Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence

[AyeYo]

Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

In what way is the libertarian concept of "coercion" different than the general definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Money quote:
"Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

In that fact that your belief system and political system involve "forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner" else there will be "use of threats" or "intimidation or some other form of pressure or force" to make them comply.

Let me say this again: NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU, in fact, a HUGE majority disagree with you.  Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

[MoonShadow]

Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

In what way is the libertarian concept of "coercion" different than the general definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Money quote:
"Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

In that fact that your belief system and political system involve "forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner" else there will be "use of threats" or "intimidation or some other form of pressure or force" to make them comply.

Let me say this again: NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU, in fact, a HUGE majority disagree with you.  Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

Based upon your assumptions about what the majority may believe, I'd have to say that you are correct in a literal sense.  That people are expected to act in accordance with the NAP, under the potential threat of retaliation.  However, the assertion that the majority disagree with libs on this point is false, and provablely so.  The threat of retaliation isn't the same as coercion under threat of force, because it matters who is the initial aggressor.  Also, the majority of people actually do agree with the NAP as a general social rule, but most people have exceptions.  The difference is that (most of us) don't make exceptions, and none of us make exceptions based solely upon the idea that a police officer is doing the action.  If the police officer represents someone with an honest claim, then the officer is within rights to act upon the interests of said party, whether that be another citizen or even the group of people loosely called the state.  However, that does not give the state the right to make up violations that don't exist, and then expect the police officer to enforce them.

[AyeYo]

Likewise, the little exception you tag on to the end of your coercion definition does NOT change the fact that your system is also coercive.

In what way is the libertarian concept of "coercion" different than the general definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Money quote:
"Coercion (pronounced /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."

In that fact that your belief system and political system involve "forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner" else there will be "use of threats" or "intimidation or some other form of pressure or force" to make them comply.

Let me say this again: NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU, in fact, a HUGE majority disagree with you.  Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

Based upon your assumptions about what the majority may believe, I'd have to say that you are correct in a literal sense.  That people are expected to act in accordance with the NAP, under the potential threat of retaliation.  However, the assertion that the majority disagree with libs on this point is false, and provablely so.  The threat of retaliation isn't the same as coercion under threat of force, because it matters who is the initial aggressor.  Also, the majority of people actually do agree with the NAP as a general social rule, but most people have exceptions.  The difference is that (most of us) don't make exceptions, and none of us make exceptions based solely upon the idea that a police officer is doing the action.  If the police officer represents someone with an honest claim, then the officer is within rights to act upon the interests of said party, whether that be another citizen or even the group of people loosely called the state.  However, that does not give the state the right to make up violations that don't exist, and then expect the police officer to enforce them.

Let me say this again (again): NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU, in fact, a HUGE majority disagree with you.  Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account that fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

[billyjoeallen]

argumentum ad populum
(In the interest of time, I'm just going to name AyeYo's logical fallacies instead of commenting on them)

[AyeYo]

argumentum ad populum
(In the interest of time, I'm just going to name AyeYo's logical fallacies instead of commenting on them)

Wrong.  I'm not saying he's wrong because the majority disagree with him.  Try again.  Maybe next time you'll understand both my argument and the fallacy you're misusing.

[billyjoeallen]

argumentum ad populum
(In the interest of time, I'm just going to name AyeYo's logical fallacies instead of commenting on them)

Wrong.  I'm not saying he's wrong because the majority disagree with him.  Try again.  Maybe next time you'll understand both my argument and the fallacy you're misusing.

Begging the question.

[NghtRppr]

Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You call it coercion. I call it self-defense.

[AyeYo]

Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You call it coercion. I call it self-defense.

That's cool and all, but it doesn't change the facts, as already addressed:

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

[MoonShadow]

Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You call it coercion. I call it self-defense.

That's cool and all, but it doesn't change the facts, as already addressed:

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

Those are not facts, they are opinions. 

[AyeYo]

Therefore, you would need to FORCE all the non-agreers to comply with your enacted belief system by threat of violence - this is the very defintion of coercion.

You call it coercion. I call it self-defense.

That's cool and all, but it doesn't change the facts, as already addressed:

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

Those are not facts, they are opinions.  

Which is exactly what your belief system and defintions are, no?

[NghtRppr]

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

I acknowledge the differences in opinion. Some people think it's alright to murder, rape and steal. But can you give me a reason why I should care what these people think? Am I really supposed to feel empathy for these people? Would you defend yourself from an attacker or would you bend over and take it? After all, it's just a matter of opinion.

I think you need to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy

[AyeYo]

You can pretend that YOUR version of violence is "retaliation", but it's nothing more than a semantics game when you take into account the fact that NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU and in order for it to be defined as retaliation, a person must first agree with your belief system, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.

I acknowledge the differences in opinion. Some people think it's alright to murder, rape and steal. But can you give me a reason why I should care what these people think? Am I really supposed to feel empathy for these people? Would you defend yourself from an attacker or would you bend over and take it? After all, it's just a matter of opinion.

Cut the bullshit hyperbole.  When you find me a modern society in which murder and rape are both acceptable AND legal, then I'll entertain your bullshit.  

Until then, the difference of opinion is on property rights, regulations, government involvement, the definition of words like coercion, and the like.  You want to FORCE, through VIOLENCE, your OPINIONS on these subjects onto everyone in the world, the majority of whom disagree with you.  That's the very definition of coercion and tyranny.


Also, please read your own links:

The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is a fallacy committed, roughly speaking, when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else. The fallacy is supposed to rest on the law of non-contradiction. The fallacy, it is said, applies only to objective facts, or what are alleged to be objective facts, rather than to facts about personal tastes or subjective experiences, and only to facts regarded in the same sense and at the same time

[NghtRppr]

When you find me a modern society in which murder and rape are both acceptable AND legal, then I'll entertain your bullshit.

I said murder, rape and theft. Why did you leave out theft? Is it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on unless you attack a straw man version of my statement?

It sounds like you're saying that everyone has an opinion and all opinions are equally right. So what if my opinion is that only my opinion is right? Or are you not saying that all opinions are equally right? If not, what exactly are you saying?

[AyeYo]

When you find me a modern society in which murder and rape are both acceptable AND legal, then I'll entertain your bullshit.

I said murder, rape and theft. Why did you leave out theft? Is it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on unless you attack a straw man version of my statement?

It sounds like you're saying that everyone has an opinion and all opinions are equally right. So what if my opinion is that only my opinion is right? Or are you not saying that all opinions are equally right? If not, what exactly are you saying?

You can throw theft in there too if you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference.


What I'm saying is the same thing I've been repeating endlessly in this thread already: There is not a goddman bit of difference between our current system that forces you to do things you don't like and your system that forces billions of other people to do things that they don't like.

I've made no value judgement about who is right and who is wrong, that is YOUR strawman.  I'm simply pointing out to you the FACT that there is NO practical difference between people forcing you to do what you don't like and you forcing other people to do what they don't like, so your entire belief system is HYPOCRITICAL.

[NghtRppr]

You can throw theft in there too if you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference.

Some forms of theft are currently legal. What else do you call taking money from people without their consent?

There is not a goddman bit of difference between our current system that forces you to do thinks you don't like and your system that forces billions of other people to do things that they don't like.

So you're saying that our current system forces people to do things they don't like and a system where rape is legal wouldn't be any different? I think that's just an absurd position. Obviously there would be a huge difference. Even if we acknowledge that both systems would force people to do things they don't like, why is that an argument for anything? Clearly there are some things that are alright to force people to do, such as not rape.

Your position is absurd and pathetic. You're absolutely wrong that there is no difference between the two systems.

[Anonymous]

When you find me a modern society in which murder and rape are both acceptable AND legal, then I'll entertain your bullshit.

I said murder, rape and theft. Why did you leave out theft? Is it because you know you don't have a leg to stand on unless you attack a straw man version of my statement?

It sounds like you're saying that everyone has an opinion and all opinions are equally right. So what if my opinion is that only my opinion is right? Or are you not saying that all opinions are equally right? If not, what exactly are you saying?

You can throw theft in there too if you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference.


What I'm saying is the same thing I've been repeating endlessly in this thread already: There is not a goddman bit of difference between our current system that forces you to do things you don't like and your system that forces billions of other people to do things that they don't like.

So, it's just a matter of preference, eh? Yep, this is going to nihilism, gentlemen. He's infallible. We all know nothing. We get it.

[AyeYo]

You can throw theft in there too if you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference.

Some forms of theft are currently legal. What else do you call taking money from people without their consent?

No no dear boy, that's your defintion of theft, and it's only theft if I subscribe to your belief system.  Do you see how this works yet?

There is not a goddman bit of difference between our current system that forces you to do thinks you don't like and your system that forces billions of other people to do things that they don't like.

So you're saying that our current system forces people to do things they don't like and a system where rape is legal wouldn't be any different? I think that's just an absurd position. Obviously there would be a huge difference. Even if we acknowledge that both systems would force people to do things they don't like, why is that an argument for anything?

Second warning, cut the hyperbole and strawmen.  The issue at hand is not rape, it's the forcing of your belief system on people that do not subscribe to it.

Clearly there are some things that are alright to force people to do

You're damn right about that.  Things like pay taxes, obey laws that society has decided to institute, etc.

[NghtRppr]

No no dear boy, that's your defintion of theft, and it's only theft if I subscribe to your belief system.  Do you see how this works yet?

Yes I see how it works. You think it's alright to define terms however you like because after all, you have a different belief system than I do.

The issue at hand is not rape, it's the forcing of your belief system on people that do not subscribe to it.

Stop avoiding. Some people think rape is alright therefore you're forcing your belief system on them.

You're damn right about that.  Things like pay taxes, obey laws that society has decided to institute, etc.

No, sorry. You have a different belief system than I do so I disagree. Are you going to force your belief system on me? Don't avoid the question this time either. Answer it. Are you going to force your belief system on me and force me to pay taxes? If not, good, I won't pay taxes. If so, then you'd be a hypocrite in saying that I can't force my belief system on others while you are allowed to.

Answer the question and stop avoiding. Let me repeat it a third time, are you going to force your belief system on me and force me to pay taxes?

[AyeYo]

No no dear boy, that's your defintion of theft, and it's only theft if I subscribe to your belief system.  Do you see how this works yet?

Yes I see how it works. You think it's alright to define terms however you like because after all, you have a different belief system than I do.

Then you see why you can't make up your own defintions that go against the accepted definitions.

The issue at hand is not rape, it's the forcing of your belief system on people that do not subscribe to it.

Stop avoiding. Some people think rape is alright therefore you're forcing your belief system on them.

I sure as hell am.  I'm not the one claiming that I have the answer for a societal organization in which no one is forced to do anything they don't like, in fact, I've said the exact opposite.  There will ALWAYS people getting forced to do things they don't want to do.

You're damn right about that.  Things like pay taxes, obey laws that society has decided to institute, etc.

No, sorry. You have a different belief system than I do so I disagree. Are you going to force your belief system on me? Don't avoid the question this time either. Answer it. Are you going to force your belief system on me and force me to pay taxes? If not, good, I won't pay taxes. If so, then you'd be a hypocrite in saying that I can't force my belief system on others while you are allowed to.

Answer the question and stop avoiding. Let me repeat it a third time, are you going to force your belief system on me and force me to pay taxes?

I'm absolutely going to force my belief system on you until you can, through the power of democracy, get your belief system accepted and adopted by society, at which point I will conform to your beliefs while fighting, politically, to get my own back into acceptance.


This is not hypocritcal in the least, because I never said there was something inherently wrong with forcing beliefs on others, in fact I've said the exact opposite (as pointed out above).  Society is all about COMPROMISE and there will ALWAYS be people upset with the current state of affairs and thus ALWAYS trying to change things.  A healthy, fair system (like a democracy) gives these people an outlet to make these changes.

On the other hand, your belief system is based on the fact that it is morally wrong to force beliefs on others, so it makes you a hypocrite to then turn around and force your beliefs on people.

Can you wrap your mind around the massive difference between you and I?  I accept the fact that force and discontent is envitable and not inherently unjust, you do not - yet your system uses force and has lots of discontent people.  That makes you a raging hypocrite.

[NghtRppr]

On the other hand, your belief system is based on the fact that it is morally wrong to force beliefs on others, so it makes you a hypocrite to then turn around and force your beliefs on people.

No, wrong. My belief system is based on the belief that it is morally wrong to violate the non-aggression principle as libertarians define it, in accordance with property rights as libertarians define them.

I'm sorry if there was ever any misunderstanding about that but the above statement is my belief system so attack that, not your straw man version, if you can.

I've said this at least a half dozen times so I'm not sure how you keep failing to understand it. The only thing you are forced to do is to keep your hands off of other people and their property. Do you get it now?