That’s the problem. All you seem to want to do is “win” (regaurdless of truth) by simply trying to anger people and getting the last word, rather than actually come to an understanding and establish a sensible answer to this question.
No, I’m simply stunned that there can be a “libertarian” who doesn’t understand the difference between voluntary and coerced choices.
Praxeology is only a descriptive theory of human action. It does not make value judgements with regaurd to behavior, however. Yet it is not irrelevant at all to judge the actions. Ethics is not irrelevant to the question of politics. This is precisely why it is important for there to be an interpersonal political theory alongside it - as Rothbard argued for. Things such as property rights have no meaning without value judgements. Libertarianism involves theories of justice. Divorced from any concept of justice with regaurd to interpersonal relations, libertarianism loses any coherant meaning. Sticking purely to value-free economics, no sensible case for liberty can be made and there is a constant danger of legitimizing elements of the status quo.
This topic inherently involves values since we’re talking about interpersonal relations and what constitutes voluntary and coercive relations. Stop using subjectivism as a facade. How many times do I have to repeat this?
Again, this is disingenous. You are making value judgements. Everyone does.
You use the term a lot, but rarely seem to actually properly identify a straw man.
This IS a discussion about interpersonal relations. Are you playing stupid or do you really fail to understand what I am communicating?
The fundamental difference between liberty and coercion is hardly “rehashed bs” that I bring to every thread. It doesn’t even make sense that such a thing would be debated here, since I’d assume that the people here basically understand the distinction.
You’ve yet to demonstrate any understanding of my argument and have derailed the thread because of this. You always do this.
No, it isn’t. This has been explained to you for multiple pages now. Actions made under coercion are not voluntary. Voluntary and coercive are dichotomous. Were talking about interpersonal relations and wether or not they are voluntary - they aren’t voluntary by default as you assume. This is a simple matter of what voluntary and coercive fundamentally mean to begin with, and you’re playing a word game by taking them entirely out of context. The very fact that coercion exists means that all human action is not voluntary - if all human action was voluntary, coercion would not exist. The very meaning of coercion denotes that the subject of the coercion is not in a voluntary relation with the weilder of the coercion. Why do you repeatedly fail to understand this?
A sufficient refutation has been given for pages. You’re simply not using the words voluntary and coercion properly, because they are dichotomous and yet you’re argueing as if all human action is voluntary in a world with coercion in it, when the very meaning and existance of coercion denotes some kind of involuntary relations between people.
Again, this has been addressed ad nauseum. Stop ignoring it and playing stupid. Anyone else who disagrees and tries to answer it is going to say pretty much the same thing I’ve told you for pages now in their own words.
In fact, trianglechoke did just that on page 2 of this thread:
Still looking for an answer on this. If one who goes along with coercion does so involuntarily, does one who does not go along with coercion do so voluntarily? I’m still trying to understand how coercion produces people who make the decision to resist. Is this decision to resist made voluntarily or involuntarily?
You’re merely playing a language game. Coercion, by definition, is simply something that is not consented to, it is something that is imposed. How one reacts to this imposition, by either submitting or actively resisting, is irrelevant to the nature of coercion. Coercion is something people are subjected to. The very fact that one is subjected to coercion means that their relation to that which is imposing the coercion is involuntary. How many pages have to be filled before you understand this?
Involuntary action is what you would not do if you were not forced or under threat of force. That is, coerced. Paying a tax in involuntary, because you are threatened with violence. Cheating taxes in voluntary as you would not pay it anyway if not for threat of agression.
Maybe you should link him to the post. I have a question: do rape victims who do not resist their aggressor “consent”? If so, is that consentual sex? Because that is pretty much what LS’ position implies, logically.
Well if the party being coerced chose not to resist, doesn’t that mean that under the circumstances, ordinally, compliance is preferable to resistance?
See, this is an incredible grey area. Because every American anarchist can renounce their citizenship, with the approval of the state. And they choose not to. Well, this is not coerced. So we either have a lot of BS anarchists, or we have people who have chosen to participate in the state (even if they don’t like it).
I think the notion that because you don’t like the options in a situation, means you aren’t accountable to your decisions is a lot of crap. Maybe I am wrong. I know I am getting nowhere discussing with BP. Maybe I will find success with someone else.
Yes. This is what I mean about pointing out the logical implications of his position, which isn’t really to make a straw man (more like a reductio ad absurdum).
Preferences are simply that. Preferences. They do not necessarily entail consent. If an action is taken under (threat of) coercion, one is forced to forfeit the fulfilment of their most preferred actions that they could’ve undertaken otherwise. Like I said, one is left saying the non-resisting rape victim is in fact engaging in consentual sex.
Ok, that’s interesting. But if I am coerced into compliance and coerced into resistance, then what is the difference that makes me choose one over the other?
You’re misconstrueing the point. You’re totally externalizing accountability from those who subject others to coercion. It’s not because you simply don’t like the options in a situation, it’s because you are being subjected to coercion. To place all blame onto the person who is subjected to coercion is absurd, it totally takes responsibility off of the shoulders of the coercer. A rape victim is not responsible for the actions of their rapist, the rapist is fully responsible for their own actions. Claiming the rape victim voluntarily was raped and therefore should be “held accountable” is ridiculous. Yet this is the implication of your position.