If people have kids, there will be bad ones. If you are against bad kids, you are against people having them.
If people exist, there will be murder. If you are against murder, you must be against there being people.
Nonsense. I can be for order and against coercion. I’m against coercion but for order because I want people to behave in the first place. I’m against murder and not people because I want people to behave in the first place. I’m in favor of kids, but not bad kids, because I want kids to behave in the first place.
You do realize this, correct? If you’re not an anarchist and believe in laws, you will have to apply coercion. Why are you turning yourself inside out to be anti-coercion?
I believe in order and freedom and would want a society structure so that the coercive application of laws (including taxation) were unnecessary and did not happen. Until then I do the best with what I know and can do.
If it’s an emergency, I’d give you the keys myself. But, you’re still not quite following my position. A REPRESENTATIVE government acts on our behalf as a society. It confiscates revenue to fulfill its obligations. It exists in lieu of anarchy. You’ve described a nonsensical situation. A society setting up a representative government to turn around and declare anarchy via the empowerment of citizens to confiscate.
I support the government, I do not support all a government may do.
Properly functioning, a government recognizes and supports the moral position and moves society towards (it does nt create it, and therefore, can do immoral things) order.
Theft subtracts from the social order. Taxation brings order.
Sorry? Could you quote what this is in response to. Hate to be a bother, but a lot has been said and I’m not entirely sure what you’re responding to me about at this point.
There’s no such thing. So, in order to maximize order and ‘freedom’ one must use coercion. Therefore, coercion can be a social good. We’ll call that kind of coercion “law and order.” The coercion a slaver uses we will call, well, “slavery.” Back to not all killings being murders though all murders are killings.
Now that is quite the claim. You know more than I do apparently[/quote].
I know it very often takes coercion to stop an abusive husband from throwing the next punch at his wife’s face. And that’ll be the case until man is no more.
I’m out for the night Double. Well, most likely for the remainder. I’ll check back tomorrow to see if you had other questions. Or, just to let you tell me I’m wrong and “here’s why!”. Thanks for the conversation!
I’m not sure why this is so hard for people to grasp(I tend to believe it usually isn’t, and they are actually just looking for a “gotcha!”). It is not that the use of force or coercion is always wrong; it’s that the INITIATION of such is.
I have not read Block’s book, but I can’t recall disagreeing with anything I’ve read by Block regarding politics. He is a proponent of “thin” libertarianism so, unless one believes the initiation of force to be a good thing, it will probably be hard to find something with which to disagree.