Single Issue Voter?

[David Floyd]

I'm not arguing the merits of the police and prisons (which, again, I support). You mentioned that one can't support one kind of coercion and oppose another kind without being consistent...

Ah. Then I guess my fault was in not pointing out that I was talking about the initiation of force, not defensive force. I just assumed that others assumed that as well. My fault.

Don't you also support intellectual property laws?

Well, passing someone else's work off as your own is fraud, and fraud is coercive. Again, I was speaking of the initiation of force.

That's only true if you argue from the standpoint that the business has justification to do what it wants with what the government says it owns. Which is not substantially different if a government asserts it owns something (say, all the property in the country).

Ah, you want to get into a debate over the origin of property, do you?

Well, I don't mind discussing it with you, but on the other hand, perhaps that's best left for another thread, as this one already has a pretty big debate going on another topic.

Feel free to create one, though.

[Ramo]

Ah. Then I guess my fault was in not pointing out that I was talking about the initiation of force, not defensive force. I just assumed that others assumed that as well. My fault.

How is locking up a person after a person has coerced someone in some way defensive? Would locking up everybody so no one can coerce anybody be defensive?

Well, passing someone else's work off as your own is fraud, and fraud is coercive. Again, I was speaking of the initiation of force.

1. Why do you assume the person is passing off the intellectual property as his own?
2. How is fraud coercive (by your definition of coercion)?

Ah, you want to get into a debate over the origin of property, do you?

No I don't.

[David Floyd]

How is locking up a person after a person has coerced someone in some way defensive?

In the same way that hitting someone back after they have hit you is defensive.

1. Why do you assume the person is passing off the intellectual property as his own?

Well, it's either that or he is stealing the invention of another, to use to the detriment of the other person.

2. How is fraud coercive (by your definition of coercion)?

Well, fraud is essentially misleading someone about the capabilities of yourself or an object in order to enrich yourself. This is very similar to theft, wouldn't you say?

[Capt Dizle]

I would sure like someone to explain how this natural rights stuff could exist in the real world.

Seems to me that if one of you doesn't want to pay taxes you could just exercise your natural rights to build a dingy and shove off.

[David Floyd]

Wow, someone has pretty much missed every point brought up by both sides since the beginning of the entire discussion.

Since that someone obviously can't be arsed to read back a few pages, then I can't be arsed to repost 7 pages of text, with the full knowledge that he won't read it.

[Ramo]

In the same way that hitting someone back after they have hit you is defensive.

But if someone's in the position of being in prison, he's not "hitting that person" at the moment. If I hit you today, and then you decided to hit me tomorrow is that defensive?

Well, it's either that or he is stealing the invention of another,

I don't see how this is justified in a libertarian sense. How is the concept of the state forcing people not to produce, say, some patented medicine justified with your morality. I never consented to not producing this medicine; the state is unilaterally telling my I can't. Clearly, it's offensive coercion.

Well, fraud is essentially misleading someone about the capabilities of yourself or an object in order to enrich yourself. This is very similar to theft, wouldn't you say?

How so (again, using your definition of theft)? Where's the coercion?

[David Floyd]

I don't see how this is justified in a libertarian sense. How is the concept of the state forcing people not to produce, say, some patented medicine justified with your morality. I never consented to not producing this medicine; the state is unilaterally telling my I can't. Clearly, it's offensive coercion.

Hmmm. Interesting viewpoint...something I'd never really considered before...

But if someone's in the position of being in prison, he's not "hitting that person" at the moment.

And if your self defense puts someone in a hospital, they aren't hitting anyone while they're in the hospital. Yet their violation of another's rights still landed them in the hospital, and they are being punished for their actions.

[David Floyd]

How so (again, using your definition of theft)? Where's the coercion?

Well, theft is the ill-gotten gain of goods - taking something against the will of another.

If it's not the will of someone to give you something, but you give them false information in order to trick them into giving it to you, I fail to see how that's really different from bonking them over the head and just taking it by force.

[Capt Dizle]

Oh, I did read it but I didn't see much in the way of valid points. Is this one of those theoretical hypothetical debates wherein both sides take nonsensical but opposing positions and argue. Kind of like group mental masturbation?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DanS
Laz's story is fine for what it says, but the conclusions he draws from his experiences aren't the only ones that are valid. He does open his story up for personal criticism by posting it.

The other choices he had (or would have in our current way of doing business) are borrowing money on a credit card or similar, working part time flipping burgers, or working a temp job. I've done all three myself to make ends meet and worked during school in order that I would have options once I got out.

Point being is that there are choices available beyond the dole and his story makes it sound like there aren't. In his mind, it's either the dole or the street.

You appear to be operating under the false assumption that I was waiting for a "nice job" to come along, DanS. In fact I was just after any job.

3.5 million unemployed, even after the stats had been heavily doctored/"seasonally adjusted" in Britain at the time. You're looking at probably 15%- 20% of the workforce without jobs. The jobs I got in the end were...

1- An admin position with the M.O.D. paying £6000 p/a.

2- Wasteground clearance for a landscape gardening company paying £6500 p/a.

Flipping burgers would probably have got me about £7000 p/a, but I couldn't get a job doing that. I tried.

This, of course, brings me back to my point that in many cases the people who participate in debates like this seem to have little concept of what a real recession is, and why our governments use the safety net of social security.

[David Floyd]

Of course, one can always go back to the point that if the government begins dicking around with a nation's economy to an excessive amount, of course they're gonna cause a recession.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor


I'm not ashamed to think of you as you. And I am not ashamed to look you in the face and tell you what you are. You are a sham. And a thief. Happy?

The "sham" part you're going to have to explain because you lost me there.

"Thief"? When my actions fail the legal tests at both statutory level, and at the Mens Rea level at Common Law? Nope.

To add more colour to the discussion, those two jobs I mention in my previous post were both government-funded. Meaning, of course, that I was actually costing the taxpayers more were I was in work than when I was unemployed. The same would be true if I joined the army.

You were in the army at one point, weren't you? Who paid you?

[Ramo]

And if your self defense puts someone in a hospital, they aren't hitting anyone while they're in the hospital. Yet their violation of another's rights still landed them in the hospital, and they are being punished for their actions.

I don't think I follow you.

Well, theft is the ill-gotten gain of goods - taking something against the will of another.

If it's not the will of someone to give you something, but you give them false information in order to trick them into giving it to you, I fail to see how that's really different from bonking them over the head and just taking it by force.

So you're saying lying is equivalent to physically hitting?

[David Floyd]

So you're saying lying is equivalent to physically hitting?

Not necessarily, I'm saying that the end result is the same - that being a person being deprived of money or goods through coercive methods.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Hi David!

Sorry- I'm going to drag you back a bit here. I'm still not clear why you felt uncomfortable about me using my life experiences. Do you think I'm a thief? Tandee does.

Do you feel uncomfortable about calling me a thief because we've met in real life?