wrong (but can be excuses since in this context it wasn’t necessary to elaborate extensively on a complete vision of law) - even Rothbard himself didn’t hold it consistently. If this were to be correct; a threat of invasion couldn’t be considered agression and thus illegal. (The same point Liberty Student made over and over again; but which, to me, is wrong, for reasons I tried to explain, but he wasn’t convinced.)
Good advice. I might stop back to answer more posts tomorrow. Thanks.
Wrong.
"Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else’s property without his consent, and is therefore “implicit theft.”
Thus, suppose someone approaches you on the street, whips out a gun, and demands your wallet. He might not have molested you physically during this encounter, but he has extracted money from you on the basis of a direct, overt threat that he would shoot you if you disobeyed his commands. He has used the threat of invasion to obtain your obedience to his commands, and this is equivalent to the invasion itself.
It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct; in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act. Any remote or indirect criterion – any “risk” or “threat” – is simply an excuse for invasive action by the supposed “defender” against the alleged “threat.” One of the major arguments, for example, for the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was that the imbibing of alcohol increased the likelihood of (unspecified) people committing various crimes; therefore, prohibition was held to be a “defensive” act in defense of person and property. In fact, of course, it was brutally invasive of the rights of person and property, of the right to buy, sell, and use alcoholic beverages." - Rothbard
lol..
I don’t think you understood what I was saying, because I was referring to the exact same (sort of) paragraph as you do to ‘proof’ that I’m wrong.
The point, again, is that law doesn’t only involve around ‘fysical’ acts, but also around the thread thereoff. From a legal point of view, there isn’t much of a difference: they both should be outlawed. (Equating them - as Rothbard does - though isn’t correct either. It is clear that they are not the same. If they were the same, we wouldn’t need someone explaining them that they were.) That’s why I protested to the sentence “The invasion must be concrete and fysical”, because that is simply not true, not even on Rothbard’s own account. (Hence the remark that he didn’t hold that view consistently and hence me also saying that it can be excused because of the context you were quoting from, i.e. the text on property rights and air populotion. You don’t really need caveats on ‘pollution or the threat thereoff’ (or something) there.
I thus don’t really get why you would say ‘wrong’. If one thinks that agression must be physical before it ought to be illegal, it logicly follows that the threat of agression (per definition not physical) shouldn’t be illegal. The Rothbard position (as well as mine) is that they both should be illegal, and thus Rothbard is wrong (and inconsistent) when he says that ‘invasion must be concrete and physical’ before it’s a crime - but given the context of where he said it, it’s understandable and he probably wasn’t advocating a inconsistent position. Just not using more words then necassary. (Something I’m not doing in this very post.)
Isn’t.
He doesn’t. Do you know what a corollary is?
corollary [kəˈrɒlərɪ]n pl -laries
1. (Philosophy / Logic) a proposition that follows directly from the proof of another proposition
"But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else’s property without his consent, and is therefore “implicit theft.”
People can “refute” a lot of things, by taking one sentence and ignoring everything else ever written by the author.
Isn’t.
From the same section;
In the law of torts, “harm” is generally treated as physical invasion of person or property and usually requires payment of damages for “emotional” harm if and only if that harm is a consequence of physical invasion. Thus, within the standard law of trespass — an invasion of person or property — “battery” is the actual invasion of someone else’s body, while “assault” is the creation by one person in another of a fear, or apprehension, of battery.[17]
To be a tortious assault and therefore subject to legal action, tort law wisely requires the threat to be near and imminent. Mere insults and violent words, vague future threats, or simple possession of a weapon cannot constitute an assault[18]; there must be accompanying overt action to give rise to the apprehension of an imminent physical battery.[19] Or, to put it another way, there must be a concrete threat of an imminent battery before the prospective victim may legitimately use force and violence to defend himself.
Physical invasion or molestation need not be actually “harmful” or inflict severe damage in order to constitute a tort. The courts properly have held that such acts as spitting in someone’s face or ripping off someone’s hat are batteries. Chief Justice Holt’s words in 1704 still seem to apply: “The least touching of another in anger is a battery.” While the actual damage may not be substantial, in a profound sense we may conclude that the victim’s person was molested, was interfered with, by the physical aggression against him, and that hence these seemingly minor actions have become legal wrongs.[20]
[20] Hence, the wisdom of the court’s decision in South Brilliant Coal Co. v. Williams: “If Gibbs kicked plaintiff with his foot, it cannot be said as a matter of law that there was no physical injury to him. In a legal sense, it was physical injury, though it may have caused no physical suffering, and though the sensation resulting therefrom may have lasted but for a moment” South Brilliant Coal Co. v. Williams, 206 Ala. 637,638 (1921). In Prosser, Law of Torts, p.36. Also see Epstein, Cases on Torts, pp. 903ff.
I don’t think you understand the things I was trying to prove.
Or, put it differently: what is your point and where does it contradict mine?