• You can state that you disagree with it

    But if you don't address the argument for it, your disagreement has no bearing on the point. I gave the reason why it is the proper definition: uninvited physical contact is the only consistent definition of coercion because the victim can always respond with defensive measures or claim violation. If they choose not to, they simply have refrained from such measures because they welcomed the contact. But the initiator acted coercively regardless, because had the contact been unwelcome, it would have been coercive. The person did not know beforehand the thoughts of the recipient, therefore it is not invited, therefore coercion. There are obviously varying degrees of coercion, and putting an arm on someone is not the same has punching them, but both fit the objective definition given.

    You haven't offered any objection or consistent alternative definition for inspection and analysis. Do you have one? I'm sure I can show why it fails and not consistent or objective.

    If you say the motivation of the initiator of the contact is what counts, then the unwelcome embrace has the same moral and legal standing as the welcome embrace; either both or neither are coercion based on motivation.

    If you say that the response of the victim is the standard, then rape is not coercion if the victim decides it was just what she needed, or the Stockholm syndrome victim comes to love his or her captor.

    Coercion has to be defined as I stated to be free of these problems.

    But you haven't even challenged the definition that I gave and defended at the outset of the argument, and so until you attempt to do so, it stands.

  • If someone is physically

    If someone is physically dependent, you need their consent to have access to their bodies.

    No you don't. You don't need to consent of children, you have authority over them. And you have authority over any dependent that needs you to survive unless, they want to die. As long as they don't want to die, you can coerce them and they are dependent. You can call that consent, but it could involve lots of initiation of physical content that is not consensual as long a they prefer it to dying. That definition is obviously awful, and does not prevent it from being coercion as I defined it.

    Someone who is mentally inept can be considered dangerous in a general sense and become the ward or responsibility of someone responsible, and so subject to just coercion. It is coercive, and just.

    If the mentally deficient person is a danger to him/herself, courts can grant you guardianship rights.

    That doesn't contradict my point, it confirms it. It is still coercion, and it is legal and justified.

    To help someone in danger, you still need their consent. If they are unable to give consent (e.g., unconscious), you have their implied consent, since the assumption is that everyone would rather live if given the choice. Thus, this is not coercion.

    Yes, it is coercion, and your presumption does not make it otherwise. You're initiating uninvited physical contact, it is coercion as I defined it, and as I claimed was the only consistent definition. If we can just assume what we want people to do, than we can define coercion as anything we want. Coercion to help someone is justified, despite being coercion.

    Likewise, when we stop someone who we think will harm themselves or harm others, even if they have not done so, we are justly using coercion. You don't seem to understand the concept of justified coercion, so you just try to define anything you think is just as not coercion, arbitrarily and inconsistently.

    (affection example) This is not coercion, dumdum.

    Of course it is. I started with a definition of coercion, and argued it is the correct definition. You didn't dispute it. On the definition I gave, affection/physical contact could be highly unwelcome, and if it was, it is coercive.

    It is not unjust, because a world where uninvited affection was unjust would be inhuman. That is the very point. Uninvited physical contact is coercion, but it isn't always unjust. Lots of coercion is just, which is the main premise of the post, from which various conclusions follow.

    5. (Sexual example)

    You say its not coercion, but it is the initiation of physical contact without being invited. On the definition I provided at the beginning, it is obviously coercion. If you think its not coercion, you have to dispute the definition I gave, but you haven't done so. The definition I gave is the only consistent definition, and I gave clear reasons why, which you haven't objected to. So if you want to talk about implied consent, you implied consent to the definition, and have abide it unless you object to it.

    6. Stopping someone from doing something stupid

    Here I had in mind drunk driving or getting into a violent altercation.

    It's coercion, and it's justified.

  • Cool

    Try it out somewhere, let's see how it goes. This discussion gets tiresome. We have an entirely free market in force right now. Organize your force, sell it, do what you want. The government is not unique, it is just people. No one is stopping your defense agencies. If there's no demand for them, or if they can't actually supply the goods they promise, you can't blame the state. The state is just people doing what they want to do, using what force they want. That is the very problem you claim DROs solve. So, solve it.

    If there's no demand, you should try to figure out why there's no demand. The wealthy elite is pretty intelligent, why don't they want DROs? Explain why economic elites will ever want DROs / private defense agencie, rather than monopoly government. Explain why the market order that you think would emerge under stable DROs / defense agency equilibrium would not produce economic elite, if that's your view.

    Explain why we have market failure, right now. A free market in force already exist, and it has chosen the government. I guess that means markets fail and produce government. But how can free markets 'fail'? They simply choose what they choose, result in the outcomes they result in. To say they fail is merely to say you don't like their choice. The link I posted above pretty much covers all this. I don't want to talk about it anymore.

  • Yup

    .

  • I really don't understand

    I really don't understand your arguments, and don't think you understand mine.

    I didn't argue anything about underproduction. There isn't even a market in the anarchist world, because you haven't even established there would be a stable legal environment for contracts capital investment to occur. There probably would not be. In which case, conglomerations of force would impose conditions conducive to profitable markets, or the few economically dominant interests would impose government to protect their interests.

    There may be massive over-investment in force on the initial anarchy-condition model, not underproduction, since everyone has to be surrounded inefficiently by bodyguards or defensive perimeters when they can't rely on justice and defense as a public good paid for by all. Economic motives will produce a state, as it always has before.

  • Haha

    I just finally got the joke.

  • Thank you!

    For going into the arena and keeping things so interesting.

  • This is going to be tough to

    enforce fairly. People who upload videos consensually and then regret it after a breakup will abuse the law. But at the same time I agree with the sentiment, and hope the law does get applied to genuine instances of private videos being made public. It's easy to blame a girl for allowing herself to be recorded, but the emotional power people have in relationships overcomes good judgment. Hopefully the law isn't used much and gets struck down in actual grey area cases, while at the same time creating enough legal deterrence and fear to limit the practice.

  • ?

    How would there be "no way to reinstate the government."? Would a government prevent it? What are you suggesting, that a new law of nature prevented individuals from touching each other forcefully or touching each other's goods? I suppose if such a law emerged, some new social order would emerge that dealt best with those circumstances. But since this isn't going to happen, I don't see the point of trying to find out whether the new arrangement would produce more or less welfare and happiness, or support a growing population, etc.

  • I don't remember calling you a fool

    I've called myself a fool many a time, and made many a foolish rhyme
    But to cast aspersions at sump1, that I would never do
    For he is 1, I am three, and in the twain is 2

  • You've misdefined theft to

    You've misdefined theft to include taxation. Taxation is just and necessary, as long as people are free to take their property and leave the taxing social apparatus and seek greener pastures without any communal defense.

  • Never read it

    But assume it involved coercive law enforcment. I need to read that eventually, can't seem to make it past the dull parts of Genesis and Exodus.

  • Scenario

    Take a hypothetical city that wants to adhere to your principles.

    It has a voluntary defense agency that is funded by those who wish to donate or purchase its services.

    In the middle of the town lives a wealthy manufacturer of automobiles.

    A neighboring city is committing aggression, growing its military power and extorting its neighbors.

    The hypothetical city realizes it needs to build up its defenses by getting more military supplies and funds.

    The wealthy automobile manufacturer exercises his right not to contribute anything to the defense, feeling that it is unnecessary, or a false alarm, or maybe he is just a pacifist.

    The aggressive neighbor amasses forces close to the city and demands some kind of extortion payment.

    Can you think of some way that the free riding manufacturer can be extricated from the defensive perimeter, since he did not pay for the defensive service, without violating his rights?

    If not, then you have to admit the free rider problem for defense services is real. These people have no obligation to defend the free rider, and he should rightly be subject to whatever external attacks there are.

    In my opinion, the town would be justified to take him and his wealth and turn them over to the aggressor. In fact, I think they had every right to coerce him for protection if he refused to leave during the build up, in exchange for a nominal compensation for his holdings, and let him fend for himself outside.

    Please try to reply to the direct scenario and not bring in red herrings, such as "I don't think he would have acted like that."

  • Boggles the mind

    how any rational person can actually believe that the Wal-mart / Rentacop defense agency with its corporate incentives, it's human resources department and poorly paid guns for hire are going to beat the soldiers playing for keeps, who take their pay and conscript recruits, who get shot when they desrt, and aren't restricted by 650 biltateral contracts with other rentacop agencies. Not only that, but every other non force business would throw in with this clear winner to sure up their fortunes and get a stable, cost effective, unilateral and regularized deal for defense and domestic order enforcement. The difference between Nokia and these force agencies is that Nokia follows the law, and has no way of not following the law, because it doesn't have access to superior force. The force agencies have access to superior force, and aren't beholden to any law. The dynamics are entirely different, and applying normal market incentives to competing mercenary agencies in a legal anarchy is senseless.

  • Right

    But you guys admit that humans are predatory and will organize to rob and kill each other, and then advocate that people give up the one thing that protects them from this 99% of the time, because it isn't 100% perfect. Everyone else realizes by common sense the result would be much more predation and disorder and violence, but common sense can't bother utopian ideologues. There's no actual danger that anarchism will win. It's only accomplishment is making everyone in the libertarian movement look retarded.

  • Yeah, but to interact with

    Yeah, but to interact with the wider public discussion about dietary habits, we won't make much headway if we keep getting confused with the "zero food" people who are correctly regarded as fools.

  • Sure but if anarchy be

    Sure but if anarchy be defined as a perpetual state of your grandma burning, then you can justify government as a perpetually justified stolen fire extinguished. And I think that's more or less accurate.

    Once you've conceded the point that its okay to steal the fire extinguisher, you have to concede the point that the state is just, if it truly does prevent perpetual fires... So you have lost the moral high ground, and are stuck arguing only the practical point that anarchy wouldn't actually be what almost everyone knows it to be.

    That is quite a different bag of apples than the typical ethical apriorism and obnoxious moralism of anarchists.

  • Such a bizarre hypothetical.

    Such a bizarre hypothetical. If the last two people on earth couldn't get along, they deserve their fate.

    It's also telling how you brush over the imminent death of the species if the to two parted ways, without noting it.

    In a theistic world, for the only two people to turn their backs on each other, rather than be together, is somehow preferable to either being coercive, is telling.

    On a naturalistic worldview, your ethic would mean extinction is preferable to coercion.

    In both cases, it is 100% upside down from the truth...

  • what a stupid idea! it would

    what a stupid idea!

    it would cause a dangerous deflation, and wages are sticky downward! this would create all kinds aggregate of excess capacity. arrghh!

    -ben bernanke