It would be great if you could STFU. The big kids are discussing now.
liberty student: It would be great if you could STFU. The big kids are discussing now.
It would be great if you'd stop being a pretentious prick. They're telling you exactly what I have been for pages.
Jon Irenicus: Maybe because you're not coerced into resistance? That's the whole point. To insure that you do not resist. You're coerced into non-resistance. -Jon
Maybe because you're not coerced into resistance? That's the whole point. To insure that you do not resist. You're coerced into non-resistance.
-Jon
Whew, at the risk of going circles... That was my position. I thought you were implying that the need to resist was also coerced.
Coercion only favours one outcome. Compliance. So why would anyone comply when they could resist?
Sorry if I'm going in circles, I'm frustrated and don't feel like I can articulate what I think.
The whole point of coercion is for the coercer to get the victim to act as they wish them to act. Resistance does not come under that scheme. Forcing the victim to comply does. Hence why non-resistance is a coerced choice. Resistance is the attempt to end the coerced imposition of non-resistance.
A rape victim is in exactly this position. If (s)he resists, (s)he might suffer dire consequences, and thus (s)he may simply go along with the coercion. Saying this is tantamount to consent is saying this is not rape, which is by definition non-consentual sex.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Brainpolice:It would be great if you'd stop being a pretentious prick. They're telling you exactly what I have been for pages.
Well, that's sad because I am actually listening now. Which means (1) you suck at argumentation, (2) I don't respect you, (3) you are full of crap, or (4) all of the above.
I've got further discussing with Jon in a handful of posts because surprise, surprise, he doesn't make it about his values.
Perhaps because the coercer threatens dire consequences?
liberty student: Jon Irenicus: Maybe because you're not coerced into resistance? That's the whole point. To insure that you do not resist. You're coerced into non-resistance. -Jon Whew, at the risk of going circles... That was my position. I thought you were implying that the need to resist was also coerced. Coercion only favours one outcome. Compliance. So why would anyone comply when they could resist? Sorry if I'm going in circles, I'm frustrated and don't feel like I can articulate what I think.
No, you were saying that non-resistance is consent to whatever condition you were coerced into and therefore voluntary.
This is really basic stuff, self ownership, negative rights, etc, etc. I can't believe that this has been dragged out this long.
And yes, by your argument a woman who has a knife held to her throat who doesn't resist her attacker is engaging in consensual sex. Perhaps you should go to a rape survivor support group and ask "So why would anyone comply when they could resist?" I'm sure that would go over well...
Thanks Jon. I'll PM you later with some questions. I can't carry this on all day, and I don't feel like I'm getting anywhere. Maybe I'll get a different perspective with some fresh air.
Anonymous Coward:And yes, by your argument a woman who has a knife held to her throat who doesn't resist her attacker is engaging in consensual sex. Perhaps you should go to a rape survivor support group and ask "So why would anyone comply when they could resist?" I'm sure that would go over well...
The rape argument doesn't phase me. I'm not intimidated by angry women in a support group any more than I am intimidated by angry women on this forum.
But it isn't an appeal to emotion - it's an attempt to show how viewing non-resistance in this way practically melts away the very notion of coercion.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Nonsense. Since they are in a situation where force is initiated against them, this isn't even a question of "consent". Does a person consent to be beaten by staying in an abusive relationship? No, of course not.
Daniel Waite:It is fruitless to describe a situation under the constraint of force without context: The only time you cannot give consent is when you have no physical or mental ability to choose. For example, being completely physicaly restrained from escaping does not constitute your consent to being a slave. However, the moment you are free to act on your own volition, and you do nothing to change your situation, you again give consent.
The only time you cannot give consent is when you have no physical or mental ability to choose. For example, being completely physicaly restrained from escaping does not constitute your consent to being a slave. However, the moment you are free to act on your own volition, and you do nothing to change your situation, you again give consent.
Nonsense. Giving the mugger your wallet in no way means you consent to him having your wallet. Please try to think.
liberty student: Brainpolice:It would be great if you'd stop being a pretentious prick. They're telling you exactly what I have been for pages. Well, that's sad because I am actually listening now. Which means (1) you suck at argumentation, (2) I don't respect you, (3) you are full of crap, or (4) all of the above. I've got further discussing with Jon in a handful of posts because surprise, surprise, he doesn't make it about his values.
I think what's going on is that you purpusefully plug your ears at me because you have a vested interest in being antagonistic with me. You see that it's Brainpolice and immediately snap into troll mode and you have no desire for a coherant debate.
I never made it about my values, I merely stressed that a dry value-free analysis alone cannot make the case for liberty.
It was an appeal to emotion. I've women in my life I love dearly in this world. Most people do.
I'm done with this discussion for now. Like I said, I have things to do, and I'm not going to play emotional guilt games.
Anonymous Coward: liberty student: Jon Irenicus: Maybe because you're not coerced into resistance? That's the whole point. To insure that you do not resist. You're coerced into non-resistance. -Jon Whew, at the risk of going circles... That was my position. I thought you were implying that the need to resist was also coerced. Coercion only favours one outcome. Compliance. So why would anyone comply when they could resist? Sorry if I'm going in circles, I'm frustrated and don't feel like I can articulate what I think. No, you were saying that non-resistance is consent to whatever condition you were coerced into and therefore voluntary. This is really basic stuff, self ownership, negative rights, etc, etc. I can't believe that this has been dragged out this long. And yes, by your argument a woman who has a knife held to her throat who doesn't resist her attacker is engaging in consensual sex. Perhaps you should go to a rape survivor support group and ask "So why would anyone comply when they could resist?" I'm sure that would go over well...
It amazes me that we'd even debate this here.
liberty student: Anonymous Coward:And yes, by your argument a woman who has a knife held to her throat who doesn't resist her attacker is engaging in consensual sex. Perhaps you should go to a rape survivor support group and ask "So why would anyone comply when they could resist?" I'm sure that would go over well... The rape argument doesn't phase me. I'm not intimidated by angry women in a support group any more than I am intimidated by angry women on this forum.
Angry women? Wow. We're talking about rape, dude. It's not the mere ramblings of angry women.
I could've picked any other crime, other than murder. It's a reductio ad absurdum, not an argumentum ad misericordiam. I'm not saying it's wrong because look how bad it'd make those women (or men) feel; no, I'm saying it's wrong because it blurs the distinction between voluntary action and crime, an argument that on its face is absurd. All crimes involve using force to get the victim to comply: that is the point of the whole activity. Resistance merely means it might fail, or is otherwise more costly.
Jon Irenicus: But it isn't an appeal to emotion - it's an attempt to show how viewing non-resistance in this way practically melts away the very notion of coercion. -Jon
Which has already been established since the beginning of the thread.
Brainpolice:I think what's going on is that you purpusefully plug your ears at me because you have a vested interest in being antagonistic with me. You see that it's Brainpolice and immediately snap into troll mode and you have no desire for a coherant debate.
I see it's Brainpolice? You continue to stalk me from thread to thread like a troll. I don't seek you out, you seek me out, again and again, thread after thread. There are literally hundreds of people you could debate here, and you consistently seek me out.
That's harassment. So don't try to play polyanna and claim it's woe to you.
Brainpolice:I never made it about my values, I merely stressed that a dry value-free analysis alone cannot make the case for liberty.
Bullshit. Now you're lying. Go back and read your posts in this thread.
Jon Irenicus: I could've picked any other crime, other than murder. It's a reductio ad absurdum, not an argumentum ad misericordiam. I'm not saying it's wrong because look how bad it'd make those women (or men) feel; no, I'm saying it's wrong because it blurs the distinction between voluntary action and crime, an argument that on its face is absurd. All crimes involve using force to get the victim to comply: that is the point of the whole activity. Resistance merely means it might fail, or is otherwise more costly. -Jon
Which I've been trying to explain to him for pages.
liberty student:It was an appeal to emotion.
No, it was a sledgehammer to your trolling.
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".
liberty student:I know that Jon. But going directly to a rape based example is a classic emotional rhetorical tool.
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.
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?
Knight_of_BAAWA: 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.
Maxliberty: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.
So, how many hundreds of generations did it take for slavery to become voluntary?
Maxliberty: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.
Yeah, yeah, blame the victim...wonderful piece of deductive logic you have come up with here.
Maxliberty: 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
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
"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
Maxliberty: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.
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?
liberty student: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.
Maybe you should rephrase the question?
Maxliberty:Actions always speak louder than words.
If so, why exactly are you here?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Maxliberty:Actions always speak louder than words. 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.
Knight_of_BAAWA: IOW: yes, you believe that only you ever do anything. Go play in your little sandbox, kid. Leave the adults alone.
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.
Knight_of_BAAWA:IOW: yes, you believe that only you ever do anything. Go play in your little sandbox, kid. Leave the adults alone.
Maxliberty: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.
Non sequitur.
Anonymous Coward: So, how many hundreds of generations did it take for slavery to become voluntary?
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.
Anonymous Coward:blame the victim...wonderful piece of deductive logic you have come up with here.
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.
Maxliberty: Anonymous Coward: So, how many hundreds of generations did it take for slavery to become voluntary? 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.
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.
The same point in discussing ideas as a means to take action based on those ideas.
liberty student: liberty student:Then you don't know what trade is. Hitting this one twice. Trade is just a fancy name for human action. Humans act when they stay in the slave pens, or when they make a dash for the treeline. My understanding of trade is based on praxeology. Do you have a different model for human behaviour that you are using?
liberty student:Then you don't know what trade is.
Hitting this one twice.
Trade is just a fancy name for human action. Humans act when they stay in the slave pens, or when they make a dash for the treeline.
My understanding of trade is based on praxeology. Do you have a different model for human behaviour that you are using?
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.
Peace