Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarians and Coercion

TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

And is it just me, or does said coercion they claim to hate due to it's incompatibility to the NAP, contrary to the free-market forces they want to champion? Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.

Am I the only one here getting annoyed with the ideologue parties because of this? I realize the democrats can be ideologues as well, but it seems to me that their more in line with objective facts than the other two...(most professors vote democrat)
Thank you for voting!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:04:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

And is it just me, or does said coercion they claim to hate due to it's incompatibility to the NAP, contrary to the free-market forces they want to champion? Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


Am I the only one here getting annoyed with the ideologue parties because of this? I realize the democrats can be ideologues as well, but it seems to me that their more in line with objective facts than the other two...(most professors vote democrat)

Couldn't that be just self-serving? I mean, of the two parties in America, the Dems are more likely to help schools than the Reps, and professors need that grant money.

As to the overall point?
It does seem contradictory, and that's why I don't champion the "coercion" argument as heavily as others.
But, I would say there is a difference between government coercion (i.e. force, as in jail or fines for, say not wearing a seatbelt or buying enough health insurance) and coercion from peer pressure/consequences (like going out of business).
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:07:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

Because, like, I have rights, MAN! And, like, the government can't coerce me to do anything because I'm, like, entitled to be autonomous, MAN! Like how could you not get that, BRO? It's, like, so, like... simple! Hey, could you pass me the joint?

And is it just me, or does said coercion they claim to hate due to it's incompatibility to the NAP, contrary to the free-market forces they want to champion? Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.

But, like, there are these.... like... reasons that like... we're talking about some different kind of coercion!

Dude, pass the blunt. Puff! Puff! Pass! that's it!

Am I the only one here getting annoyed with the ideologue parties because of this? I realize the democrats can be ideologues as well, but it seems to me that their more in line with objective facts than the other two...(most professors vote democrat)

That's because, like, the parties are all in it together, man.
Tsar of DDO
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:28:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

And is it just me, or does said coercion they claim to hate due to it's incompatibility to the NAP, contrary to the free-market forces they want to champion? Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


Am I the only one here getting annoyed with the ideologue parties because of this? I realize the democrats can be ideologues as well, but it seems to me that their more in line with objective facts than the other two...(most professors vote democrat)

Agree, our societies are function with at least certain degree of coercion otherwise we can't acquire cooperation from other (note that free gift is also a kind of bargain) and if can't have cooperation, we don't need societies.

Unless it is disrupting a governing power or causing a serious drawback on public health and economy, I don't think coercion is a point worth discussing.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:31:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

And is it just me, or does said coercion they claim to hate due to it's incompatibility to the NAP, contrary to the free-market forces they want to champion? Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.

On "coercion", a lot of libertarians are self-styled ostriches, who think that by sticking their head in the sand we can just ignore international politics and just mind our own business.

If we don't need to care about others, we won't need to worry about "coercion", won't we?

Am I the only one here getting annoyed with the ideologue parties because of this? I realize the democrats can be ideologues as well, but it seems to me that their more in line with objective facts than the other two...(most professors vote democrat)

You can very easily be libertarian and vote democrat. Libertarians (very generally) are social progressives and fiscal conservatives...the social progressive part easily gels with the dems a lot more than with the GOP.

It just so happens that a lot of people who identify with libertarianism identify with Ron Paul's version of libertarianism, which is socially and fiscally conservative. The fiscal conservativeness of course appeals to a lot of GOP members.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 2:35:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

The whole coercion thing always annoyed me. If one does not believe that they should have to contribute to society then they can not honestly believe that they have a right to all of the benefits society has to offer.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 7:27:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

http://www.popmodal.com...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:09:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:04:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

And is it just me, or does said coercion they claim to hate due to it's incompatibility to the NAP, contrary to the free-market forces they want to champion? Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


Am I the only one here getting annoyed with the ideologue parties because of this? I realize the democrats can be ideologues as well, but it seems to me that their more in line with objective facts than the other two...(most professors vote democrat)

Couldn't that be just self-serving? I mean, of the two parties in America, the Dems are more likely to help schools than the Reps, and professors need that grant money.

Well fair enough, I didn't mean that to sound "snarky"

I've just noticed that unless they teach Christianity in school, the GOP doesn't like to do it, and libertarians would hate it because "they got that money from force or coercion", but we still need schools it would seem to me...which is less of an ideologue as per my original point.

As to the overall point?
It does seem contradictory, and that's why I don't champion the "coercion" argument as heavily as others.
But, I would say there is a difference between government coercion (i.e. force, as in jail or fines for, say not wearing a seatbelt or buying enough health insurance) and coercion from peer pressure/consequences (like going out of business).
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:14:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

And is it just me, or does said coercion they claim to hate due to it's incompatibility to the NAP, contrary to the free-market forces they want to champion? Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.

On "coercion", a lot of libertarians are self-styled ostriches, who think that by sticking their head in the sand we can just ignore international politics and just mind our own business.

If we don't need to care about others, we won't need to worry about "coercion", won't we?

Am I the only one here getting annoyed with the ideologue parties because of this? I realize the democrats can be ideologues as well, but it seems to me that their more in line with objective facts than the other two...(most professors vote democrat)

You can very easily be libertarian and vote democrat. Libertarians (very generally) are social progressives and fiscal conservatives...the social progressive part easily gels with the dems a lot more than with the GOP.

It just so happens that a lot of people who identify with libertarianism identify with Ron Paul's version of libertarianism, which is socially and fiscally conservative. The fiscal conservativeness of course appeals to a lot of GOP members.
^

That's always baffled me too... how can Ron Paul honestly call himself a libertarian?

His son Rand Paul is even worse!

http://www.browndailyherald.com...
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:16:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 2:35:49 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

The whole coercion thing always annoyed me. If one does not believe that they should have to contribute to society then they can not honestly believe that they have a right to all of the benefits society has to offer.

Glad to see I'm not the only one! =)

Yeah I keep hearing the same thing and the first thought in my mind is "okay .. so?"
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:16:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:07:51 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

Because, like, I have rights, MAN! And, like, the government can't coerce me to do anything because I'm, like, entitled to be autonomous, MAN! Like how could you not get that, BRO? It's, like, so, like... simple! Hey, could you pass me the joint?

And is it just me, or does said coercion they claim to hate due to it's incompatibility to the NAP, contrary to the free-market forces they want to champion? Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.

But, like, there are these.... like... reasons that like... we're talking about some different kind of coercion!

Dude, pass the blunt. Puff! Puff! Pass! that's it!

Am I the only one here getting annoyed with the ideologue parties because of this? I realize the democrats can be ideologues as well, but it seems to me that their more in line with objective facts than the other two...(most professors vote democrat)

That's because, like, the parties are all in it together, man.

LOL
Thank you for voting!
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 9:38:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:07:51 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

Because, like, I have rights, MAN! And, like, the government can't coerce me to do anything because I'm, like, entitled to be autonomous, MAN! Like how could you not get that, BRO? It's, like, so, like... simple! Hey, could you pass me the joint?

And is it just me, or does said coercion they claim to hate due to it's incompatibility to the NAP, contrary to the free-market forces they want to champion? Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.

But, like, there are these.... like... reasons that like... we're talking about some different kind of coercion!

Dude, pass the blunt. Puff! Puff! Pass! that's it!

Am I the only one here getting annoyed with the ideologue parties because of this? I realize the democrats can be ideologues as well, but it seems to me that their more in line with objective facts than the other two...(most professors vote democrat)

That's because, like, the parties are all in it together, man.

Your stoner rhetoric there... it pains me.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 9:52:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In some ways it has some merit. The times when you are most miserable involve times when one cannot escape doing something or being somewhere or when the costs of trying to leave would be extremely high, whether percieved or real.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 10:54:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.

The person doesn't deserve the car.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 11:30:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation.

Yeah .. forced out of competition because of it .... you just proved my point...
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 11:31:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 10:54:43 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.

The person doesn't deserve the car.

As per my original rant.... WHY NOT?! You NEVER explain the WHY!
Thank you for voting!
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 2:02:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 2:35:49 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

The whole coercion thing always annoyed me. If one does not believe that they should have to contribute to society then they can not honestly believe that they have a right to all of the benefits society has to offer.

Of course not, in fact no one has the right to benefit from society to begin with, it is earned with deed and power.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 2:03:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 10:54:43 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.

The person doesn't deserve the car.

Neither did the person selling it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 2:05:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 2:03:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:54:43 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.

The person doesn't deserve the car.

Neither did the person selling it.

Are you against all property rights?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 2:06:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 2:05:16 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/30/2013 2:03:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:54:43 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.

The person doesn't deserve the car.

Neither did the person selling it.

Are you against all property rights?

No. I am against turning it into some sort of objectively moral issue. Rights are only as good as the enforcement behind them.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 2:07:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.

In a sense that both will result in a struggle, I agree it is the same. The former result in one spending against purchasing power of the who would like a car, the latter result in one spending the physical power of one who would like a car.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 3:24:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 7:27:17 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
I have got to ask.

Why is it every time I see a "libertarian" going off about our system of government, they seem to have an almost sexual attraction to hating on coercion, but never actually explain WHY it's bad?

http://www.popmodal.com...

Ayn Rand is not evidence. It is like citing a Nietzschean aphorism to prove his philosophy.

Then again, at least a Nietzschean aphorism is short. I wish I had that OMGItsJustinBeiber quotation, because it fits here: "The only respect I have for Randists is that they had the sheer endurance to read her work", or something to that effect. It's so long, arduous, and mostly unimportant, that it is next to impossible to find the argument.

Instead, put it in a syllogism, or a short paragraph, or even an aphorism I think we would be happy to accept at this point, on why we should care.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 3:26:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 2:05:16 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/30/2013 2:03:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:54:43 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.

The person doesn't deserve the car.

Neither did the person selling it.

Are you against all property rights?

"Rights are nonsense, and natural rights nonsense upon stilts".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:31:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 11:30:36 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation.

Yeah .. forced out of competition because of it .... you just proved my point...

That's not force...that's failure to attain mutual agreement between consumer and producer. And if you want to regard that as force, then the libertarian paradigm would simply make a distinction between them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:48:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.

Either way, you are starting with the premise that the car is somehow the property of the non-owner by virtue his non-right, and that any action which obstructs this entitlement is equivalent to theft. You are proclaiming that one is born with a duty to live for others and bears responsibility for the woes of the world. You are proclaiming that life is guilt.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:48:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 5:48:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:34:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation. It's the difference between stealing a car and not providing someone with one.

No. It's the difference between stealing a car, and pricing a car out of someone's price range so as to give them no other option BUT to steal the car. I.e., there is no difference.

Either way, you are starting with the premise that the car is somehow the property of the non-owner by virtue his non-right, and that any action which obstructs this entitlement is equivalent to theft.

You are starting with the premise that ownership implies morality. That's an extremely dangerous premise, IMHO.

You are proclaiming that one is born with a duty to live for others and bears responsibility for the woes of the world. You are proclaiming that life is guilt.

Bears SOME responsibility, yes. You eat, and when you do, you deprive food from others, born or unborn. Life is guilt, yes, but of course it is much more than that. You can dwell on the negative if you want, bitch about coercion until your face turns blue, or you can just suck it up and move on.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:52:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 5:31:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2013 11:30:36 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 10/30/2013 10:17:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:59:44 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Free-markets also operate under coercion; if I choose not to follow price equilibrium assuming perfect competition I'll be forced out of the market.


You wouldn't be forced out for not following price equilibrium, you would (eventually) run out of money to cover the costs of your operation.

Yeah .. forced out of competition because of it .... you just proved my point...

That's not force...that's failure to attain mutual agreement between consumer and producer. And if you want to regard that as force, then the libertarian paradigm would simply make a distinction between them.

Someone shooting a gun through someone else's head is indicative of a "failure to attain mutual agreement".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?