“might does make right”
Are you actually sticking to this stament as inherently true Jackson? Or are you simply stating that this is how the current system operates?
“It is easy for the best and brightest to get caught up in these types of storms. It is always good to as yourself from time to time - “what am I doing”, “why am I doing it”, and “what lead me here in the 1st place”. What goals are you trying to accomplish in studying Rothbard, and what would lead you to make a sentence like that?”
The key to all happiness, the key to all ‘truth’, the key to all things worth achieving in this human life we lead, is a continual questioning of one’s values and actions, of one’s means and ends, a perfection of the eternal praxeological motive.
This is true of belief as well as physical action. No one but the most ignorant and adacious of thinkers would dare to admitt to themselves that they are close minded to the ideas of others or, more importantly, to the possibility of their own falibility in their field of interest, however this is what happens to far too many.
Everyone needs to get kicked in the teeth intellectually a few times to really learn the magnitude and the immutability of their own ignorance.
“Science and our organized body of knowledge teach only what is, not what ought to be.”
Seems like there’s people who want to claim what’s ought as what is, and those who profess that there’s only what is, and that’s that. I side with what is, and what ought to be is mere speculation.
is/ought is solvable by replacing it with if/then 
checkmate, subjectivists.
Neodoxy,
I’m saying that is how the current system operates. Of course, I can’t envision an alternative, but that may be my limitation.
The more power one wields relative to others, the more economical it becomes to subjegate those weaker individuals. That is why I am such an ardent proponent of decentralization, and dispersion of power to as many individuals as possible, so my relative power increases.
I define “coercion” as “the threat of violence”. Note that violence is typically considered to be either aggressive or defensive. So I’d say that aggressive coercion - that is, the threat of aggressive violence - is wrong, but not coercion in general.
I disagree that putting a gun to Jim’s head either restricts his freedom of choice or his abundance of choice. Technically, the choice to get shot in the face isn’t Jim’s choice - rather, it’s yours. After all, you’re the one with the gun. Indeed, to speak of a passive or receptive choice is what I’d call a category error.
Coercion doesn’t concern choices per se - it concerns results or consequences. Whereas aggression literally imposes new results or consequences, coercion merely threatens such. In other words, and as Clayton stated, coercion is unilateral imposition of risk.
If you kill a complete stranger, then he is dead. Where does right and wrong figure into that? 
Can you please provide your definition of “power”?
We’ve been through this before. You still haven’t provided your definition of “coercion”, so how does any of us know exactly what you’re talking about?
“Objective” is one of those words that, despite whatever the OED or any other dictionary says, is used in at least a few different ways. One of the ways in which it’s used is in the sense of “empirical” - that is, something is “objective” in this sense if it can be observed in the external world. As far as anyone can tell, moral values are absolutely, categorically not “objective” in this sense.
Another sense in which “objective” is used is in the sense of “absolute” - that is, something is “objective” in this sense if it falls into one and only one of two or more categories. Morality can be “objective” in this sense if a given thing (action, event, condition, etc.) is definitely either “right” or “wrong”. I think this is what Rothbard refers to when he talks about “objective morality”, but I could be wrong.
A third sense in which “objective” is used is in the sense of “universal” - that is, something is “objective” in this sense if it applies to all objects of a certain type. Morality can be “objective” in this sense if it’s presumed to apply to all people. However, it’s equally “objective” in this sense if it applies to only one person. Only the type of object has changed.
Autolykos,
Why, soytenly!
Power - Any means to competitive advantage; the ability to realize one’s desired ends.
Those appear to be two different definitions. Which one are you using?
Not in a world of scarcity!
Please do explain in more detail. I see no reason why I must tease out explanations from you bit by bit.
Sorry, I did not intend to be obtuse.
In a world of scarcity, resources must be competed for, if those resources are required to achieve one’s desired end.
If I want some of your stuff, I have to be able to “outcompete” you for that stuff. Otherwise, you just wouldn’t listen to me. If I have the ability to outcompete you (power), than I can successfully appropriate your claimed items.
This is the case no matter if the exchange is symbiotic (mutual benefit) or parasitic (benefit at the expense of another), or somewhere in between.
@ jackson Larose
As it stands today, might does make right. – Jackson
True
That may help to explain why those who are not interested in weilding “might/right” over others would find it hard to make it in a society in which this meme, the meme of “the state”, has infected the majority of people. – Jackson
True, except your implication that the state is the source of all coercion or at least the origin of all destruction sources of coercion or that all coercion is destructive is wrong.
Coercion is simply a means to an end. The state is simply a means to an end. When that end is life, liberty and private property then the means used to achieve these ends is justified provided that the net costs in life, liberty and private property protections are not less than otherwise would have been the case had coercion not been utilized.
Again, if coercion can be used by state or private actors to achieve a net gain in life, liberty and private property protections than how can it be considered ill ?
Perhaps democracy is the breed of big lie that has the greatest capability to seize men’s minds. Congragulations to the most virulent form of subjegation! Hurray, “Higer Order Direct Democracy, a Fully owned Subsidiary of the Federal Reserve Bank of the U.N., blah blah…” is the best at being the worst! – jackson
Perhaps, democracy is not perfect. But perhaps it is the best system known at this time in which to guarantee substantial protections to life, liberty and private property.
Perhaps we should work to reduce the ability of the state to engage in economic coercion rather than promote systems that have been tried and failed (anarchism). In fact, anarchism is the fastest path to absolutism yet known to man since self-serving private actors quickly exploit the void filled by institutions that formerly decentralized, balanced, limited and made transparent the instruments of coercion.
You weren’t being obtuse - you were being cryptic. My question is, why?
How does a certain amount of money or other wealth necessarily constitute the ability to “outcompete” anyone?
[quoteuser=“Centinel”]
except your implication that the state is the source of all coercion or at least the origin of all destruction sources of coercion or that all coercion is destructive is wrong.
[/quote]
That was not the intent of that quote. I would posit that the state is by definition a coercive institution. Clearly though, individuals can coerce other individuals, without institutionalizing it.
What I meant is that in a society where “might makes right”, and some forms of violence are considered legitimate, it stands to reason why concepts which reject these positions would naturally be difficult to implement.
[quoteuser=“Centinel”]
Coercion is simply a means to an end.
[/quote]
Granted.
[quoteuser=“Centinel”]
The state is simply a means to an end.
[/quote]
Also granted.
[quoteuser=“Centinel”]
When that end is life, liberty and private property then the means used to achieve these ends is justified provided that the net costs in life, liberty and private property protections are not less than otherwise would have been the case had coercion not been utilized.
[/quote]
I would argue that the desired ends of those who command the state are not life, liberty, and private property. Even if I grant you that position, from a utilitarian standpoint, the threat posed by the state towards all of the purported ends it claims to strive towards are much greater than any individual.
Life - Total deaths in American combat, total executions since 1976 vs. Rampage Killers
Liberty - Prisoners per capita vs. Kidnappings per year
Private property - Eminent Domain vs. Squatting, also some personal ones here and here
The lip service they pay to the Enlightenment ideals upon which this nation was purportedly founded is only so much propoganda. Marketing for the Big Lie, if you will.
[quoteuser=“Centinel”]
Perhaps we should work to reduce the ability of the state to engage in economic coercion rather than promote systems that have been tried and failed (anarchism).
[/quote]
Any decentralization is good, and I would say that “Anarchism” is just the logical conclusion of decentralization. At what point to put on the brakes (if at all) is anyone’s guess. If one’s true aim is to maximize “life, liberty, and private property”, then advocating an institution that must assume, by definition, that all people and materials within a deliniated geographic area are under its rightful subjegation seems counter-productive at the most fundamental level.
[quoteuser=“Centinel”]
In fact, anarchism is the fastest path to absolutism yet known to man since self-serving private actors quickly exploit the void filled by institutions that formerly decentralized, balanced, limited and made transparent the instruments of coercion.
[/quote]
As has been stated previously, the state is a means to an end. It is a tool, like a gun. It is one of the most powerful tools of control ever implemented. Private actors, without this tool at their disposal, would have a much tougher time exploiting the weak, since their power would be so greatly diminished.
I would also argue that the state does not decentralize power, it concentrates it, it does not balance (redistribute?) power, it allows the powerful to become more so, It does not limit power, it allows individuals to control far more than they could just as individuals, and it’s mechanations are far from transparent (see classified information).
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
you were being cryptic.
[/quote]
That was not my intent.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
How does a certain amount of money or other wealth necessarily constitute the ability to “outcompete” *anyone?
[/quote]
*
You set up a straw man. My question is, why?