Political Theory

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

Autolykos — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:49:02 GMT

QuisCustodiet:
Because there are other things I want to do instead.

Like what?

QuisCustodiet:
Not being able to do the things I value higher.

How would me continuing to respond to you in this thread render you unable to do the things that you (may) value higher?

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

QuisCustodiet — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:42:51 GMT

Why don't you want to get into it?

Because there are other things I want to do instead.

What are you afraid of?

Not being able to do the things I value higher.

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:54:17 GMT

QuisCustodiet:
I've already given up on it. I don't want to get into it, hence me not responding to your question the two times you asked it before this last time.

Why don't you want to get into it? What are you afraid of?

QuisCustodiet:
Right, so I gotta convince them that there are benefits. I don't want to try to convince them that there's a "voluntary alternative," or that it's okay to not feed your kid until it dies if you don't like him or that you should "turf" your family.

How do you plan on convincing them that there are benefits? What are you talking about with "I don't want to try to convince them that [...] it's okay to not feed your kid until it dies if you don't like him or that you should 'turf' your family"?

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

QuisCustodiet — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:23:32 GMT

Well where exactly do you think it seems seriously flawed? And why?

I've already given up on it. I don't want to get into it, hence me not responding to your question the two times you asked it before this last time.

So then it's entirely possible for a person to believe that there are no benefits whatsoever to freedom and/or capitalism, right?

Right, so I gotta convince them that there are benefits. I don't want to try to convince them that there's a "voluntary alternative," or that it's okay to not feed your kid until it dies if you don't like him or that you should "turf" your family.

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:13:56 GMT

QuisCustodiet:
I'm going back to just economics. Libertarianism the philosophy seems seriously flawed in too many areas for me to take it seriously. Sorry.

Well where exactly do you think it seems seriously flawed? And why?

QuisCustodiet:
Value is subjective.

So then it's entirely possible for a person to believe that there are no benefits whatsoever to freedom and/or capitalism, right?

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

QuisCustodiet — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:11:05 GMT

I'll ask you a third time: why are you giving up on "'libertarianism' the philosophy"?

I'm going back to just economics. Libertarianism the philosophy seems seriously flawed in too many areas for me to take it seriously. Sorry.

Do you think that whatever you're calling "the benefits of freedom and capitalism" are objective facts?

Value is subjective.

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:17:36 GMT

QuisCustodiet:
I think I'm just gonna be a utilitarian. It's a lot easier to defend the benefits of more freedom and capitalism than any of this "voluntaryist" philosophy. David Friedman's criticisms of NAP libertarians in Machinery of Freedom are formidable, particularly the ray gun/flashlight scenario and the enraged misanthropic shooter scenario.

Do you think that whatever you're calling "the benefits of freedom and capitalism" are objective facts?

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

Autolykos — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:13:59 GMT

QuisCustodiet:
What is free will? Does it really exist?

I'd say that depends on what your definition of "free will" is. (No, I don't mind sounding like a broken record. )

QuisCustodiet:
At this time, I don't know if it does. But since hunger isn't an agent, there's nothing a law can do to outlaw it without violating the NAP (i.e., making people feed each other or else).

What's your definition of "agent" anyway?

QuisCustodiet:
My question was specifically about protection against agents who threaten to violate your rights. If there were no agent in the universe who would even consider violating any of your rights, you wouldn't buy protection.

That raises the question of how anyone would (or could) ever know whether there's any agent in the universe who'd even consider violating any of his rights. If you deem that knowledge to be impossible, then you must logically treat every agent in the universe as always being "coerced", at which point "coercion" becomes meaningless (i.e. loses distinction, as it's impossible to not be "coerced").

I'll ask you a third time: why are you giving up on "'libertarianism' the philosophy"?

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

RagnarD — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:53:35 GMT

Cab21: Excellent simplification of the core issue

QuisCustodiet: I really don't see how this situation shows any flaw in private protection. That's not to say there aren't any, I'm still not 100% convinced, though I strongly lean that way. I could only see this as a criticism of private protection if the alternative were a 100% controlled society, i.e. everyone is locked in their own little rooms alone until an angel is called to let them out to use the bathroom, and you're obviously not arguing for that.

If a car company charges extra for airbags are they coercing you? Sure we call them accidents but assume there were no accidents, that all car wrecks were the result of someone intentionally ramming other cars, would the seller of airbags be complicit in coercion? How does this differ from Private Rights enforcement?

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

QuisCustodiet — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:06:47 GMT

To apply that to another case, it wouldn't be coercive in your view for someone to sleep with a girl who was roofied by someone else at a party, even if she never would have slept with him without having been drugged.

Discussed here: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/32171.aspx

I think I'm just gonna be a utilitarian. It's a lot easier to defend the benefits of more freedom and capitalism than any of this "voluntaryist" philosophy. David Friedman's criticisms of NAP libertarians in Machinery of Freedom are formidable, particularly the ray gun/flashlight scenario and the enraged misanthropic shooter scenario.

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

cab21 — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:33:50 GMT

A is a threat

B sells a policy protecting against threats

unless A and B are a team, and A and B are a threat, then B is not a threat and a relationship with B is not coercive

B is not working with A, and B would offer the trade if A did not exist.

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

idol — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:39:58 GMT

The only way it would make sense to call it coercion is if the person offering the security is also the one breaking into people's homes.

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

idol — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:34:04 GMT

QuisCustodiet:

If they decide to, they do it because they feel that they benefit.

No, they'd be doing it because they don't want their houses broken into.

That is a benefit.

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

QuisCustodiet — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:10:50 GMT

So no, I don't see how it's voluntary (i.e. not coerced).

Re: Question about private rights enforcement policies: coercion?

QuisCustodiet — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:09:11 GMT

If they decide to, they do it because they feel that they benefit.

No, they'd be doing it because they don't want their houses broken into.