4 ms·
The problem is most people probably don't agree with your definition of force and theft. I also don't know how you define the natural and why it should matter w
by copyright_sux 9y ago
The problem is most people probably don't agree with your definition of force and theft. I also don't know how you define the natural and why it should matter whether something is natural or not.
- patrickaljord 9y agoForget the natural part, the important part is coercion. You can't have socialism without coercion and initiation of force, you can have a free market though.
- krapp 9y agoYou only have a free market without coercion as long as all participants act in good faith. Otherwise you either have to let bad actors get away with whatever they like, in which case you no longer have a market, or else someone has to coerce them into fulfilling their obligations.
- patrickaljord 9y ago> You only have a free market without coercion as long as all participants act in good faith. No, you have a free market without coercion as long as there is no coercion. If some are acting in bad faith or badly, that's more power to the competition.
- copyright_sux 9y agoAs I already said, most people probably don't share your definition of initiating force and coercion. You provide no reason why those terms should be based only on private property. If you define initiation of force as "initiation of force, except when i'm protecting property", then you can obviously come to the conclusion that you don't initiate force, but you are still initiating force by other peoples definition, unless you can justify to them the assumption in your definition.