I'd say everyone discriminates, whether they admit it (or are even aware of it) or not. I don't dispute that. That inherent racism does not make disparaging comments based on peoples' race acceptable, however. That was the issue I had with the earlier comment.
Acceptable to whom? There is rape and murder and theft, and abuse in this world, and you're going to take a stand in WF STS when someone says something trollish about a certain race?
I spoke up because IMO to do otherwise is to tacitly condone such comments.
Consent is never tacit, anyone who would claim you tacitly endorse something by not explicitly being against it is creating a burden of proof that cannot be met.
That's what you did to me, and it's bullshit, and I would argue with anyone who did it to you, because as we've discussed before, you've created a burden of proof that denies any potential for justice to the accused.
Do you have to be explicitly against every hateful, violent, dangerous and evil thing? Of course not.
It's not about being "PC." It's about being respectful.
If you want to respect people, stop supporting taxes EXPLICITLY. Taxation is theft. It would be meaningful if you took a stand against one of the great crimes against humanity.
I understand "aggression" to be the same as "coercion" in this context. It seems to be used interchangeably often enough. The
non-aggression principle is alternately known as the anti-coercion principle, for example.
If you like, I'll restate it as "coercion is unavoidable."
You can restate it, but the terms are not interchangeable. Not to any well schooled libertarian theorist.
Aggression is the initiation of force. Coercion can include defensive and aggressive force.
No libertarian I have ever known, and I have had the benefit of knowing many, has ever called it the anti-coercion principle.
I disagree. I'll
leave it to
others to
explain why.
I didn't bother clicking. I'm not interested in arguments by proxy, if we're going to have a discussion, you must represent your own views. I can just as easily meet your links with my links and we can have a fruitless link sourcing competition. But it won't be discourse.
The important question to me is not whether something is coercive or not, since I'm reasonably convinced coercion is unavoidable, but whether any given coercion can be reasonably justified.
In light of my response above, I don't know if you're talking about coercion or aggression, which again, are not the same thing.
I also don't believe property rights are the most important thing in the world, and that some degree of sacrifice of individual rights is justified for the good of society.
This is an opinion, but without property rights (control of your own body) you wouldn't be able to articulate that opinion.
In order for you to say "I" there must be something we can identify as "I" and not "me" (guerilla). Then we have to determine who controls the "I". Do I (guerilla) control your body? No? Why not?
Property rights, which are basically lines of delineation in reality, are necessary to determine space for entities to act, and be acted upon. Without defining those boundaries, how could you tell where I end and you begin?
Property rights aren't just some arbitrary crap people reject on leftist and marxist forums as being part of the capitalist system. A sense of mine and thine is essential for organizing human action with more than one actor present, and I think, for any sort of rational experience with nature, regardless of the number of people present. When I say property rights, I am referring to a system of ownership, but ownership derived from concepts like Lockean homesteading theory and argumentation.
Most people in the world consider this a perfectly reasonable position, believe it or not (and I'm sure you'll respond with "most people are idiots," which I wouldn't disagree with, but I'd wager there are a great many more non-idiots that disagree with your position than with mine).
Actually, I'm not going to say most people are idiots, but that most people believed the earth was flat, and that didn't make the earth flat. In logic, appealing to most or a lot of a group is called an argument to popularity, which says that something must be true if a lot of people believe it.
(It's a logical fallacy)
I'm not sure that's the sort of argument you want to make. "I am taking a position most people do, therefor it should be considered acceptable."
I'd also be careful about appealing to the ethics of the majority, as many evils in history has been done with majority consent. The very things you might be very against today, racism, sexism were once very acceptable to the majority.
Which when taken in context of your argument, you have to ask yourself if you're very sure that people will always and forever believe that socialism is best.
