Yes, involuntary action. Is there an echo in here? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can you hear me?
Repeat after me: choices made under coercion are not voluntary, choices made under coercion are not voluntary, choices made under coercion are not voluntary. Stop eradicating the distinction between a voluntary choice and a coerced one. This is basic stuff.
And another straw man. I'm still waiting for you to explain a model of behavior for "not voluntary" (don't call it involuntary) action.
No, it's not a straw man, it's the logical implication of your claim. If all human action is voluntary, then the state is voluntary, taxation is voluntary, war is voluntary, slavery is not voluntary, and so on. In my world, libertarians use the fact that these things are not voluntary to delegitimize them and statists try to construe them as voluntary to legitimize them. Apologia for the state commonly implies that it is truly voluntary by making appeals to "society", "the social contract" and so on. What you are doing is defending these common statist fallacies while claiming to be a libertarian.
Actually the absurd claim is your own, the claim that all human relationships are voluntary. Of course, throughout this thread you've done nothing but continually obliterate the meaning of voluntaryism and coercion. Meanwhile, you're continually trying to straw man me as if I'm denying that people have volition or free will, but you fail to understand that volition and free will in and of itself does not equal voluntaryism. The mere fact that humans have the capacity to make choice and indeed do make choices does not necessarily mean that all of their choices are voluntary or unconstrained by coercion and factors outside of their control. Then again, I tried establishing this a page back and you didn't grasp it then.
Trianglechoke7: Voluntary means without coercion. If you choose to do something due to the presence of coercion, then you are doing it involuntarily. Coercion means the threat or use of physical violence.
Voluntary means without coercion. If you choose to do something due to the presence of coercion, then you are doing it involuntarily. Coercion means the threat or use of physical violence.
This is what I've tried to tell him for many posts now and he still doesn't understand it. Maybe if it comes from you instead of me he'll actually listen and make an attempt to understand.
I'm not debating the term voluntary. I am saying that human action (even under coercion) is praxeological. BP agrees.
I win. End of discussion.
I'm making an argument based on praxeology, coincidentally I am arguing against compliance with the state.
Praxeology does not establish that all human relationships are voluntary. In this regaurd I think you actually misunderstand praxeology.
I claim victory, because you conceded with your "dry praxeology". I made my point, you agreed. The rest is all cranberry sauce and stuffing.
Don't be like MaxLiberty now. There is no basis to claim "victory" in a thread in which you clearly do not understand what you're talking about.
BP, it is not a logical implication. It is a strawman.
In order for it to be a logical implication, you would need to provide a model for human behaviour that explains why people make different decisions under the same coercive threat. Oh wait, that is called praxeology....
liberty student: Trianglechoke7: Voluntary means without coercion. If you choose to do something due to the presence of coercion, then you are doing it involuntarily. Coercion means the threat or use of physical violence. I'm not debating the term voluntary. I am saying that human action (even under coercion) is praxeological. BP agrees. I win. End of discussion.
Stop talking about winning and losing. You've obstructed this discussion and you most certainly have not substantiated your claims or refuted the criticism that has been made of them. If anything, all that you've done is demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic libertarian political theory.
Brainpolice:Praxeology does not establish that all human relationships are voluntary. In this regaurd I think you actually misunderstand praxeology.
That's funny.
Brainpolice:Don't be like MaxLiberty now. There is no basis to claim "victory" in a thread in which you clearly do not understand what you're talking about.
You agreed with me. That was the victory condition.
Brainpolice:If anything, all that you've done is demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic libertarian political theory.
You mean your personal theories. They are irrelevant in this and all other discussions.
I was making the point that all human action is praxeological. You agreed.
liberty student: BP, it is not a logical implication. It is a strawman. In order for it to be a logical implication, you would need to provide a model for human behaviour that explains why people make different decisions under the same coercive threat. Oh wait, that is called praxeology....
No, it is not a strawman. If the state is voluntary, then it's legitimate, and many statist political theories have been developed to prove just this. Libertarians reject the state precisely because it's not voluntary. Oh, man. This is libertarianism 101. It's strange that I should have to baby step you through it. Praxeology is essentialy irrelevant to this discussion. This is about what constitutes voluntaryism, and praxeology has nothing to say about it, since it is only a value-free descriptive economic method, not an all-encompassing political theory of interpersonal relations.
liberty student: Brainpolice:Praxeology does not establish that all human relationships are voluntary. In this regaurd I think you actually misunderstand praxeology. That's funny. Brainpolice:Don't be like MaxLiberty now. There is no basis to claim "victory" in a thread in which you clearly do not understand what you're talking about. You agreed with me. That was the victory condition.
No, I havent agreed with you. You've trolled this thread and obstructed the discussion.
What you seem to be doing is doing anything in your power to "win" regaurdless of truth or virtue. I'm trying to have an actual discussion and establish precisely what is true, and you're to busy trying to "win" to genuinely participate.
No, not my personal theories, the very basics of libertarianism, which you seem ignorant of. *beats you over the head with a copy of "For A New Liberty". Apparently the basics never sunk in and you jumped head first into the movement without knowing them.
No, you continually have argued as if there is no distinction between voluntary and involuntary interpersonal relations, and I have continually tried to establish this distinction to no avail as you make arguments implying that all human relations are voluntary. You use praxeology as something to appeal to but are misusing it.
Brainpolice:No, it is not a strawman. If the state is voluntary, then it's legitimate, and many statist political theories have been developed to prove just this.
In a free society, some people may choose to be slaves. That is their free choice. In our modern societies, billions of people choose to be slaves. Turn off your computer and go outside and meet them. They actually think government is good, government makes their lives better, and they can control government. Now I think we can both agree that most of them are idiots or at the least, badly informed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they have chosen the state.
And if you try to speak about or explain anti-statism to them, they shrink in horror, as though you are some demon or manifest-satan.
So yes, the state is voluntary. In fact, the entire notion of Agorism is to defeat the state by mass withdrawing consent. Which I believe, implies that tacit consent has been given or is assumed.
Brainpolice:Oh, man. This is libertarianism 101. It's strange that I should have to baby step you through it.
Why do you write crap like this? Does it make you feel smart and self-important?
Brainpolice:Praxeology is essentialy irrelevant to this discussion. This is about what constitutes voluntaryism, and praxeology has nothing to say about it, since it is only a value-free descriptive economic method, not an all-encompassing political theory of interpersonal relations.
Praxeology is the modeling of human action. Hence, it is always relevant. And yes, it is value free. I reject your notion of imposing your own values on every discussion. I could give two craps about your values.
The reason why our discussions run on endlessly, is that you have to muddy the waters with subjectivity (your values) in order to maintain most of the positions you hold. I'm beginning to wonder how much, if any of your beliefs are based on logic as opposed to emotional projection.
You might want to quit while you are ahead, you're beginning to make very silly arguments.
Brainpolice:No, not my personal theories, the very basics of libertarianism, which you seem ignorant of. *beats you over the head with a copy of "For A New Liberty". Apparently the basics never sunk in and you jumped head first into the movement without knowing them.
More Ad Homs to satisfy your own weak ego.
If you mean I am free of dogma and doctrine, then yes. I don't worship from books. I observe and try to make rational decisions.
There is no achievement in behaving like an ideological zealot.
Brainpolice:No, you continually have argued as if there is no distinction between voluntary and involuntary interpersonal relations, and I have continually tried to establish this distinction to no avail as you make arguments implying that all human relations are voluntary.
Strawman.
Brainpolice:You use praxeology as something to appeal to but are misusing it.
How?
Of course praxeology can analyze coerced action.
Brainpolice:No, I havent agreed with you.
Uhm, yes you have. Do I need to go back and pull the quotes?
Brainpolice:What you seem to be doing is doing anything in your power to "win" regaurdless of truth or virtue.
Winning is the virtue, truth is the method. And yes, I use truth as much as possible.
Brainpolice:I'm trying to have an actual discussion and establish precisely what is true, and you're to busy trying to "win" to genuinely participate.
No, you are as usual picking a fight with me, then creating strawmen, resorting to Ad Homs and applying your own subjective values to every facet of the discussion, until it becomes an endless pissing match.
Your first mistake is trolling me around the forum.
The second mistake is thinking that you will be able to beat me with your personal values and ethics.
In a free society, some people may choose to be slaves. That is their free choice.
Slavery, by definition, is not freely chosen. Why do I have to keep repeatedly pointing out the distinction between a voluntary and coerced choice? This is beyond ridiculous.
So yes, the state is voluntary.
Then libertarianism is pointless and we should all become statists. Because libertarianism rejects this claim.
Here's a concept for you: libertarianism is meaningless without value judgements; in fact, it is one and it involves tons of them. Praxeology is not libertarianism, it's an economic methodology. Economics isn't all there is to this. Also, I'm not imposing my own values on every discussion, I'm trying to have an actual discussion of values, and you don't seem to understand that values are inherently implied in this particular discussion. It is also a facade to pretend that you dont have value judgements.
Not at all. You're putting on a facade of being value free, you misunderstand praxeology and demonstrate ignorance about very basic libertarian concepts. So drop the disingenous attitude, because you are not value free and values are not irrelevant in a discussion about interpersonal relations.
Not at all. You're continually making it clear that you're out of touch with libertarian political theory.
I'm beginning to think that you don't know what a straw man is.
This is what we've been going in circles about for pages now, and a reductio ad absurdum is not a straw man. If you refuse to aknowledge the logical implications of your own premises, that problem is your own, not those who point out such implications.
More Ad Homs to satisfy your own weak ego. If you mean I am free of dogma and doctrine, then yes. I don't worship from books. I observe and try to make rational decisions. There is no achievement in behaving like an ideological zealot.
I find your claims of the highground by pretending to be value free to be disingenous.
Because praxeology does not establish all human action as voluntary. We've been through this already.
liberty student: Brainpolice:No, I havent agreed with you. Uhm, yes you have. Do I need to go back and pull the quotes? Brainpolice:What you seem to be doing is doing anything in your power to "win" regaurdless of truth or virtue. Winning is the virtue, truth is the method. And yes, I use truth as much as possible. Brainpolice:I'm trying to have an actual discussion and establish precisely what is true, and you're to busy trying to "win" to genuinely participate. No, you are as usual picking a fight with me, then creating strawmen, resorting to Ad Homs and applying your own subjective values to every facet of the discussion, until it becomes an endless pissing match. Your first mistake is trolling me around the forum. The second mistake is thinking that you will be able to beat me with your personal values and ethics.
I haven't asserted any personal ethics, I've merely made mention of basic libertarian political theory (which you seem to think is purely personal on my own part, when it isn't). Here, try learning about it: Read "Ethics of Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. It's available at this very site. I'd also suggest you stop speaking as if interpersonal ethics is not relevant to a discussion about politics, since politics inherently involves interpersonal ethics and it is disingenous to argue as if you dont have value judgements of your own.
Brainpolice:Why do I have to keep repeatedly pointing out the distinction between a voluntary and coerced choice? This is beyond ridiculous.
I don't know. I wish you would give up by now. It is patently obvious that I do not accept the distinction as you explain it.
Brainpolice:Then libertarianism is pointless and we should all become statists. Because libertarianism rejects this claim.
Are you crying?
Brainpolice:Here's a concept for you: libertarianism is meaningless without value judgements; in fact, it is one and it involves tons of them.
That's a concept.
Brainpolice:Praxeology is not libertarianism, it's an economic methodology. Economics isn't all there is to this.
I thought praxeology was a model for all human action, not just economic behaviour.
Brainpolice:Also, I'm not imposing my own values on every discussion, I'm trying to have an actual discussion of values, and you don't seem to understand that values are inherently implied in this particular discussion.
I'm trying not to have a discussion about values, and you don't seem to understand that.
I
DON'T
CARE
WHAT
YOUR
VALUES
ARE.
Brainpolice:It is also a facade to pretend that you dont have value judgements.
I'm not pretending. I do have value judgments. I am not involving them in this discussion. I don't come online to argue my values vs. yours. So if you continue to debate me, as I have already made clear, don't expect me to participate in your value laden discussions in a manner you approve of. You will be disappointed.
Brainpolice:Not at all. You're putting on a facade of being value free
Strawman, see above.
Brainpolice:you misunderstand praxeology
How? Please quote me when you justify your assertion.
Brainpolice:demonstrate ignorance about very basic libertarian concepts.
Brainpolice:So drop the disingenous attitude, because you are not value free
Brainpolice:and values are not irrelevant in a discussion about interpersonal relations.
I'm not having a discussion about interpersonal relations. If I did, it wouldn't be with you. I have told you this repeatedly on this forum.
Brainpolice:Not at all. You're continually making it clear that you're out of touch with libertarian political theory.
Ad Hom & Strawman.
Brainpolice:I'm beginning to think that you don't know what a straw man is.
You say that in all of our discussions. In fact, most of this is just the same rehashed BS you bring to every thread.
Brainpolice:I find your claims of the highground by pretending to be value free to be disingenous.
I find your Ad Homs, value judgments and strawmen indicative of a man without a solid argument.
Brainpolice:Because praxeology does not establish all human action as voluntary. We've been through this already.
All human action is voluntary. Otherwise no one would ever escape or resist coercion. Coercion would win by default every time it was applied.
Voluntary action is the only way to defeat coercion.
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?
I'm not pretending. I do have value judgments. I am not involving them in this discussion.
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.
All human action is voluntary.
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?
Anyone want to take a shot at answering this?
liberty student: Anyone want to take a shot at answering this? All human action is voluntary. Otherwise no one would ever escape or resist coercion. Coercion would win by default every time it was applied. Voluntary action is the only way to defeat coercion.
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.
I'll ask again,
liberty student: I'll ask again, Anyone want to take a shot at answering this? All human action is voluntary. Otherwise no one would ever escape or resist coercion. Coercion would win by default every time it was applied. Voluntary action is the only way to defeat coercion.
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:
Brainpolice:Stop ignoring it and playing stupid.
Your authoritarian streak is showing.
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?
liberty student: Brainpolice:Stop ignoring it and playing stupid. Your authoritarian streak is showing. liberty student: I'll ask again, Anyone want to take a shot at answering this? All human action is voluntary. Otherwise no one would ever escape or resist coercion. Coercion would win by default every time it was applied. Voluntary action is the only way to defeat coercion. 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?
It's praxeological. It just has nothing to do with consent.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
liberty student: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?
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.
No, I got it. And I read it.
And my question is still unanswered. If you comply with coercion, that is involuntary. Then if you resist, is that also involuntary?
Jon Irenicus: It's praxeological. It just has nothing to do with consent. -Jon
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.
No, because you're ending the very condition that seeks to constrain your voluntary actions. Are you coerced into resisting?
Jon Irenicus: 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. -Jon
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.
Jon Irenicus: No, because you're ending the very condition that seeks to constrain your voluntary actions. Are you coerced into resisting? -Jon
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.
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.
I must be really thick, because I cannot understand how we have dissent on one side, and not-dissent which is not compliance on the other.
I've got a headache from this and should have left the house hours ago.
Re: rape, is there any difference between the rape victim who does and does not resist, if they are both raped? If so, what is the difference?