5 ms·

It's a point about the ethics of exerting control over different versions of ourselves. It's not some procedural technicality. >demanding sex in order to give

It's a point about the ethics of exerting control over different versions of ourselves. It's not some procedural technicality. >demanding sex in order to give an actress a part in a movie There is nothing coercive about this. >offering food to a starving man in exchange for his kidneys Unless it's an emergency, where the starving man does not have the time to make/entertain offers on the wider global market, there is nothing coercive about this either. In an emergency situation, different rules apply, as a consequence of the physical space we each take, which displaces others. This exclusionary effect creates a duty to render help in an emergency, as opposed to abusing one's position in such a situation to exploit others. >buying all the food in the market to drive up the price from people desperate to not die There is nothing coercive about this, and in practice, it's impossible. This should certainly be guarded against by individuals, through means like securing long-term food purchase contracts through co-ops, or by growing one's own garden, but that doesn't imply that it's a form of coercion which we have an ethical right to employ coercion to remedy.

beaconstudios 5y ago
I don't understand what your definition of coercion is, if withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive but demanding payment to avoid harm is. They're materially the same thing: you're paying to not die. You can't really argue with deontological positions given they're axiomatic, so there's probably no reasoning I can give that you would consider.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>if withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive but demanding payment to avoid harm is. They're materially the same thing: you're paying to not die. Could you elaborate? What exactly do you mean? By "withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive", do you mean a person that commits to providing aid in exchange for payment, and then reneges on their obligation upon receiving payment? This is clearly theft/fraud, and in the same class of behaviors as coercion. I'm totally confused as I don't know when we discussed such a scenario and why you think that I don't consider that coercive.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I mean that the two cases below are materially the same: - you get shot and I withhold my care based on a ruinous payment - I threaten to shoot you unless you give me a ruinous payment Obviously as you said these are morally different because I am acting aggressively - but this is not a utilitarian argument. In terms of utility (and i am a preference utilitarian, so that's what matters to me - rationalists typically claim the same framework) these two scenarios are identical, and thus have the same moral weight. The latter, you have claimed as coercive, the former (eg withholding food from a starving man), you said was not. Therefore, your definition of coercion is not rooted in utility.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      Like I said, in emergency situations different rules apply, based on the principle of the exclusionary effect I mentioned earlier. The normal libertarian ethics don't apply in such cases. In the ordinary non-emergency market, Newtonian/libertarian ethics do apply, and those are the circumstances you are avoiding contending with by focusing on extreme outlier/edge cases.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        I think these outliers demonstrate an inherent flaw in capitalism (among others) where power imbalances dictate capital accumulation. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the rich are in a better negotiating position so the poor must take what they're given. The obvious example being that workers must sell their labour while capitalists can buy labour and retain profit, leading to capital growth. Marx documented the tendencies of capitalism pretty well to be honest. You don't seem to be engaging with the implications of what I'm saying, rather just engaging with the specific examples, so I'm not sure you're really willing to engage with the arguments.
        nickpp 5y ago
        Ask the millions starving under communism then improving their lot under capitalism which system they prefer. Debating the various theoretical aspects of various *isms is fun and all but there is practically no immigration from capitalism to communism. The poor know which one is better for them and vote with their feet.

beaconstudios 5y ago

I don't understand what your definition of coercion is, if withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive but demanding payment to avoid harm is. They're materially the same thing: you're paying to not die. You can't really argue with deontological positions given they're axiomatic, so there's probably no reasoning I can give that you would consider.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>if withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive but demanding payment to avoid harm is. They're materially the same thing: you're paying to not die. Could you elaborate? What exactly do you mean? By "withholding care upon receipt of payment is not coercive", do you mean a person that commits to providing aid in exchange for payment, and then reneges on their obligation upon receiving payment? This is clearly theft/fraud, and in the same class of behaviors as coercion. I'm totally confused as I don't know when we discussed such a scenario and why you think that I don't consider that coercive.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I mean that the two cases below are materially the same: - you get shot and I withhold my care based on a ruinous payment - I threaten to shoot you unless you give me a ruinous payment Obviously as you said these are morally different because I am acting aggressively - but this is not a utilitarian argument. In terms of utility (and i am a preference utilitarian, so that's what matters to me - rationalists typically claim the same framework) these two scenarios are identical, and thus have the same moral weight. The latter, you have claimed as coercive, the former (eg withholding food from a starving man), you said was not. Therefore, your definition of coercion is not rooted in utility.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Like I said, in emergency situations different rules apply, based on the principle of the exclusionary effect I mentioned earlier. The normal libertarian ethics don't apply in such cases. In the ordinary non-emergency market, Newtonian/libertarian ethics do apply, and those are the circumstances you are avoiding contending with by focusing on extreme outlier/edge cases.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I think these outliers demonstrate an inherent flaw in capitalism (among others) where power imbalances dictate capital accumulation. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the rich are in a better negotiating position so the poor must take what they're given. The obvious example being that workers must sell their labour while capitalists can buy labour and retain profit, leading to capital growth. Marx documented the tendencies of capitalism pretty well to be honest. You don't seem to be engaging with the implications of what I'm saying, rather just engaging with the specific examples, so I'm not sure you're really willing to engage with the arguments.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        Ask the millions starving under communism then improving their lot under capitalism which system they prefer. Debating the various theoretical aspects of various *isms is fun and all but there is practically no immigration from capitalism to communism. The poor know which one is better for them and vote with their feet.