46 ms·

What would happen in such non-coercive society if a poor, homeless person occupies an empty house?

oDot 7y ago
Depends what the owner of that house wants to do. It will be within their right to evacuate that person. Otherwise if you want a house all you have to do is go bankrupt then pick an empty mansion.
- krapp 7y ago
  >It will be within their right to evacuate that person. But that would require coercion, since that person doesn't want to leave.
  - oDot 7y ago
    I have clarified my original definition, that would be self defense, in the same way that if someone tries to coerce a knife into your throat, you can coerce their face to the pavement.
    - krapp 7y ago
      You can redefine terms any way you like, but coercion in response to coercion is still coercion. That's not an "economy void of coercion", just one where the monopoly on violence has been replaced by a free market of violence. After all, if the person squatting on what you consider to be your property doesn't recognize your claim of ownership, it would seem that you pose a greater threat to them than they do to you, especially if you're trying to remove them from the property when they're not presenting an immediate threat of physical harm.
    - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
      That's a quite an arbitrary definition of self defense
quickthrowman 7y ago
This was my first thought—how do you enforce property rights and ownership of capital?
- oDot 7y ago
  I may have needed to be clearer, but coercion in response to coercion is self-defense. If someone physically forced their way to your property (if you'd let them, no violence will be needed), you have a right to defend yourself, and this should be enforced.
  - quickthrowman 7y ago
    So, fortified dwellings and shooting/beating up trespassers? Sounds fun, but I think I’d prefer the state having a monopoly on violence and property rights enforcement. Just curious, have you ever been in a fight or had a gun pointed at you?

oDot 7y ago

Depends what the owner of that house wants to do. It will be within their right to evacuate that person. Otherwise if you want a house all you have to do is go bankrupt then pick an empty mansion.

krapp 7y ago
>It will be within their right to evacuate that person. But that would require coercion, since that person doesn't want to leave.
- oDot 7y ago
  I have clarified my original definition, that would be self defense, in the same way that if someone tries to coerce a knife into your throat, you can coerce their face to the pavement.
  - krapp 7y ago
    You can redefine terms any way you like, but coercion in response to coercion is still coercion. That's not an "economy void of coercion", just one where the monopoly on violence has been replaced by a free market of violence. After all, if the person squatting on what you consider to be your property doesn't recognize your claim of ownership, it would seem that you pose a greater threat to them than they do to you, especially if you're trying to remove them from the property when they're not presenting an immediate threat of physical harm.
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    That's a quite an arbitrary definition of self defense

quickthrowman 7y ago

This was my first thought—how do you enforce property rights and ownership of capital?

oDot 7y ago
I may have needed to be clearer, but coercion in response to coercion is self-defense. If someone physically forced their way to your property (if you'd let them, no violence will be needed), you have a right to defend yourself, and this should be enforced.
- quickthrowman 7y ago
  So, fortified dwellings and shooting/beating up trespassers? Sounds fun, but I think I’d prefer the state having a monopoly on violence and property rights enforcement. Just curious, have you ever been in a fight or had a gun pointed at you?