so, you don't disagree with the philosophy on Mises.org you just prefer to use different words and phrases.
Wrong. 1) The limits and delegations of what is tortious is, essentially, arbitrary. There is nothing, therefor, that is inherently 'coercion'. 2) Not all torts are 'coercion'. Some don't involve other people's will at all (i.e., 'theft' and physically overpowering someone and stuffing him into your trunk) 3) This difference is psychological and sociological, not praxeological. 4) The relevance for catallactics has as much to do with economic calculation which private property makes possible as it does with human incentive arrangments. 5) Torts are not 'immoral'. They're torts. Justice is not about good and evil.
The reason you have difficulties in assaying this is because you have no experience with the forms and conventions as stated above, although historically these have far more to do with reality than some imaginary 'argumentation ethics' or 'natural law' or whatever gibberish you prefer.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
you argue like dolphins construct family guy gags
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: you argue like dolphins construct family guy gags
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
lol and I was going to ask nirgrahamUK for a youtube as a joke, but he might have actually found one!
>>Wrong. You mean manatees.
you passed the test....
I'm suprised this has gone on so long. Drace's statement is plain wrong. The "world" does not produce enough food to feed everyone. Some places produce enough food, while other places do not. The reason for this difference is political.
Obviously, it is not the places that produce enough that have the failed politics, so any effort to change them (like redistribution to the famine areas) is a non-solution. Its the places that produce too little that require the reform.
Peace
I am still interested to resolve why physical manipulation is a species of persuasion rather than a species of coercion.
The way I see it (and I am willing to be persuaded otherwise - but not the coercive species, please) persuasion is a cooperative effort and coercion is the initiation of force.
Persuasion from the standpoint of physical manipulation would be a mis-use of the word as it implies the moral acceptance of the initiation of force. According to such mis-use of the word 'persuasion' what degree of physical manipulation would be morally acceptable?
Is it morally acceptable for the mob-boss to teminally 'persuade' a competitor with a tommy-gun? Or would it make a differnce if he used a wooden baseball bat?
OK, so sure, the moral perspective is subjective - socialism is subjectively equal to captialism. What then is the basis for the initiation of force? That it WORKS?
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther