Libertarians- why does anyone take them seriously?

[stringjack]

So the coercion depends on the coercers intentions? Is that what you're getting at?

No - something like that claim that I can't coerce you if I can't physically act on you or on your environment without your permission.

[Pig Destroyer]

Well the discussions are obviously not getting us anywhere so why not cut the crap and go for a celebrity death match style showdown to settle matters once and for all? Such a fight could form the centrepiece of the entertainment programme at the p.ie social event currently under discussion...

[sarahj]

Well the discussions are obviously not getting us anywhere so why not cut the crap and go for a celebrity death match style showdown to settle matters once and for all? Such a fight could form the centrepiece of the entertainment programme at the p.ie social event currently under discussion...

I'm up for it...I don't have any mad skillz but I'd take anyone on!

In fact there's a list of people I'd take on (and probably a list of those wanting to take me on!)

[sarahj]

No - something like that claim that I can't coerce you if I can't physically act on you or on your environment without your permission.

Mmmm...

So you're saying that there has to be a plausible threat of physical force?

[Maximilian]

...withholding information is not, in itself, an act of coercion, regardless of the consequences...

Is it not? How are you defining coerce, i.e., threatening to withhold information vital to one's survival would seem to come within the ambit of my dictionary's (OED) definition of coerce:

coerce /k':s/ verb [WITH OBJ. ] persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats

[CookieMonster]

Is it not? How are you defining coerce, i.e., threatening to withhold information vital to one's survival would seem to come within the ambit of my dictionary's (OED) definition of coerce:

coerce /k':s/ verb [WITH OBJ. ] persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats

There is no force or threat involved.

[20000miles]

That was always my objection. If you don't have property, you can't very well work for yourself and you can't work for society, so you must work for someone else.

Well, everyone has property embodied in his own person. Why can't you work for yourself?

Yes and the same is true about large corporations.

It isn't, as no corporation has a territorial monopoly on expropriation.

No, it would make PARTS of society poorer than they would otherwise have been no?

Taxation and inflation punish productive behaviours (production, investment, savings) and promote short-sighted activities like consumption. Ceteris paribus, a more expoitative territory will be poorer than a less exploitative one.

Also, why are we defining exploitation as property rights violation?

Becuase violation of property rights benefits one person at the expense of the other (eg. slave ownership by slavemasters). Appropriating unowned property does not make anotehr person worse off than before.

HOW is it a property problem?

The basic Misesian syllogism is:

1- Without private property, there can be no exchange.
2- Without exchange, there can be no prices.
3- Without prices, there can be no economic calculation.
4- Therefore, because socialism lacks private property, it cannot calculate.

This is different to Hayek's critique:

1- Information is decentralized.
2- Only prices allow market actors to gather and use this information to rationally allocate resources.
3- Prices only exist with private property.
4- Therefore, because socialism lacks private property, it cannot gather the information needed to calculate.

Hans Hoppe explains here why Mises' version is correct, while Hayek's is cinfusing and counterproductive.

It depends on which definition of force you are using, though I would hold that they can use both. If they own all the resources for example, they can use force (private security) to protect it. They can also just hold onto those resources and prevent (throuhg forcing them to give up) others from opening.

How exactly does guarding property a use (initiation) of force? Also, that's a pretty big "if" you've got there.

[stringjack]

Mmmm...

So you're saying that there has to be a plausible threat of physical force?

Not even 'plausible' - maybe as weak as 'possible'.

Is it not? How are you defining coerce, i.e., threatening to withhold information vital to one's survival would seem to come within the ambit of my dictionary's (OED) definition of coerce:

coerce /k':s/ verb [WITH OBJ. ] persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats

*shrugs* There are different conceptions of coercion. If you take a very weak conception, then all exchanges are coercive, since they involve making some benefit conditional on performing some act which one wouldn't otherwise perform. But I don't think we're coercing one another if we agree to exchange a Bounty Celebration for a Galaxy Celebration.

[DS-09]

Mmmm...

So you're saying that there has to be a plausible threat of physical force?

And how would you go about gathering and using this army sarahj? Enough of your fellow students in orts college have baseball bats?

[sarahj]

And how would you go about gathering and using this army sarahj? Enough of your fellow students in orts college have baseball bats?

We don't have "orts colleges".

I don't own a baseball bat.

I've never studied arts.

And this is completely irrelevant!!!