4 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 ans

> 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.
  - burntsushi 11y ago
    I have merely presented a core ethic of mine. If you want to delve into the particulars (I certainly don't in this thread), then I'd suggest reading other works by the OP. Answering your questions from my perspective would require introducing and applying concepts such as "ownership" and "property." (Although, others may not consider these necessary.) These words are so heavily overloaded that it's useless trying to use them in an online discussion forum. I note that most of the questions you have raised are a result of my simplistic formulation. Consider, for example, that I handed you the US constitution and said, "this is the law, use it." It is also a simplistic formulation, with respect to the body of law in the US today. Many of the questions you raised in your comment would be good questions to raise in this case too. The practice of this Constitution (or "ethic" in my case) will, in the process, answer lots of questions. I don't see any reason why this process doesn't apply in my case either. If all else fails, look to the current system in the US (or most other Western countries) for answers to your questions. With respect to case law, it's a reasonable approximation to my ethic.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      I know everything is in the Bible, but I am interested in your beliefs! This is why I find libertarianism to be close to theology; when I start asking really difficult questions, you will refer me to some book, which turns out to be hopelessly circular (as in the case of property, which is defined in terms of non-coercion, which is also defined in terms of property). It seems that you want to have world black and white, and so you invent new categories to deal with difficult moral dilemmas. But personal ethics is not something coming from a book, it's a result of intuitively answering these questions (by "feel") and sometimes accepting that there is no good answer, or that answer depends on different circumstances. > look to the current system in the US (or most other Western countries) for answers to your questions .. it's a reasonable approximation to my ethic Yes and no - that's my original problem. When I ask you a specific moral question, the answer indeed seems quite reasonable. But then you're (very definitely) against things like taxation or state (which are integral part of the Western culture). I would like to understand where this contradiction comes from. Now that I think about it, the whole business of how libertarianism treats "property" seems kinda morally repulsive to me for a different reason. It seems to me that libertarians treat property as a kind of extension to human body, in a sense that someone losing half of their 1000-acre property forever is a comparable (or worse) crime to a homeless losing a toe to the cold. What I miss here, I think, is a certain "normal" sense of proportion (or even admission that there is a proportion). Anyway, I appreciate the discussion, especially given you were the only person willing to respond to my original post.

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.
- burntsushi 11y ago
  I have merely presented a core ethic of mine. If you want to delve into the particulars (I certainly don't in this thread), then I'd suggest reading other works by the OP. Answering your questions from my perspective would require introducing and applying concepts such as "ownership" and "property." (Although, others may not consider these necessary.) These words are so heavily overloaded that it's useless trying to use them in an online discussion forum. I note that most of the questions you have raised are a result of my simplistic formulation. Consider, for example, that I handed you the US constitution and said, "this is the law, use it." It is also a simplistic formulation, with respect to the body of law in the US today. Many of the questions you raised in your comment would be good questions to raise in this case too. The practice of this Constitution (or "ethic" in my case) will, in the process, answer lots of questions. I don't see any reason why this process doesn't apply in my case either. If all else fails, look to the current system in the US (or most other Western countries) for answers to your questions. With respect to case law, it's a reasonable approximation to my ethic.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    I know everything is in the Bible, but I am interested in your beliefs! This is why I find libertarianism to be close to theology; when I start asking really difficult questions, you will refer me to some book, which turns out to be hopelessly circular (as in the case of property, which is defined in terms of non-coercion, which is also defined in terms of property). It seems that you want to have world black and white, and so you invent new categories to deal with difficult moral dilemmas. But personal ethics is not something coming from a book, it's a result of intuitively answering these questions (by "feel") and sometimes accepting that there is no good answer, or that answer depends on different circumstances. > look to the current system in the US (or most other Western countries) for answers to your questions .. it's a reasonable approximation to my ethic Yes and no - that's my original problem. When I ask you a specific moral question, the answer indeed seems quite reasonable. But then you're (very definitely) against things like taxation or state (which are integral part of the Western culture). I would like to understand where this contradiction comes from. Now that I think about it, the whole business of how libertarianism treats "property" seems kinda morally repulsive to me for a different reason. It seems to me that libertarians treat property as a kind of extension to human body, in a sense that someone losing half of their 1000-acre property forever is a comparable (or worse) crime to a homeless losing a toe to the cold. What I miss here, I think, is a certain "normal" sense of proportion (or even admission that there is a proportion). Anyway, I appreciate the discussion, especially given you were the only person willing to respond to my original post.