4 ms·

Not sure that follows from my definition of coercion. Certainly coercion is a deterrent to theft, but most people don't steal because they're socialized when t

Not sure that follows from my definition of coercion. Certainly coercion is a deterrent to theft, but most people don't steal because they're socialized when they grow up to believe that stealing is wrong.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Come on, you're dodging. Most people are raised to know that paying their taxes is right. So taxes aren't coercive right? If coercion is the threat of physical force to get me to comply then property and contract law are just as coercive as tax law. In a disaster if everybody's price gouging water so it costs me $100 a case and I could steal it and get away with it you betcha I'm doing it. The only thing preventing me is the threat of physical force. That's coercion. So now the question is why is coercion okay to protect $100 water, but not okay to give out free water?
- Veelox 9y ago
  A important part of coercion is that it must cause action, it does not count as coercive if it prevents action. If I have a gun and say, "don't take my water or I shoot you" I have prevented you from acting thus not coercion. If you have a gun and say, "give me your water or I shoot you" you have caused me to act thus coercion. Markets are not coercive because you are not threatened with force if you don't participate. Taxes are coercive because if you don't pay, the government comes and takes your stuff or puts you in prison. I understand you can make an argument that in a disaster situation you are "forced" to act but that is because of your own need not because of outside influence.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >If I have a gun and say, "don't take my water or I shoot you" I have prevented you from acting thus not coercion. This is an alteration of the definition given. Up above, you can see that this exact situation falls under "threat of physical force in as a mean to get someone to comply with your wishes" >Markets are not coercive because you are not threatened with force if you don't participate. Taxes are coercive because if you don't pay, the government comes and takes your stuff or puts you in prison. But you are! Markets rely on property and contract law. Let me lay out the example. You are selling water for $100. I choose not to participate in the market and instead steal a case of water and take it home. Later the government comes and takes my stuff and puts me in prison. So here we see that by the same token tax law is coercive, so are property and contract law. If property and contract law are coercive I don't see how you could ever say that markets aren't since they are the foundation of a market system.
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Well, I'm not intentionally dodging, so feel free to call out what you think I'm dodging. You say "most people are raised to know that paying taxes is right. So taxes aren't coercive right?" I agree that most people are raised to believe this, but I don't agree with it. Taxes ARE coercion. If taxation were voluntary, I believe the VAST majority of people would not pay them. Using your example, using coercion to defend yourself or your property (a case of water in this example) is in fact coercion, but it's justified. Self-defense and defense of private property are the only times when I believe coercion is justified. If you don't believe in private property, then we're just talking past each other. Do you believe in private property?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Using your example, using coercion to defend yourself or your property (a case of water in this example) is in fact coercion, but it's justified. Self-defense and defense of private property are the only times when I believe coercion is justified. We are talking past each other a bit so let's get back on track. The quoted above is what I'm getting at. What is the moral foundation for your belief that coercion is justified in cases of property. Why is coercion justified when defending your $100 case of water but not justified when the government taxes us?
    - sbenitoj 9y ago
      Because I believe in private property -- the right to do as you please with your own property to the extent you are not violating someone else's person or property. Government taxation, by definition, is a violation of private property, it is not voluntary, people have no choice but to comply or be jailed. If you don't believe in private property, but instead believe in a socialist or communist society where the means of production and private property are controlled by the government, then you will not share this belief.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        But see we started off with taxes bad because coercion and coercion is bad but now we're at property is okay because property is property. My position is irrelevant because what I'm really interested in is the foundation of yours. I don't see it. I don't see where property gains some magical virtue that taxes don't which exempts it from being bad despite requiring coercion.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Come on, you're dodging. Most people are raised to know that paying their taxes is right. So taxes aren't coercive right? If coercion is the threat of physical force to get me to comply then property and contract law are just as coercive as tax law. In a disaster if everybody's price gouging water so it costs me $100 a case and I could steal it and get away with it you betcha I'm doing it. The only thing preventing me is the threat of physical force. That's coercion. So now the question is why is coercion okay to protect $100 water, but not okay to give out free water?

Veelox 9y ago
A important part of coercion is that it must cause action, it does not count as coercive if it prevents action. If I have a gun and say, "don't take my water or I shoot you" I have prevented you from acting thus not coercion. If you have a gun and say, "give me your water or I shoot you" you have caused me to act thus coercion. Markets are not coercive because you are not threatened with force if you don't participate. Taxes are coercive because if you don't pay, the government comes and takes your stuff or puts you in prison. I understand you can make an argument that in a disaster situation you are "forced" to act but that is because of your own need not because of outside influence.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >If I have a gun and say, "don't take my water or I shoot you" I have prevented you from acting thus not coercion. This is an alteration of the definition given. Up above, you can see that this exact situation falls under "threat of physical force in as a mean to get someone to comply with your wishes" >Markets are not coercive because you are not threatened with force if you don't participate. Taxes are coercive because if you don't pay, the government comes and takes your stuff or puts you in prison. But you are! Markets rely on property and contract law. Let me lay out the example. You are selling water for $100. I choose not to participate in the market and instead steal a case of water and take it home. Later the government comes and takes my stuff and puts me in prison. So here we see that by the same token tax law is coercive, so are property and contract law. If property and contract law are coercive I don't see how you could ever say that markets aren't since they are the foundation of a market system.
sbenitoj 9y ago
Well, I'm not intentionally dodging, so feel free to call out what you think I'm dodging. You say "most people are raised to know that paying taxes is right. So taxes aren't coercive right?" I agree that most people are raised to believe this, but I don't agree with it. Taxes ARE coercion. If taxation were voluntary, I believe the VAST majority of people would not pay them. Using your example, using coercion to defend yourself or your property (a case of water in this example) is in fact coercion, but it's justified. Self-defense and defense of private property are the only times when I believe coercion is justified. If you don't believe in private property, then we're just talking past each other. Do you believe in private property?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >Using your example, using coercion to defend yourself or your property (a case of water in this example) is in fact coercion, but it's justified. Self-defense and defense of private property are the only times when I believe coercion is justified. We are talking past each other a bit so let's get back on track. The quoted above is what I'm getting at. What is the moral foundation for your belief that coercion is justified in cases of property. Why is coercion justified when defending your $100 case of water but not justified when the government taxes us?
  - sbenitoj 9y ago
    Because I believe in private property -- the right to do as you please with your own property to the extent you are not violating someone else's person or property. Government taxation, by definition, is a violation of private property, it is not voluntary, people have no choice but to comply or be jailed. If you don't believe in private property, but instead believe in a socialist or communist society where the means of production and private property are controlled by the government, then you will not share this belief.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      But see we started off with taxes bad because coercion and coercion is bad but now we're at property is okay because property is property. My position is irrelevant because what I'm really interested in is the foundation of yours. I don't see it. I don't see where property gains some magical virtue that taxes don't which exempts it from being bad despite requiring coercion.