co·erce
/kōˈərs/
Verb
1. Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
2. Obtain (something) by such means.
Topic: Freedom is ... - page 8. (Read 14409 times)
When reality contradicts your premise, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the premise. 'Cause, you know, arrows do hit their targets, faster runners do overtake slower ones, and people do make decisions in response to others' actions.
Given a free-will POV, people can choose to reply to others' actions and call it a response in the casual sense. However, it is not a "forced reaction" in the sense that a ball bounces back after hitting an obstacle. If a reaction is somehow forced, this implies that there was no choice in the matter.
It seems that you want to have it both ways: enjoying the freedom of having free will, while avoiding the necessary responsibility that goes with it!
Reactions aren't forced. They are chosen and deliberate, and the person choosing to react bears responsibility for his actions, just as the person to whom this reaction is in response to is responsible for his initial action.
What's your point?
Yea.... logical consequences of falsehoods are irrelevant. Like the logical consequence of the Earth's atmosphere being poison is the mass genocide for the human race, except maybe a handful of people. Only this "logical conclusion" is based on a false premise and thus, has about zero effect on (or help in describing) reality.
Well, it is a thread about freedom. Have you ever wondered whether or not free will exists? Don't take my word for what view you should take -- I've identified my own view as a belief because I don't know enough about the world to be able to take a logical stance one way or the other. However, I've identified some logical consequences of both views, and neither bodes well for the NAP.
Doesn't bode well for any system of crime and punishment, whether anarchy with NAP, or democracy with a police force. So, either a government with a police force, and people practicing NAP privately don't exist, or there is something wrong with your premise.
When reality contradicts your premise, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the premise. 'Cause, you know, arrows do hit their targets, faster runners do overtake slower ones, and people do make decisions in response to others' actions.
Well, it is a thread about freedom. Have you ever wondered whether or not free will exists? Don't take my word for what view you should take -- I've identified my own view as a belief because I don't know enough about the world to be able to take a logical stance one way or the other. However, I've identified some logical consequences of both views, and neither bodes well for the NAP.
Doesn't bode well for any system of crime and punishment, whether anarchy with NAP, or democracy with a police force. So, either a government with a police force, and people practicing NAP privately don't exist, or there is something wrong with your premise.
The wave function collapse may hint that the world is not that mechanical determined by "outside" influences, and that free will exists.
Maybe we're living as avatars in a simulation, as the world is only being rendered when there is an observer.
Maybe this simulation runs in a technologically high advanced civilization, and they run it because they still haven't figured out economics.
Maybe we're living as avatars in a simulation, as the world is only being rendered when there is an observer.
Maybe this simulation runs in a technologically high advanced civilization, and they run it because they still haven't figured out economics.
Quote
"You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist."
Therefore, in order for my reasoning about the NAP and "free will" to be a fallacy, could you show one such possibility?Free will exists, and people make choices in response to others' actions. And in the words of Rush, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
In the absence of other laws, it would be very important to be very clear about the exact meaning of the NAP. What if one person interprets it differently from another?
It's not exactly unclear... and no matter how you interpret it, the result is the same.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier, but in both free-will and non-free-will world views, it seems that initiation of force and responses to force cannot logically co-exist. It's either one or the other. Thus, a logically consistent and 'correct' interpretation is not possible. Besides, I thought you were a big believer in an objectivist universe -- either free will objectively exists, or it doesn't. Which one is it?
You're playing your word games again. You would not have made your statement if I had not made mine. It is in response to it. To demonstrate, refute the points Holliday will make when he next responds to this thread. But do it before he does.
A word game?! Clearly you're in a state of shock, since you are faced with a choice between 2 opposite philosophical viewpoints, and neither of them allows the NAP to work in the idealistic way that you hoped it would.
Your logical fallacy is...
I note you still haven't refuted Holliday's next post. How come you haven't initiated that action yet?
Let me try this...
I'm sure there are other views and variations of the above, but I think I've covered the two main camps. Neither view allows a government sanctioned legal system to function properly.
If Free Will doesn't exist:
One is forced
to adopt a left-leaning view that all apparently aggressive actions are really a consequence of everything else. All police responses to force are genuine, including merciful 'decisions' that take into account all the unavoidable circumstances, including the fact that force initiated by the government is never really initiated by the ultimate act of free will.
Yeah, it makes just as much sense...
- If you believe that man has free will, then what really counts in terms of aggression is a person's decision on how to act, their inner intentions. Every intrinsically human act is therefore initiatory. Whereas reactions or responses, especially ones that are completely predictable and logical, are indistinguishable from a machine. Machines are "event-driven" and are only capable of responding to external stimuli, based on their sensory inputs: push a button -- something happens in response. If man has free will, there must be something else that cannot be explained by the known laws of physics (or at least Newtonian physics).
- If you believe that man does not have free will, this could suggest a deterministic world where everything that happens is an unavoidable consequence of all the things that occurred before. Taken to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as aggression or initiation of force -- all human activities are forced responses to a complex interplay of sensory inputs, genes, cosmic rays flipping a switch, etc. Even the decision-making process and appearance of free will is just an illusion.
I'm sure there are other views and variations of the above, but I think I've covered the two main camps. Neither view allows a government sanctioned legal system to function properly.
If Free Will doesn't exist:
One is forced
to adopt a left-leaning view that all apparently aggressive actions are really a consequence of everything else. All police responses to force are genuine, including merciful 'decisions' that take into account all the unavoidable circumstances, including the fact that force initiated by the government is never really initiated by the ultimate act of free will.Yeah, it makes just as much sense...
Lol. I laugh at people who don't understand free will vs determinism. I guess you are trying to change his mind about his ability to change his mind and say he is wrong if he doesn't, just like a rock is wrong for rolling down a hill?
You have a choice to respond to this post or not. The fact that you cannot respond to is prior to the post existing doesn't invalidate free will. This is rather a function of events and time.
If you take a group of people and put them in identical environments and then give them a choice of the color chair they want to sit in, there will be some variance in the choice. Again, the option to choose a chair must exist in order for someone to choose a color of chair, but this doesn't mean that they all will have the same choice. These are very separate.
You have a choice to respond to this post or not. The fact that you cannot respond to is prior to the post existing doesn't invalidate free will. This is rather a function of events and time.
If you take a group of people and put them in identical environments and then give them a choice of the color chair they want to sit in, there will be some variance in the choice. Again, the option to choose a chair must exist in order for someone to choose a color of chair, but this doesn't mean that they all will have the same choice. These are very separate.
Here, blablahblah, this philosophy should be right up your alley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
You do so love to "prove" reality wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
You do so love to "prove" reality wrong.
In the absence of other laws, it would be very important to be very clear about the exact meaning of the NAP. What if one person interprets it differently from another?
It's not exactly unclear... and no matter how you interpret it, the result is the same.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier, but in both free-will and non-free-will world views, it seems that initiation of force and responses to force cannot logically co-exist. It's either one or the other. Thus, a logically consistent and 'correct' interpretation is not possible. Besides, I thought you were a big believer in an objectivist universe -- either free will objectively exists, or it doesn't. Which one is it?
On the other hand, maybe only some people have free will, while others don't? This seems plausible, especially if the practical consequences aren't all that significant. However, that would mean that both camps would have correct yet conflicting meanings for 'aggression' and 'initiation of force'. Not a great start for a principle that's supposed to avoid conflict!
You are making up a fake world with very restrictive rules, and then saying that the NAP cannot exist in such a world. I would agree with you. But what you described isn't the real world that we live in, so it's rather irrelevant.
Also, it seems you are implying NAP is some strange scenario where nothing happens while no one messes with each other's stuff, but as soon as someone does, guns go blazing. That's also not how the real world works. If your neighbor messes up your yard or shoves you while passing by you, you don't immediately get into a brawl or call the police, you figure out what happened, why, and what can be done to resolve it. People practice NAP every day of their lives. We just propose extending it to the rest of the government.
In the absence of other laws, it would be very important to be very clear about the exact meaning of the NAP. What if one person interprets it differently from another?
It's not exactly unclear... and no matter how you interpret it, the result is the same.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier, but in both free-will and non-free-will world views, it seems that initiation of force and responses to force cannot logically co-exist. It's either one or the other. Thus, a logically consistent and 'correct' interpretation is not possible. Besides, I thought you were a big believer in an objectivist universe -- either free will objectively exists, or it doesn't. Which one is it?
You're playing your word games again. You would not have made your statement if I had not made mine. It is in response to it. To demonstrate, refute the points Holliday will make when he next responds to this thread. But do it before he does.
In the absence of other laws, it would be very important to be very clear about the exact meaning of the NAP. What if one person interprets it differently from another?
It's not exactly unclear... and no matter how you interpret it, the result is the same.
Humans interact with other humans. There is a sequence of events. If, during these interactions, one of the humans uses force prior to the other, he accepts force as a viable means of interaction and can not complain when force is used upon him.
+1
Ok but *why* does being born into a body constitute legitimate acquisition of that body? Maybe bob believes that bob owns everyones body. Specifically why is your theory right and bobs theory wrong?
I answered that in the example explanation. You have the first, best claim. Bob is wrong because in order to take possession of my body, he would have to expel me."An agreement" it surely cant be this, i have made no such agreement with every person on the planet, which is what would be required for the agreement to be universal.
Well, when you go into a restaurant, you don't explicitly agree to give them money for a delicious burger, and they don't explicitly agree to give you a delicious burger for your money. But when you purchase a burger, and it is not up to your standards, you do go back (or call them, if you've left) and get a better burger, or your money back.
Many of these agreements are exactly this sort of "understood" agreement. It doesn't matter why you respect his right to life, for instance, that you do is sufficient.
"An agreement" it surely cant be this, i have made no such agreement with every person on the planet, which is what would be required for the agreement to be universal.
"By not killing someone, you are acknowledging their right to life, and therefore, your right to life is respected as well." not at all. Imagine that i am with a person who i do not believe has a right to be alive, i may avoid killing him for many reasons, maybe i would go to jail if i killed him or maybe i believe that he could draw his gun faster than i could draw mine and that i do not wish to die. Maybe im a pacifist who would like for someone else to kill him but am unwilling to kill him myself for philosophical reasons.
"By not killing someone, you are acknowledging their right to life, and therefore, your right to life is respected as well." not at all. Imagine that i am with a person who i do not believe has a right to be alive, i may avoid killing him for many reasons, maybe i would go to jail if i killed him or maybe i believe that he could draw his gun faster than i could draw mine and that i do not wish to die. Maybe im a pacifist who would like for someone else to kill him but am unwilling to kill him myself for philosophical reasons.
So, you accept that there are people somewhere on the planet that have the right to take your life? Strange.
Explain how you get to the point where you can be with a "person who you do not believe has a right to be alive", without that person having already forfeited his rights by ignoring the rights of someone else.
What he may be eluding to, is that you only have a right as much as you can defend it with force. The law of nature has some of these elements in it.
If you do decide to check out the machinery of freedom its free on the web.
In fact, here it is... https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_-_David_D_Friedman.epub
If you prefer PDF, I believe I can provide that as well.
i just find debate with other libertarians to be so much more stimulating than with people like firstassent so i nit pick and look for points of contention.
Thank you. I definitely still need that, as I'm still forming my own views on all this.
if you are interested, my favorite libertarian author, an outspoken consequentialist and great alternative to stefan molyneux's deontology is david d friedman. Where stefan will just deflect by saying "technical specifics dont matter" or "try explaining a tractor to people 300 years ago" david will actually lay out technical specifics in laborious detail, david will actually explain the tractor. His book the machinery of freedom single handedly changed me from a minarchist to an anarchist, this being after i had had been listening to stefan for long time.
if you do decide to check out the machinery of freedom its free on the web. the book is broken into 3 parts, i recommend starting with part three and i would ask that you only stick with it for atleast 2 chapters "what is anarchy, what is government" and "police courts and laws on the market" then after that only keep reading if you are hooked =).
Jump to: