4 ms·

>>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 di

>>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
        You realise that even Lenin, piece of human filth that he was, didn't consider the USSR to be communism? That's just not what the word means. The USSR was (pick one): - A Marxist-Leninist state - State capitalism - Bolshevism I don't care much about the terminology, but I do care about people making out that most left-wingers want more USSR. I mean, I'm an anarchist, so if I were alive in the USSR I'd be murdered, so that should tell you the level of friendliness between those people and libertarian socialists.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        Any society where Marxist doctrines came to predominate ended up suffering for it. We can quibble over what you call the USSR, but Marxism is simply a-economical, and causes unimaginable human suffering to the extent that laws are shaped by it.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        You can literally just switch out corporations with cooperatives to make a market socialist economy. Marxist "doctrines" also led to 5 day 8 hour working weeks, paid leave, unions led to increased wages, and many other workers rights. Hell, before the left wing gained power, child labour was predominant in capitalist economies.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        If cooperatives were as efficient as corporations, they would win out in the free market, with consumers choosing their products over those produced by corporations. Repressing the free market necessarily means preventing the most efficient means of production/coordination from becoming predominant, based on crude ideologically motivated narratives about how an economy is supposed to work. >>Marxist "doctrines" also led to 5 day 8 hour working weeks, paid leave, unions led to increased wages, and many other workers rights. Hell, before the left wing gained power, child labour was predominant in capitalist economies. No it didn't. All of those things emerged as a result of the rising levels of per capita GDP that were due to profit-motivated investment in a free market. Child labor could only be abandoned when productivity increases enabled parents to support their whole family alone, and that productivity increase was, again, a consequence of profit-motivated investment in a free market.

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
      You realise that even Lenin, piece of human filth that he was, didn't consider the USSR to be communism? That's just not what the word means. The USSR was (pick one): - A Marxist-Leninist state - State capitalism - Bolshevism I don't care much about the terminology, but I do care about people making out that most left-wingers want more USSR. I mean, I'm an anarchist, so if I were alive in the USSR I'd be murdered, so that should tell you the level of friendliness between those people and libertarian socialists.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        Any society where Marxist doctrines came to predominate ended up suffering for it. We can quibble over what you call the USSR, but Marxism is simply a-economical, and causes unimaginable human suffering to the extent that laws are shaped by it.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        You can literally just switch out corporations with cooperatives to make a market socialist economy. Marxist "doctrines" also led to 5 day 8 hour working weeks, paid leave, unions led to increased wages, and many other workers rights. Hell, before the left wing gained power, child labour was predominant in capitalist economies.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        If cooperatives were as efficient as corporations, they would win out in the free market, with consumers choosing their products over those produced by corporations. Repressing the free market necessarily means preventing the most efficient means of production/coordination from becoming predominant, based on crude ideologically motivated narratives about how an economy is supposed to work. >>Marxist "doctrines" also led to 5 day 8 hour working weeks, paid leave, unions led to increased wages, and many other workers rights. Hell, before the left wing gained power, child labour was predominant in capitalist economies. No it didn't. All of those things emerged as a result of the rising levels of per capita GDP that were due to profit-motivated investment in a free market. Child labor could only be abandoned when productivity increases enabled parents to support their whole family alone, and that productivity increase was, again, a consequence of profit-motivated investment in a free market.