When you can turn around and walk out, it’s not “force”.
No. That would be taking it by force.
If you’re asking why the “initiation of force” is taboo - that’s because that’s what libertarianism is based on. You are asking about the libertarian POV, right?
Like I said, I’m ignoring the “mafia” argument, since I’ve encountered it before and I’ve learned over the years that there’s not any point with continuing that line of discussion.
Economic coercion is a form of force. As an employer, you are in a position of power and authority over a person in your employ or a person seeking employment, and the imbalance of power in that situation creates a coercive atmosphere in which true negotiation is not possible.
If you’re ignoring arguments, I can ignore your posts.
Good job completely avoiding the point of my post, there.
Feel free, but do keep in mind that the mafia argument is only one of several points being discussed.
Again, you’re asking about the libertarian POV. The libertarian POV is that outside of “initiation of force” all other actions should be allowed. And no, libertarians do not twist the language into pretzels in order to define bullshit terms like “economic force” etc. You may as well say that if someone is uncommonly persuasive, he’s applying “verbal force”. Or if someone is extraordinarily charismatic and gets a lot of tail, that’s a form of rape because he is applying “charisma force”.
I am sure some Mafia members love their children. Bad policy?
We’re not talking about personal habits of Mafia members. We’re talking about the mafia’s operational principles. If you concur that the non-libertarian government operates on the same principles that mafia does, then I can only agree.
Exploitation of economic need is a form of coercion. So you’re saying that the only definition of “force” or coercion that libertarians recognize is physical force?
Yes, I’m asking about the libertarian POV. Why have you chosen to draw the line at initiation of force and why is it unthinkable to draw it anywhere else?
In other words, why is it that we need the government to take away Big Bubba’s right to earn a living robbing people but not guarantee Lil’ Suzie’s right to go to school and have any chance in life even though her parents are too poor to pay for it? And you’re response can’t be “there’s no right to education” as that’s the exact point I’m trying to get you to address: All rights are negotiated. Why should the rest of us accept the arbitrary line you’ve drawn as some unquestionable absolute?
If you think a society that is not compelled to ask your personal permission for everything it does is equivalent to the Mafia, then, yes; I prefer the Mafia to Libertopia.
That’s where we differ. I (and quite a few other people, including the founders of the United States) think that rights are non-negotiable. As in “inalienable”. No one can take away the man’s rights except the man himself, by his own decision.
Cool. That’s what you get.
They believed that CERTAIN rights were “inalienable.” Not ALL rights.
First, don’t bother trying to invoke the FF. The world was very different then. You can’t just transpose some subset of things they said onto the modern world and expect it to hold up as a belief system.
And you’re wrong. No rights exist without societal consensus. And we have a mechanism for achieving consensus: it’s called democracy. Your POV lost, so now you’re trying to claim that any rights beyond the ones you’re arbitrarily labeled as non-negotiable and inalienable are some overreaching of government authority. By definition they can’t be, as the government is of, by, and for the people.
And you as well. Deal with it.
The world was different. People were not. When we’re talking “rights” we’re talking people, not technology.
I completely disagree. Rights (if they are rights, and not just societal handouts) exist with no need for “consensus”. My right to life exists outside of it. My right to ownership of my body exists outside of it. The societal “consensus” can violate that right, but it cannot grant it.
I love it. All the “in a libertarian society…” threads always come to this: yes, we are a mafia-like government, live with it.
Thank you for the great insight.
So then why do we need the government to protect your right to life? If it exists without the need for consensus, then why would it ever get violated? For that to happen there would have to be someone who didn’t agree that it’s a right. If it’s non-negotiable than it’s a law of nature, like gravity. We don’t need the government to enforce the law of gravity.
I never said I believe we have a mafia-like government.