If someone buys an insurance/rights enforcement policy in an anarcho-capitalist society, can the purchase really be said to be voluntary?
With the policy, there is less of a chance that the buyer’s rights will be violated. Because of this threat to his rights, he buys the policy. So isn’t that coercive?
I'm not sure as to who you are saying is coercing you. Are you saying the company is threatening you to buy a policy with them?
No, I mean the threat that evil-doers pose to the buyer's rights.
Tell me, do you have a lock on your door and do you have homeowners insurance?
I have a lock on my door. Is buying a lock really "voluntary"? People only buy them because there are bad guys out there.
You buy a lock as a preventative measure. Sometimes someone has threatened and sometimes not.
Preventative measure...against people who violate peoples' rights.
People eat food because of the threat of starvation. They breathe because of the threat of asphyxiation. Both acts are non-voluntary. Right?
Did you miss my second sentence? You know, the one where I said that the prevention is against those you don't want to touch your stuff....whether they have *threatened* you or not.
@Andris
Starvation doesn't violate the NAP because starvation isn't an agent. I'm talking about agents living in your society that violate rights.
@gotlucky
The existence of agents who threaten your rights is what I'm talking about. That's why you take preventative measures. So even if you haven't been specifically targeted by anyone, aren't you still buying these things because you feel your rights are more likely to be violated if you don't?
Your OP was about coercion. You put a lock on your door because you don't want unauthorized people to enter. A drunk who enters your house accidentally because you forgot to lock the door is not necessarily coercing you, by threat or force. You may not have put a lock on your door until someone specifically threatened you, but that was not what you asked in the OP. You asked about people who had *not* threatened you. If they haven't threatened you or used force against you, then they cannot have coerced you.
But you still want to protect what is yours.
I'm using the definition of coercion provided by Rothbard in Ethics of Liberty.
[The] invasive use of physical violence or the threat thereof against someone else's person or (just) property.
Using Rothbard's definition of coercion I think the drunk guy entering your house is coercion. If he's unwelcome, then he's violating your property right, thus the violence in the definition, right?
Anyway, let's say a lady buys a lock for her door to protect her against Jack the Ripper and people like him. Nobody has aggressed against the woman buying the lock; Jack the Ripper and people like him have only aggressed against others. But without Jack the Ripper and people like him living in the lady's area, she wouldn't buy the lock. So isn't she being coerced into doing it?
That definition doesn't change anything. Has Jack the Ripper used force against this woman? Has Jack the Ripper threatened this woman? If neither, then he has not coerced her. Yet she still wants to protect herself from the possibility of future coercion.
QuisCustodiet:I'm using the definition of coercion provided by Rothbard in Ethics of Liberty.
The question is what constitutes a threat of invasive physical violence against someone else's person or property. I think the threat needs to be direct, as in "clear and present danger".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Jack the Ripper's existence threatens her.
I think your point is similar to that of Autolykos:
I think the threat needs to be direct, as in "clear and present danger".
But why does it have to be direct? If there's a rapist on the loose, and as a result you have to hide your kids and hide your wife to protect them, are you really doing it voluntarily?
What if you thought a rapist was on the loose, and took defensive measures, but you were actually mistaken because you mis-heard the news report?
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Now you are equivocating on the definition of coercion. You said:
In what manner is Jack the Ripper's mere existence invading this woman's property through either the use of force or the threat thereof?
QuisCustodiet:But why does it have to be direct? If there's a rapist on the loose, and as a result you have to hide your kids and hide your wife to protect them, are you really doing it voluntarily?
Who says the rapist is trying to rape any/all women and/or children he finds? Is that your definition of "rapist"?
Who says that hiding your wife and kids is necessarily the only way to protect them?
Finally, by your apparent reasoning, everyone presents a constant threat to everyone else, therefore no one ever really does anything voluntarily.
I'm not equivocating.
How is Jack the Ripper a threat to this woman? Because he kills people!!
What in the world do you mean by "he kills people"? Are you saying he kills (or tries to kill) every single person he lays eyes on?
QuisCustodiet: @gotlucky I'm not equivocating. In what manner is Jack the Ripper's mere existence invading this woman's property through either the use of force or the threat thereof? How is Jack the Ripper a threat to this woman? Because he kills people!!
You are equivocating. First you say that coercion requires either force or threats against a person's property, and then you say that Jack the Ripper is coercing a woman he has never contacted, and therefore could never have threatened, merely because he has coerced someone else before. You are using different definitions of coercions to make those statements work.
@Autolykos
Who says the rapist is trying to rape any/all women and/or children he finds?
Nobody. What reason does one have to believe that the rapist chooses his victim discriminately?
Is that your definition of "rapist"?
Someone who rapes a person or persons. Let's say the rapist in the scenario has raped a woman in the area in her house, ran away, and now is on the loose.
Nobody says that, haha. I mean to say whatever measures one takes to protect against a threat.
Finally, by your apparent reasoning, everyone presents a constant threat to everyone else, therefore no one ever really does anything voluntarily. (Emphasis added)
No, I wouldn't go that far. Like I said earlier about starvation, I'm only talking about taking security measures against agents who threaten your rights. So what I'm thinking is buying protection, locks, and stuff isn't really voluntary. But I could be wrong.
Nah, you just don't see how we're using "threat" differently. You're using it in the sense of a "direct threat".
In case I didn't answer this clearly enough in the response I posted after yours:
No, I just mean that he has killed people in the past, and thus is not a safe person to be around. In his past actions he's demonstrated a willingness to violate the rights of persons.
QuisCustodiet:Nobody. What reason does one have to believe that the rapist chooses his victim discriminately?
Because, from what I understand, people who have committed rape have done so with discretion and discrimination.
QuisCustodiet:Someone who rapes a person or persons. Let's say the rapist in the scenario has raped a woman in the area in her house, ran away, and now is on the loose.
So you have a person on the loose after committing a crime. That in no way means he'll commit any other crimes while on the loose.
QuisCustodiet:Nobody says that, haha. I mean to say whatever measures one takes to protect against a threat.
You yourself said it. I quote: "you have to hide your kids and hide your wife to protect them".
QuisCustodiet:No, I wouldn't go that far. Like I said earlier about starvation, I'm only talking about taking security measures against agents who threaten your rights. So what I'm thinking is buying protection, locks, and stuff isn't really voluntary. But I could be wrong.
Well again, if (as you seem to be saying) everyone presents a constant threat to everyone else, then no security measure taken is ever really voluntary.
And indeed, why stop at "buying protection, locks, and stuff"? Why not go so far as to kill everyone else to eliminate the constant existential threats they pose?
I have no idea what you mean by direct threat versus indirect threat. You are equivocating over coercion. The fact is that you have yet to demonstrate how Jack the Ripper has threatened this particular woman. Certainly he is a danger, but he needs to actually threaten someone for him to coerce. Jack the Ripper does not have to explicitly threaten this woman, he could implicitly threaten her through certain actions, but the fact that he has coerced another person in the past in and of itself does not constitute either an explicit or implicit threat against this woman now.
Say the person in the scenario just broke into a random person's house and raped that person.
As in what you feel you have to do to protect your family. Maybe instead of hiding your kids and hiding your wife, you buy a lock for your front door. Same principle.
I'm not saying every person poses a threat. I'm saying that there are people that pose a threat to your rights, like Jack the Ripper and a rapist on the loose. If those people can be contained without using deadly force, then they should be. If it requires using deadly force, then deadly force should be used.
QuisCustodiet:No, I just mean that he has killed people in the past, and thus is not a safe person to be around. In his past actions he's demonstrated a willingness to violate the rights of persons.
That directly contradicts what you said, which again I quote: "he kills people". You use the verb "to kill" in the simple present tense, which is typically taken to connote habituality, i.e. he habitually kills people. But to have killed one or more people in the past in no way implies that one will necessarily kill ever again.
[T]he fact that he has coerced another person in the past in and of itself does not constitute either an explicit or implicit threat against this woman now.
Come on. Really? So if she's alone in an alleyway with Jack the Ripper, she has no reason to feel threatened?
QuisCustodiet: I'm not saying every person poses a threat. I'm saying that there are people that pose a threat to your rights, like Jack the Ripper and a rapist on the loose. If those people can be contained without using deadly force, then they should be. If it requires using deadly force, then deadly force should be used.
You are definitely equivocating. Here are the three definitions that wiktionary provides for the word threat:
An expression of intent to injure or punish another.
An indication of imminent danger.
A person or object that is regarded as a danger; a menace.
The first definition is how Rothbard defined it. You claimed that was the definition that you were using, but you have been using "threat" to mean "a person that is regarded as a danger". You have to pick one or the other in argumentation. You cannot equivocate back and forth between the two.
What proof do you have that he doesn't kill habitually?
Jack the Ripper is regarded as a danger; a menace. Thus coercion.
QuisCustodiet: Come on. Really? So if she's alone in an alleyway with Jack the Ripper, she has no reason to feel threatened?
I'm not going to answer this ridiculous equivocation.
QuisCustodiet:Say the person in the scenario just broke into a random person's house and raped that person.
Why?
QuisCustodiet:As in what you feel you have to do to protect your family. Maybe instead of hiding your kids and hiding your wife, you buy a lock for your front door. Same principle.
Earlier you said nothing about feelings. What you said implied (at least to me) the notion that hiding one's wife and kids is necessarily the only way to protect them in such a situation. That notion is what I'm disputing. Furthermore, I'll dispute the notion that one cannot know whether something will protect him, as the future is inherently uncertain.
QuisCustodiet:I'm not saying every person poses a threat. I'm saying that there are people that pose a threat to your rights, like Jack the Ripper and a rapist on the loose. If those people can be contained without using deadly force, then they should be. If it requires using deadly force, then deadly force should be used.
I now invite you to prove that such people necessarily "pose threats to one's rights". Notice that this will require elaborating on what you mean by that phrase.
Because it happens.
Here's an example from the real world. It's a 2-minute video of a news report. Hiding yo kids and hiding yo wife and hiding yo husband is what is recommened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzNhaLUT520
QuisCustodiet:@Autolykos What proof do you have that he doesn't kill habitually?
So first I challenged you on your statement that "he kills people", and you said that you meant he killed people in the past. Now, after I pointed out that that directly contradicts what you said earlier, you ask me what proof I have that he doesn't kill habitually. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how you're not either moving the goalposts or throwing a red herring my way.
That's not what I was asking why about. I was asking why I should follow you in now assuming that the person in the scenario just broke into a random person's house and raped that person. In other words, why should I go along with you changing the scenario willy-nilly?
...you ask me what proof I have that he doesn't kill habitually.
It was a rhetorical question. I should have made it more clear.
The third dictonary definition you provided proves me right.
QuisCustodiet:It was a rhetorical question. I should have made it more clear.
You still can.
QuisCustodiet:The third dictionary definition you provided proves me right.
I invite you to lay out the proof.
QuisCustodiet: The third dictonary definition you provided proves me right.
The first definition is what you claimed you were using. That is the one that Rothbard uses. You have been equivocating between the first and third definition. Thank you for admitting this.