6 ms·

> The concept of "kicking people out" implies that they have some natural right to be part of that society. Thats still force, though. You are just saying tha

by stale2002 6y ago

> The concept of "kicking people out" implies that they have some natural right to be part of that society. Thats still force, though. You are just saying that the force is justified. But thats still force to physically prevent someone to have access to those roads. It is force, in that you are physically, using a threat of violence against someone else, because you don't want them using your road. I am not saying that this is morally wrong, or anything. I support the justified used of government force against others. But lets not pretend that this isn't force/violence. > you can't be a part of the society. It is not that they "can't". Instead, it is that other people will use violence/force against them, in order to prevent them from being a part of society. That is force. that is violence. You can make the argument that the violence is justified. Which is fine. I absolutely believe that violence and government force can be justified. But justified force is still force! > You are free to leave. And if they refuse to leave? What are you going to doing about it? Answer: you will probably use force against them (although you may believe the violence is justified, justified violence is still violence!).

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>You are just saying that the force is justified. But thats still force to physically prevent someone to have access to those roads. These people aren't members of society. There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road. We're not building roads to random strangers houses, and we can refuse their attempt to connect to our road. >It is not that they "can't". Instead, it is that other people will use violence/force against them, in order to prevent them from being a part of society. That is force. that is violence. >And if they refuse to leave? What are you going to doing about it? Answer: you will probably use force against them There is no need to use force first. If you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food. They will either leave, join society, die, or use force to try and steal what they need. The only time force is necessary is in the fourth example, where they instigate the use of force.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road And if they go there anyway? What, are you going to setup a giant wall around society? That's the point. You cant actually stop someone from being in society without using force. > you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food Sure they could have access to those things. There could be other people who choose to sell them a house or sell them food, in exchange for their labor, or other goods. What are you going to do? Stop these other people from selling them food? You'd have to use force to do that. There would absolutely would be many people who would be perfectly fine selling them food or housing, in exchange for goods or labor. Or maybe even charity! That exists. > They will either leave, join society No, actually. The other possibility is that they refuse to leave, and other people continue to do business with them. Likely through engaging in trade with them for their labor. You are not going to succeed with some sort of embargo against them, unless you plan on using force yourself. > We're not building roads to random strangers houses They don't need you to connect roads to their house. firstly, because roads are already connected, all over the world. And 2nd, they could just find someone who already has a house that is connected, and rent from them, by exchanging labor or goods that they have acquired. Or maybe some people would perfectly be fine with letting them stay for free! Charity exists and is common in the world right now. I see no reason why it would stop. What, are you going to send out "community" embargo squads, that follow people around, find where they live, and find who is hiding the secret tax evaders or something, so that you can enforce your embargo on both of them? It would be exceeding impractical to enforce some sort of society wide embargo against people who refuse to pay taxes, because you are not only going to have to embargo the tax evaders, but you are also going to to have to embargo the people who refuse to follow your embargo. And then, what? You exile those people to? Who already have a house, and are already in the city, or connected to the roads, and are living in society, and the like? Ridiculous. You can't do that effectively, without using forces, lol Or even beyond that, there could be a critical mass of people who refuse to leave society, and also interact with each other. IE, they still use your roads, but also trade with each other. And the trade between them is enough for them to sustain themselves (especially since they already get the benefit of the roads and stuff, but don't have to pay for it!) .

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>You are just saying that the force is justified. But thats still force to physically prevent someone to have access to those roads. These people aren't members of society. There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road. We're not building roads to random strangers houses, and we can refuse their attempt to connect to our road. >It is not that they "can't". Instead, it is that other people will use violence/force against them, in order to prevent them from being a part of society. That is force. that is violence. >And if they refuse to leave? What are you going to doing about it? Answer: you will probably use force against them There is no need to use force first. If you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food. They will either leave, join society, die, or use force to try and steal what they need. The only time force is necessary is in the fourth example, where they instigate the use of force.

stale2002 6y ago
> There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road And if they go there anyway? What, are you going to setup a giant wall around society? That's the point. You cant actually stop someone from being in society without using force. > you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food Sure they could have access to those things. There could be other people who choose to sell them a house or sell them food, in exchange for their labor, or other goods. What are you going to do? Stop these other people from selling them food? You'd have to use force to do that. There would absolutely would be many people who would be perfectly fine selling them food or housing, in exchange for goods or labor. Or maybe even charity! That exists. > They will either leave, join society No, actually. The other possibility is that they refuse to leave, and other people continue to do business with them. Likely through engaging in trade with them for their labor. You are not going to succeed with some sort of embargo against them, unless you plan on using force yourself. > We're not building roads to random strangers houses They don't need you to connect roads to their house. firstly, because roads are already connected, all over the world. And 2nd, they could just find someone who already has a house that is connected, and rent from them, by exchanging labor or goods that they have acquired. Or maybe some people would perfectly be fine with letting them stay for free! Charity exists and is common in the world right now. I see no reason why it would stop. What, are you going to send out "community" embargo squads, that follow people around, find where they live, and find who is hiding the secret tax evaders or something, so that you can enforce your embargo on both of them? It would be exceeding impractical to enforce some sort of society wide embargo against people who refuse to pay taxes, because you are not only going to have to embargo the tax evaders, but you are also going to to have to embargo the people who refuse to follow your embargo. And then, what? You exile those people to? Who already have a house, and are already in the city, or connected to the roads, and are living in society, and the like? Ridiculous. You can't do that effectively, without using forces, lol Or even beyond that, there could be a critical mass of people who refuse to leave society, and also interact with each other. IE, they still use your roads, but also trade with each other. And the trade between them is enough for them to sustain themselves (especially since they already get the benefit of the roads and stuff, but don't have to pay for it!) .