I know that Jon. But going directly to a rape based example is a classic emotional rhetorical tool. I’ve seen it done before.
To be honest, your use of it didn’t bother me. It was when AC suggested that I didn’t know anything about the abuse of women that set me off. It’s best not to make these arguments personal. Even if you hate the person you’re discussing with.
Ciao.
Libertarianism is value-laden; it stresses the value of voluntary interactions and shuns coercion. He’s not injecting his own extra-libertarian values into the argument, because this stuff is basic to the very ideology (and indeed most philosophies.) Even from a praxeological POV, one cannot rule out coercion - one merely refrains from saying it is “good” or “bad”.
-Jon
No, it isn’t; it’s a classic example of using your own argument against you and seeing if you’re at all consistent.
It might also be because rape is a situation where the nonconsentual nature of the action is obvious and the possibility of non-resistance is frequent, meaning it serves perfectly as a reductio, whereas other crimes are not as serviceable to that end.
As for BP, if you believe he is stalking you, ignore him and refrain from responding to him any further. I see no point in petty catfights. So far BP has not made any arguments I deem to be targeted toward your person in particular, so let it go. Keep the arguments purely on the intellectual level.
-Jon
Interesting thread. So the conclusion here is that the state is coercing you into doing as they wish and coercing you into not resisting. That doesn’t leave much left does it? That would make all people who follow this logic, the perfect victim. They will always comply and never resist.
I think one of the things that is left out is over what period of time the coercion is occurring. The longer you incur and tolerate the coecion the less it looks like coercion, especially if one is daily confronted with different options that might lessen the coercion. If you walk to work everyday using one path and always get robbed we can agree that you have the right not to be robbed but it looks a lot less like robbery if you voluntarily never choose another path.
It again goes back to personal accountability. Are you ever responsible for where you are and what you are because of the choices you have made? When does everything stop being blamed on the state? I can only conclude for most here that freedom is not nearly as dear as they would suggest nor is the coercion of the state nearly as oppressive in their minds as they would have us believe.
Because you’re just so smug since you think you’re the only one “doing something”, right?
Actions always speak louder than words. I came to the conclusion some time ago that if your not working toward creating freedom, at least for yourself, then all the other talk is pretty much pointless. I don’t have much use for people who complain about everything bad in their life being a result of the oppressive state and the victim mentality advocated in this thread. Frankly, either lead, follow, or get out of the way.
IOW: yes, you believe that only you ever do anything.
Go play in your little sandbox, kid. Leave the adults alone.
So, how many hundreds of generations did it take for slavery to become voluntary?
Yeah, yeah, blame the victim…wonderful piece of deductive logic you have come up with here.
(Obligatory Non-Troll Disclaimer: I hope no one get’s “offended” & starts shouting troll, as this can apply to anyone).
The arrogance of saying action > talk is as fallacious as anyone claiming talk > action. Both are needed; without theory, would you have arrived at deciding what is your proper action? Without action, how can you confirm theory? Is everyone capable of turning theory into action? Is everyone capable of confirming their action with theory?
There is a false dichotomy between action & talk, & some on this forum are beating it to death as a method of dividing loyalties between who is “right” & who is “wrong”.
Frankly, various threads are rife with the lack of respect for the debate itself & reverted down a rabbit-hole of strawmen, personal, & emotional arguments. You can shout you are right all you want, & your opponent wrong, but the debate will always exist.
Perhaps a group advocating E-Prime as a means of argumentation would help?
Yes. This.
But it is a waste of time arguing when giving in to coercion, real or imagined, justifies participation with the state. Bombs get dropped by the state, not our problem. We were coerced into this, as we flip our burgers and high five our neighbors over a touchdown on TV.
People are incarcerated for victimless crimes, beaten and raped, not our problem. We’re being coerced too, as we head out to Applebees for dinner before taking in a movie.
Yep, the coercion is all equal, and the tacit consent, or compliance is all the same too.
You’re right Nitro, but you presume that there is a desire for truth and enlightenment.
On the contrary, it’s a lot of me-too-ism and “look how smart I am”.
Now maybe I am totally retarded. It is possible, since we have low drinking water standards here.
But I have repeatedly asked how we can reconcile the issue of people who do not give in to coercion, and any answers which were forthcoming, didn’t sufficiently answer the question for me. Again, I may be retarded.
Oh yeah, and does argumentum ad baculum apply?
Maybe you should rephrase the question?
If so, why exactly are you here?
There are others like me looking for and pursuing real solutions to achieving freedom. Think of it as viral advertising.
Well, if you adopt this philosophy you have already concluded in this thread that your a victim and not capable of being anything other than a victim. So all of your talk is pointless in regard to measurably enhancing your own individual freedom.
Non sequitur.
It is about who controls your life. Do you control your life or does the state? If you accept that the state controls your life and you are powerless to do anything about it, what is the point of discussing the condition of your slavery. I think we all agree that we are better off without the state, but if your condition is as bad as you are implying you would do more to prevent it.
I agree your a victim. The question you should ask yourself is do you want to continue to be a victim? If the answer is yes then I nor anyone can else help you.
The same point in discussing ideas as a means to take action based on those ideas.
The presence of violence or fraud causes any contract to be invalid(should the victim choose to withdraw from it). This is basic to the nature of contracts.
Someone may “willingly” hand their wallet to a mugger, but no transfer of title has occurred. The criminal is in wrongful possession of the victim’s property which the victim has the right to reclaim.