Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Aggression
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Aggression (Read 409 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #10 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:41am
Print Post  
Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:16am:
1. Initiating physical force

2. Initiating threats of physical force

3. Initiating fraud

There ya go
That's pretty good, thanks, but the lizard (The Opposition) says theft and fraud aren't aggression because there need not be any physical force initiated against a person to accomplish them...

How would you answer that claim?

Edit: I believe the lizard has gone so far as to claim that even theft at gunpoint is not aggression as long as you don't shoot- but you've got that covered with "threats of physical force". Unfortunately, the lizard says you're wrong on that one...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Some Voluntaryist
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 16
Joined: Oct 26th, 2018
Re: Aggression
Reply #11 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 10:40am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:41am:
That's pretty good, thanks, but the lizard (The Opposition) says theft and fraud aren't aggression because there need not be any physical force initiated against a person to accomplish them...

How would you answer that claim?

Edit: I believe the lizard has gone so far as to claim that even theft at gunpoint is not aggression as long as you don't shoot- but you've got that covered with "threats of physical force". Unfortunately, the lizard says you're wrong on that one...


Well, the only real difference between physical force and a threat thereof is how it's used. If I hold someone at gunpoint, then even if I'm bluffing, I am communicating to them that I am going to use physical force against them. Even though the force itself hasn't happened yet, I am still effectively using it. It's only been delayed to some point in the future, and only if my demands are not met, but no matter what I am still making use of physical force. The other party is well within their rights to use physical force to remove that possibility, just as they would be to prevent force in the moment.

Fraud is a whole different thing altogether. If I scammed someone as a means to make them give me their money, I've effectively forced them to pay me against their will, but I didn't physically attack them or threaten to do so. What you can and cannot do to prevent fraud or claim justice from it depends a lot more on staying proportional to the initial crime itself. But, if someone wanted to use force or threats of force to reclaim something I defrauded them out of, I wouldn't be within my rights to stop them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7926
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #12 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 11:03am
Print Post  
Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:16am:
1. Initiating physical force

2. Initiating threats of physical force

3. Initiating fraud

There ya go


Thank you. This is what I was looking for.

Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 10:40am:
Fraud is a whole different thing altogether. If I scammed someone as a means to make them give me their money, I've effectively forced them to pay me against their will, but I didn't physically attack them or threaten to do so.


There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about believing this. +1.

I'm not sure fraud can be considered aggression, and you actually locked onto one of the reasons: It would be really weird if you could self-defend from fraud with a gun. Obviously it's not as bad as actual force. Does that mean it's not aggression? I'm ambivalent on the issue.

I'm just looking for each poster's list of actions that are so wrong they can be met with force.

Most people can't make a list and stick to it. They depend on pulling yet another, "but, that's also wrong!" out of their ass to win every new argument.

Just to point this out to you, Vol, you didn't put underage mating on your list. So if someone wants to mate with a six-year-old, and he gets permission from the minor, (or the parent, if you think parents are true guardians of a minor's rights) then he can mate with that six-year-old.

In this thread, I encourage people to revise if they need to. I think we're supposed to.

The idea that you can revise your list is completely fine with me.

The idea that your list is potentially infinite because you don't have one would just show something about your philosophy.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #13 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 2:28pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 11:03am:
I'm not sure fraud can be considered aggression, and you actually locked onto one of the reasons: It would be really weird if you could self-defend from fraud with a gun. Obviously it's not as bad as actual force. Does that mean it's not aggression? I'm ambivalent on the issue.

There was a lot of talk on this forum about it being appropriate to respond to theft or attempted theft with force, shooting a shoplifter was the provided scenario I think...

I don't remember your position on that issue, but do you see a difference in having your property stolen by physical means (burglary) or by fraud? Either way your property is stolen...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Some Voluntaryist
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 16
Joined: Oct 26th, 2018
Re: Aggression
Reply #14 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:33pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 11:03am:
There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about believing this. +1.

I'm not sure fraud can be considered aggression, and you actually locked onto one of the reasons: It would be really weird if you could self-defend from fraud with a gun. Obviously it's not as bad as actual force. Does that mean it's not aggression? I'm ambivalent on the issue.

I'm just looking for each poster's list of actions that are so wrong they can be met with force.

Most people can't make a list and stick to it. They depend on pulling yet another, "but, that's also wrong!" out of their ass to win every new argument.

Just to point this out to you, Vol, you didn't put underage mating on your list. So if someone wants to mate with a six-year-old, and he gets permission from the minor, (or the parent, if you think parents are true guardians of a minor's rights) then he can mate with that six-year-old.

In this thread, I encourage people to revise if they need to. I think we're supposed to.

The idea that you can revise your list is completely fine with me.

The idea that your list is potentially infinite because you don't have one would just show something about your philosophy.



This is where Libertarian definitions and layman terms start to conflate. In Libertarianese, Aggression is any coercion that is not used in defense, and coercion is any physical force, threats of physical force, or fraud. But to most people, Aggression is just a word for violent/angry.

What I said in my last post was really just to explain why threats of physical force are not really different than blanket physical force, but that's not the actual moral argument for the NAP, which answers the inconsistencies you mentioned.

The thing about the NAP is that it doesn't really care about violence, or the severity of the outcome of the use of coercion. It only cares that coercion was used in the first place, because you are forcing someone to do something they wouldn't do of their own volition. I can tie someone to a chair and cure their cancer, or hold someone at gunpoint and give them a million dollars, but those things would still violate the NAP because I used coercion. I stole their ability to consent to what I was doing to them, and having that kind of defenseless power over someone is wrong no matter what I do with it.

And the same goes for fraud. Usually, fraud is only used to commit theft without having the need for physical force, but the Libertarian issue with fraud is that it still nullifies the consent of the victim party. You can certainly use fraud for much more heinous things than stealing money, just like you could physical force or threats of force. If I tricked someone into walking into a volcano, is that really different than if I shoved them in a volcano, or if I threatened to shoot them (or one of their loved ones) if they didn't walk into a volcano? They didn't consent to being in the volcano, but I put them there any way through the use of coercion, and what kind of coercion I used really makes no significant difference.

And again, the issue with underage sex. We don't recognize the consent of children, so someone who has sex with children is committing rape through the use of fraud. It's taking advantage of the child's naive mind to make them think they are giving consent, even though the child doesn't really understand what consent is, and therefore cannot give it.

So ultimately, yes, I would use coercion to prevent fraud just as I would any other form of coercion. If I knew someone was tricking people into walking into volcanos, or taking advantage of children, I would use force to stop them.

The reason you typically wouldn't shoot someone for scamming you out of a couple bucks is a matter of proportionality, and not because fraud isn't (by the Libertarian definition) aggression.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #15 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:56pm
Print Post  
Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:33pm:
This is where Libertarian definitions and layman terms start to conflate.
Tsk tsk.

You conflate libertarians with "progressives", and it's just not possible to do so honestly.

Libertarians use standard language, "progressives" constantly create new meanings for common words. That's a real difference.

Layman terms are plain common language used and understood by virtually everybody.

Libertarians use language in exactly the same way.

Some people don't understand the meanings of words that aren't common in ordinary conversation, which doesn't make "distribution" into a rare word with ambiguous meaning...
Or "uniform" something that only specially trained lawyers know the meaning of.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #16 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:58pm
Print Post  
Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:33pm:
In Libertarianese, Aggression is any coercion that is not used in defense...

That's just the meaning of the word, it's not "Libertarianese".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7926
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #17 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:01pm
Print Post  
Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:33pm:
And the same goes for fraud. Usually, fraud is only used to commit theft without having the need for physical force, but the Libertarian issue with fraud is that it still nullifies the consent of the victim party. You can certainly use fraud for much more heinous things than stealing money, just like you could physical force or threats of force. If I tricked someone into walking into a volcano, is that really different than if I shoved them in a volcano, or if I threatened to shoot them (or one of their loved ones) if they didn't want to walk into a volcano? They didn't consent to being in the volcano, but I put them there any way through the use of coercion, and what kind of coercion I used really makes no significant difference.


Of course it's different, the question is simply whether the difference is relevant. I'm going to agree with you on no, the difference is not relevant. Both are aggressive acts.

Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:33pm:
And again, the issue with underage sex. We don't recognize the consent of children, so someone who has sex with children is committing rape through the use of fraud.


That's fair. What would you say to a parent's use of force on a child, though? Let's say they grab their kid by the hand and stop it from running in the street.

Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:33pm:
So ultimately, yes, I would use coercion to prevent fraud just as I would any other form of coercion. If I knew someone was tricking people into walking into volcanos, or taking advantage of children, I would use force to stop them.


I disagree here because Rothbard said that you can't shoot a shoplifter - defensive force has to be proportionate. There are a lot of practical issues with this limitation which I brought up in the other thread, but if physical force is in any way greater than mere tricking, I don't think I can act here.

Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:33pm:
The reason you typically wouldn't shoot someone for scamming you out of a couple bucks is a matter of proportionality, and not because fraud isn't (by the Libertarian definition) aggression.


https://mises.org/library/right-self-defense

They agree with you that threats of force are force, but disagree because that force must be proportional.

Quote:
How extensive is a man's right of self-defense of person and property? The basic answer must be: up to the point at which he begins to infringe on the property rights of someone else. For, in that case, his "defense" would in itself constitute a criminal invasion of the just property of some other man, which the latter could properly defend himself against.

It follows that defensive violence may only be used against an actual or directly threatened invasion of a person's property — and may not be used against any nonviolent "harm" that may befall a person's income or property value.

...

Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else's property without his consent, and is therefore "implicit theft."

...

Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum? What we might call the "maximalist" position goes as follows: by stealing the bubblegum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.4

I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper's right to his bubblegum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man's — including the urchin's — right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another's property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one's own?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #18 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:02pm
Print Post  
Some Voluntaryist wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 6:33pm:
This is where Libertarian definitions and layman terms start to conflate. In Libertarianese, Aggression is any coercion that is not used in defense, and coercion is any physical force, threats of physical force, or fraud. But to most people, Aggression is just a word for violent/angry.

What I said in my last post was really just to explain why threats of physical force are not really different than blanket physical force, but that's not the actual moral argument for the NAP, which answers the inconsistencies you mentioned.

The thing about the NAP is that it doesn't really care about violence, or the severity of the outcome of the use of coercion. It only cares that coercion was used in the first place, because you are forcing someone to do something they wouldn't do of their own volition. I can tie someone to a chair and cure their cancer, or hold someone at gunpoint and give them a million dollars, but those things would still violate the NAP because I used coercion. I stole their ability to consent to what I was doing to them, and having that kind of defenseless power over someone is wrong no matter what I do with it.

And the same goes for fraud. Usually, fraud is only used to commit theft without having the need for physical force, but the Libertarian issue with fraud is that it still nullifies the consent of the victim party. You can certainly use fraud for much more heinous things than stealing money, just like you could physical force or threats of force. If I tricked someone into walking into a volcano, is that really different than if I shoved them in a volcano, or if I threatened to shoot them (or one of their loved ones) if they didn't walk into a volcano? They didn't consent to being in the volcano, but I put them there any way through the use of coercion, and what kind of coercion I used really makes no significant difference.

And again, the issue with underage sex. We don't recognize the consent of children, so someone who has sex with children is committing rape through the use of fraud. It's taking advantage of the child's naive mind to make them think they are giving consent, even though the child doesn't really understand what consent is, and therefore cannot give it.

So ultimately, yes, I would use coercion to prevent fraud just as I would any other form of coercion. If I knew someone was tricking people into walking into volcanos, or taking advantage of children, I would use force to stop them.

The reason you typically wouldn't shoot someone for scamming you out of a couple bucks is a matter of proportionality, and not because fraud isn't (by the Libertarian definition) aggression.
Sorry to quibble. I agree with you, other than the exceptions I made, and your position is clear and correct. I look forward to hearing more from you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Aggression
Reply #19 - Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:04pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 28th, 2018 at 7:01pm:
That's fair. What would you say to a parent's use of force on a child, though? Let's say they grab their kid by the hand and stop it from running in the street.



It's obviously immoral and a violation of the NAP. You have initiated force against your toddler to keep him from getting run over by a car. Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Aggression
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy