3 ms·
The use of resources and property is what drives coercion in the first place. It's very convenient of you to not be interested in property; if you ignore resour
by wfo 11y ago
The use of resources and property is what drives coercion in the first place. It's very convenient of you to not be interested in property; if you ignore resources and access to them and every driver of conflict and coercion then sure it's truly wonderful to be against coercion. But this is solipsistic: We can all live without food or property or shelter and never force anyone to do anything and starve to death alone. But the moment you even pick a berry you have taken it from everyone else and are claiming it as your property. Similarly with animals, water, property. This in itself is a coercive act; it involves the threat of force in your view. So simple human existence is by nature coercive. The state is only a formalized tool we use to reduce it: general agreement on basic principles and a willingness to share.
Your point about the moral authority of 51% of the population coercing the remaining 49% is an interesting one, but I would answer thusly: you are not coerced at all, in fact you are free to exist without obeying the state. All you must do is avoid taking the state's possessions: don't breathe our air, don't eat our food, don't live on our land, don't drink our water. If you're willing to do this you can live completely coercion-free. It's the kind of choice libertarians love; the illusion of one.
- burntsushi 11y ago> This in itself is a coercive act No, it's not. I defined what I meant by coercion in other comments. If your definition is different, then erase all uses of coercion in my comments and replace it with my definition. You are very clearly using the word "coercion" in a way that is very different from how I'm using it. I would personally recommend that we end this discussion. Your condescending tone is insufferable.
- wfo 11y agoAttacking someone's tone, ignoring their substance and walking away is usually what I do when I lose an argument as well so at least in that we agree. Taking a position like yours which is so fundamentalist and extreme and simultaneously divorced from reality is admirable in that it is Socratic: you take an absurd position and push others until they realize their own contradictions. But you can't be upset about blowback when you do this since it is intentionally obnoxious; Socrates was executed for being so horribly difficult, all you received was one snarky line in an otherwise long, respectful and thoughtful comment addressing only the substance of your argument, which is honestly far above the par for the course when it comes to average HN comments. I'll agree this conversation should end.
- burntsushi 11y ago> ignoring their substance I explained our disagreement over terms and suggested a path forward. Instead of responding to that, you ignored it and proceeded to lecture me on how "intentionally obnoxious" I was being. You even went out of your way to trivialize my experience; at least I'm not being executed! > But you can't be upset about blowback And you can't be upset when people react negatively to comments dripped with condescension and subtle insults. Do you really think that is an effective way to engage another human? I don't. This isn't me "attacking your tone." This is me saying, "I'm not longer comfortable speaking to you because I believe you've lost the assumption of good faith." Say what you want about me, but at least I didn't stoop to your level.