4 ms·
>Of course. But my objection is that libertarians like to imply that violence coercion is inherently bad for rhetorical effect when criticising government. I w
by aminok 10y ago
>Of course. But my objection is that libertarians like to imply that violence coercion is inherently bad for rhetorical effect when criticising government.
I was implying that using threats of violence against non-violent people engaging in voluntary trade with other consenting adults is wrong.
>Well clearly we disagree. I think asking participants in society to pay for the benefits it affords, and discouraging anti-competitive practices are perfectly reasonable uses of violent coercion
So you're willing to use violent coercion against non-violent people for their refusal to pay a debt they did not voluntarily assume and/or for their engaging in too much voluntary trade with other consenting adults. Your moral framework is essentially sociopathic.
- aninhumer 10y ago>So you're willing to use violent coercion against non-violent people So are you. Theft is not violence. If you walk into my house and take my valuables, at no point have you done anything violent.
- aminok 10y agoTheft is violence. Property is an extension of a person. Depriving someone of their property without their consent is an act of violence.
- aninhumer 10y agoWell you can define the word "theft" that way if you want, but I see a big difference between punching someone in the face and picking up an object, whatever words you use for it. So you can't use the moral weight of the former to make responding to the latter with actual physical violence seem significantly more necessary to me than responding with physical violence to people who don't pay taxes.
- aminok 10y agoI think it's perfectly appropriate to use violence to take back the object that you crafted and someone stole from you. I don't think it's appropriate to use violence to force someone to hand over an object they crafted and which they never agreed to cede to you.