> You've taken it as something totally not what was the spirit of the thread. The exact same thing can be said of your reframing of "physical harm" to be "viol

> You've taken it as something totally not what was the spirit of the thread. The exact same thing can be said of your reframing of "physical harm" to be "violence" exclusively. You've clearly never debated someone from the voluntarism persuasion, because otherwise you'd know about the concept of externalities. But here is your chance to shine: will you acknowledge the fact that industrial pollution causes physical harm and that your unnecessary reframing creates that blind spot, or will you double down and hamfistedly attempt broaden the definition of "violence" to include pollution (and a thousand other things I could follow up with)?