Libertarians- why does anyone take them seriously?

[20000miles]

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?

I'd even generalise this and ensure that coersion is grounded in a certain category of action.

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

Can refusing to make someone better off count as coercion though?

[sarahj]

*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.

But does it not depend on the power differentials?

Like if I'm your boss and I asked you to give me the bounty in exchange for the galaxy, it would be a completely different situation to if your girlfriend asked you or if a homeless person asked you for it. Would it not? Those examples can all have more or less elements of coercion and the possibility of violence or negative consequences is different in each situation because of the power differentials.

[sarahj]

I'd even generalise this and ensure that coersion is grounded in a certain category of action.

I know you would. But I disagree still.

[CookieMonster]

Can refusing to make someone better off count as coercion though?

Not like those reverse muggings where somebody pushes you to the ground, takes your handbag and stuffs it with twenty euro notes.

[sarahj]

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

That's a facetious question. Unless I eat my own body or cut bits of it off to sell so I can eat something else, there's not much I can do with my body to survive,

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

You don't need a state granted monopoly to own all of a finite resource.

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.

You mean an economy that redistributes wealth will be poorer. I disagree withi your definition of exploitation.

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.

But the converse works again. Allowing property rights benefits some at the expense of others too.

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.

Without prices there can be no economic calculation. That's a massive assumption. there are plenty of ways to value something other than by the laws of supply and demand (or supply and ability to pay).

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

It's coercion as coercion can include the threat of force.

[stringjack]

But does it not depend on the power differentials?

Like if I'm your boss and I asked you to give me the bounty in exchange for the galaxy, it would be a completely different situation to if your girlfriend asked you or if a homeless person asked you for it. Would it not? Those examples can all have more or less elements of coercion and the possibility of violence or negative consequences is different in each situation because of the power differentials.

It's not clear to me that it does. In the boss case, what's presumably doing the work is a threat to fire me (or to treat me less favourably, relative to some baseline) - that would affect my environment, and so might be coercive. If my girlfriend asks me, and threatens to break up with me if I refuse, I don't think that's coercive, because I don't think she's under an obligation to continue to go out with me. The more like the girlfriend case we think the boss case is, the less I'm inclined to say that the boss case involves coercion. (Though, again, either case might involve exploitation, a term I'm using in a non-technical sense.)

[Pig Destroyer]

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!)

I recommend a course at the Mary Lou McDonald school of martial arts as preparation

[20000miles]

That's a facetious question.

Well, not really, if it were really true that your only choice is working for a boss, then no new businesses would ever be formed. My reference to ownership of your own body implies there is at least one economic good each individual owns.

You don't need a state granted monopoly to own all of a finite resource.

True perhaps, but large corporations aren't exploitative.

You mean an economy that redistributes wealth will be poorer. I disagree withi your definition of exploitation.

Well yes, that is what I was getting at.

But the converse works again. Allowing property rights benefits some at the expense of others too.

No, homesteading property benefits some while not benefitting nor harming others.

Without prices there can be no economic calculation. That's a massive assumption. there are plenty of ways to value something other than by the laws of supply and demand (or supply and ability to pay).

Meh, take it up with Mises.

[DS-09]

Not like those reverse muggings where somebody pushes you to the ground, takes your handbag and stuffs it with twenty euro notes.

That happen to you as well? . While we're on the topic of ownership, give me back my Maryland cookies!!

[sarahj]

Well, not really, if it were really true that your only choice is working for a boss, then no new businesses would ever be formed. My reference to ownership of your own body implies there is at least one economic good each individual owns.

No 20000miles. YOU MUST HAVE SOME RESOURCES TO SET UP A BUSINESS!!

True perhaps, but large corporations aren't exploitative.

Ah now. That's either a lie or you're very ignorant. ESPECIALLY given your definition of exploitation. Large corporations all over the world trample all over the property and personal rights of individuals to increase profits.

No, homesteading property benefits some while not benefitting nor harming others.

No! You're assuming that noone ever used that property before you homesteaded it. A completely unreasonable assumption!

Meh, take it up with Mises.

Mises isn't here and I'm taking it up with you.