11 ms·

How does "this land is mine now, you can work on it to feed yourself" translate somehow into the opposite of slavery?

Dracophoenix 5y ago
It's more like "this land is mine now, we can work out a deal where you tend to it in exchange for an agreed upon cut". Your original categorization is apt in describing how property taxes and the USDA farm subsidies work, but not free enterprise.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  What's the difference in practice apart from the more euphemistic wording?
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    What's euphemistic about my phrasing? A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head to practice labor is. In your view, is it acceptable that the USDA can dictate the prices of one's crops or put liens on someone's farm land for producing food in manner that isn't produced according to government dictates? Do you think that's the same as coming to an agreement with an equal on certain terms, even if one isn't necessarily happy with all of them? The difference in practice is that someone can walk away from a deal, but no one can walk away from the government.
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      > What's euphemistic about my phrasing? Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference? > A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head is to practice labor is. Yes, and for the masses without property? I think I hinted at indirect coercion by "to feed yourself". and I have no interests in going off into some USDA tangent.
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        >Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference? Because your "definition" implies a lack of agency in an agreement between contracting parties. That is a practical difference and one that was noted in my last sentence which you either didn't read or avoided addressing. To quote: "The difference in practice is that someone can walk away from a deal, but no one can walk away from the government". >Yes, and for the masses without property? I think I hinted at indirect coercion by "to feed yourself". I read your statement as implying the usual anti-libertarian argument: property is coercion. I thought that the "to feed yourself" line was a throwaway example of a "limited" freedom "granted" by a property owner made to support your mistaken thesis that a top-down structure exists between individual parties freely engaging in a deal. My approach was to explain how property owners can't grant freedoms, as people have their freedoms or trade them for expedience, and that this top-down structure has, in the past and the present, implicitly and explicitly been practiced by government. I couldn't have read your statement in the way you implied simply because I've never conceived of any such claim being made seriously that choosing to feed oneself, whether one owns property or not, is evidence and a product of force. But now that you've made that clear, I can only say that it's ridiculous. >and I have no interests in going off into some USDA tangent. The USDA is not a tangent. It's an example of my point that someone without the ability to decide what do with his own property is better defined as coerced under your original phrasing. It's also a counterpoint to your claim that my point is a euphemistic rephrasing of yours.
        cloudfifty 5y ago
        Just so I follow, do you recognize the existence indirect coercion by necessities (which very well could be the result of private property creating artificial scarcity) at all? Because if you do I have no idea how you can come to the idea that one can just "walk away". > The USDA is not a tangent It is, you're switching the topic to be about government, and a contemporary setting, instead of continuing on the topic of a private property owner and a hypothetical libertarian society. Libertarians seem to have a bad habit of using unnecessarily convoluted language.
    - 8note 5y ago
      There's always metaphorical gun to everyone's head, in that you die without air, food, and water. The coercive act is hidden by giving you a choice on who to deal with, but the coercision is still there in that you're forced to make a deal with some property owner. There's no choice to not make a deal with the cartel

It's more like "this land is mine now, we can work out a deal where you tend to it in exchange for an agreed upon cut". Your original categorization is apt in describing how property taxes and the USDA farm subsidies work, but not free enterprise.

cloudfifty 5y ago
What's the difference in practice apart from the more euphemistic wording?
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  What's euphemistic about my phrasing? A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head to practice labor is. In your view, is it acceptable that the USDA can dictate the prices of one's crops or put liens on someone's farm land for producing food in manner that isn't produced according to government dictates? Do you think that's the same as coming to an agreement with an equal on certain terms, even if one isn't necessarily happy with all of them? The difference in practice is that someone can walk away from a deal, but no one can walk away from the government.
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    > What's euphemistic about my phrasing? Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference? > A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's head is to practice labor is. Yes, and for the masses without property? I think I hinted at indirect coercion by "to feed yourself". and I have no interests in going off into some USDA tangent.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      >Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference? Because your "definition" implies a lack of agency in an agreement between contracting parties. That is a practical difference and one that was noted in my last sentence which you either didn't read or avoided addressing. To quote: "The difference in practice is that someone can walk away from a deal, but no one can walk away from the government". >Yes, and for the masses without property? I think I hinted at indirect coercion by "to feed yourself". I read your statement as implying the usual anti-libertarian argument: property is coercion. I thought that the "to feed yourself" line was a throwaway example of a "limited" freedom "granted" by a property owner made to support your mistaken thesis that a top-down structure exists between individual parties freely engaging in a deal. My approach was to explain how property owners can't grant freedoms, as people have their freedoms or trade them for expedience, and that this top-down structure has, in the past and the present, implicitly and explicitly been practiced by government. I couldn't have read your statement in the way you implied simply because I've never conceived of any such claim being made seriously that choosing to feed oneself, whether one owns property or not, is evidence and a product of force. But now that you've made that clear, I can only say that it's ridiculous. >and I have no interests in going off into some USDA tangent. The USDA is not a tangent. It's an example of my point that someone without the ability to decide what do with his own property is better defined as coerced under your original phrasing. It's also a counterpoint to your claim that my point is a euphemistic rephrasing of yours.
      - cloudfifty 5y ago
        Just so I follow, do you recognize the existence indirect coercion by necessities (which very well could be the result of private property creating artificial scarcity) at all? Because if you do I have no idea how you can come to the idea that one can just "walk away". > The USDA is not a tangent It is, you're switching the topic to be about government, and a contemporary setting, instead of continuing on the topic of a private property owner and a hypothetical libertarian society. Libertarians seem to have a bad habit of using unnecessarily convoluted language.
  - 8note 5y ago
    There's always metaphorical gun to everyone's head, in that you die without air, food, and water. The coercive act is hidden by giving you a choice on who to deal with, but the coercision is still there in that you're forced to make a deal with some property owner. There's no choice to not make a deal with the cartel