2 ms·

I'm not sure you're actually asking me a question. You seem to already know my answer, and indeed, you know precisely the rebuttal you'd like to say to my answe

I'm not sure you're actually asking me a question. You seem to already know my answer, and indeed, you know precisely the rebuttal you'd like to say to my answer. So, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? I'm no sociological genius; I have no answers or special insights that you probably haven't already read. The only thing I know for sure is that my ethical self condemns coercion. How this plays out in reality isn't at all clear to me. > Gangs, mafias, private armies. Coercive forces. Great, then that is inconsistent with my ethical beliefs. It may very well be the case that a "free" society can only exist when that society embraces it. Certainly, ripping government out of an existing society doesn't make any sense and I don't see how that could end in a desirable outcome without a lot of pain in the middle---which I cannot advocate. My own personal hope is that it occurs peacefully over the course of slow cultural and societal evolution; probably spanning centuries. For me personally, I am rather content with saying "I don't know." This does not change my ethics.

solipsism 11y ago
Huh? Why so defensive? What am I hoping to achieve? This is a discussion forum.. I'm hoping to achieve discussion. I'm not trying to change your ethics. I don't think I already know your answer, and I wouldn't have a "rebuttal" since there's nothing to rebut? I wasn't aware we were engaged in a debate. I was simply asking where you think society would end up if we were to adopt your philosophy. I wasn't making a value judgment about what I imagined you'd say. When I explained that my "simulation" led to a shitty place, I wasn't presuming you'd agree it was shitty, and I wasn't asserting my simulation is likely to be more right than anyone else's. Sometimes I stretch my neck out and try to have an intelligent conversation with people on here, as I would with friends. It's almost always a mistake. It's like a shark tank in here, everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong, and everyone assuming everyone else is trying to prove one wrong.
- burntsushi 11y ago
  > Sometimes I stretch my neck out and try to have an intelligent conversation with people on here, as I would with friends. It's almost always a mistake. It's like a shark tank in here, everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong, and everyone assuming everyone else is trying to prove one wrong. Ironically, this is how I felt when I read your initial comment. These types of conversations are always easier for me in person.
asgard1024 11y ago
> I'm not sure you're actually asking me a question. You seem to already know my answer, and indeed, you know precisely the rebuttal you'd like to say to my answer. > The only thing I know for sure is that my ethical self condemns coercion. How this plays out in reality isn't at all clear to me. Jesus! Even you don't know the answer to the question, why on Earth do you think we already know the answer? > Great, then that is inconsistent with my ethical beliefs. Nice. But in practice - would you be willing to coerce a mafia member if a friend asked you to? Or if your child would be threatened by gang? Fear from self-preservation aside (we all have it) - does your ethical belief allow for retaliation with coercion on behalf of some other party?
- burntsushi 11y ago
  > does your ethical belief allow for retaliation with coercion on behalf of some other party? In another comment, I defined what I meant by coercion. Notably, it is the initiation of physical force (or threat of) by some particular person or group. By this definition, coercion cannot be retaliatory. Retaliatory phyiscal force is no longer coercion precisely because it is not initiatory. Therefore, my ethic does not condemn it. (This does not imply that all forms and degrees of retaliatory force are ipso facto ethical in my book. Keep in mind that I am merely establishing minimal ethical criteria.)
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    OK, sounds reasonable. So, if you don't mind - what about lying? What if somebody borrows something from you and they refuse to return it? How is initiating coercion against them bad? What if someone falsely claims they own the piece of land that you think no one owns? So you give it up, and find out later the claim was false. Again, what about initiating coercion against them? Frankly, I don't think the condemnation of "initiation of coercion" is a good ethics. Specifically, people can be intentionally misled and that by itself is actually a good reason to initiate coercion. Also, cannot every coercion be interpreted as a retaliation for something? Does the fact that someone initiated a coercion at some point give the other party right to infinite (sanctioned by you) retaliation? Conversely, cannot anyone facing retaliation defend himself by saying (in attempt to get help) that this is initiation? I simply think you cannot absolutely reject initiating coercion and accept retaliatory coercion.. You need to have some measure of what is fair, which will fall in the gray area. And this notion of fairness will eventually extend to things like taxes and so on.

solipsism 11y ago

Huh? Why so defensive? What am I hoping to achieve? This is a discussion forum.. I'm hoping to achieve discussion. I'm not trying to change your ethics. I don't think I already know your answer, and I wouldn't have a "rebuttal" since there's nothing to rebut? I wasn't aware we were engaged in a debate. I was simply asking where you think society would end up if we were to adopt your philosophy. I wasn't making a value judgment about what I imagined you'd say. When I explained that my "simulation" led to a shitty place, I wasn't presuming you'd agree it was shitty, and I wasn't asserting my simulation is likely to be more right than anyone else's. Sometimes I stretch my neck out and try to have an intelligent conversation with people on here, as I would with friends. It's almost always a mistake. It's like a shark tank in here, everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong, and everyone assuming everyone else is trying to prove one wrong.

burntsushi 11y ago
> Sometimes I stretch my neck out and try to have an intelligent conversation with people on here, as I would with friends. It's almost always a mistake. It's like a shark tank in here, everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong, and everyone assuming everyone else is trying to prove one wrong. Ironically, this is how I felt when I read your initial comment. These types of conversations are always easier for me in person.

asgard1024 11y ago

> I'm not sure you're actually asking me a question. You seem to already know my answer, and indeed, you know precisely the rebuttal you'd like to say to my answer. > The only thing I know for sure is that my ethical self condemns coercion. How this plays out in reality isn't at all clear to me. Jesus! Even you don't know the answer to the question, why on Earth do you think we already know the answer? > Great, then that is inconsistent with my ethical beliefs. Nice. But in practice - would you be willing to coerce a mafia member if a friend asked you to? Or if your child would be threatened by gang? Fear from self-preservation aside (we all have it) - does your ethical belief allow for retaliation with coercion on behalf of some other party?

burntsushi 11y ago
> does your ethical belief allow for retaliation with coercion on behalf of some other party? In another comment, I defined what I meant by coercion. Notably, it is the initiation of physical force (or threat of) by some particular person or group. By this definition, coercion cannot be retaliatory. Retaliatory phyiscal force is no longer coercion precisely because it is not initiatory. Therefore, my ethic does not condemn it. (This does not imply that all forms and degrees of retaliatory force are ipso facto ethical in my book. Keep in mind that I am merely establishing minimal ethical criteria.)
- asgard1024 11y ago
  OK, sounds reasonable. So, if you don't mind - what about lying? What if somebody borrows something from you and they refuse to return it? How is initiating coercion against them bad? What if someone falsely claims they own the piece of land that you think no one owns? So you give it up, and find out later the claim was false. Again, what about initiating coercion against them? Frankly, I don't think the condemnation of "initiation of coercion" is a good ethics. Specifically, people can be intentionally misled and that by itself is actually a good reason to initiate coercion. Also, cannot every coercion be interpreted as a retaliation for something? Does the fact that someone initiated a coercion at some point give the other party right to infinite (sanctioned by you) retaliation? Conversely, cannot anyone facing retaliation defend himself by saying (in attempt to get help) that this is initiation? I simply think you cannot absolutely reject initiating coercion and accept retaliatory coercion.. You need to have some measure of what is fair, which will fall in the gray area. And this notion of fairness will eventually extend to things like taxes and so on.