Ah, I think I see the disconnect now.
A market force is not the same as coercion. Coercion against Tom implies that there was a willfull intent on some person's or group's part to affect Tom, be it directed towards Tom himself or some third party that might hold authority over Tom or is dependent upon Tom. A market force is a collective thing, without a will to cause you harm or gain. Thus a market force is comparable to a force of nature, in that it's not anyone's fault that Tom just got screwed, except maybe for Tom's own poor investment choices.
What Libs & Anarchists oppose isn't the broad, aggragate forces of society, but the individual & collective initial acts of coersion.
A market force is not the same as coercion. Coercion against Tom implies that there was a willfull intent on some person's or group's part to affect Tom, be it directed towards Tom himself or some third party that might hold authority over Tom or is dependent upon Tom. A market force is a collective thing, without a will to cause you harm or gain. Thus a market force is comparable to a force of nature, in that it's not anyone's fault that Tom just got screwed, except maybe for Tom's own poor investment choices.
What Libs & Anarchists oppose isn't the broad, aggragate forces of society, but the individual & collective initial acts of coersion.
Alright, this is an interesting revelation brought about by the arbitrary defintions of libertarians. After I'm done with cash kid, I'll invite you to follow me down the rabbit hole for a second here, one step at a time so everyone can follow sans hyperbole and strawmen.
The faster you can get him to stop throwing out strawmen, the faster we can move on.
In the mean time, please review the defintion of coercion, it will be relevant in later debate. #3 is especially important.
Sure it is. I'm defending my property from you. Since you can't just take my property then you have to make me an offer to get what you want. That's called the free market.
Again:
Quote
In Liberkidland, while I can personally choose not to do drugs, I cannot choose to not live in a society that is tainted by rampant drug use.
While I can choose to carry car insurance on my own car, I cannot choose to not be subjected to roads full of uninsured drivers.
While I can choose to eat healthy, I cannot choose to not be stuck wondering whether the labels on food (if there are any) are false or not because there is no regulatory agency controlling them.
While I can choose not to harm the environment myself, I cannot choose to not live in a world whose environment is being destroyed by unregulated businesses.
While I can choose to not take people to a heavily biased, privately own kangaroo court, I cannot choose to not be at the mercy of others taking me to these courts for frivilous reasons because that is the only legal system in existence.
While I can choose to work hard, I cannot choose to not live in a society of exploited workers and I will be worse off for it.
While I can choose to carry car insurance on my own car, I cannot choose to not be subjected to roads full of uninsured drivers.
While I can choose to eat healthy, I cannot choose to not be stuck wondering whether the labels on food (if there are any) are false or not because there is no regulatory agency controlling them.
While I can choose not to harm the environment myself, I cannot choose to not live in a world whose environment is being destroyed by unregulated businesses.
While I can choose to not take people to a heavily biased, privately own kangaroo court, I cannot choose to not be at the mercy of others taking me to these courts for frivilous reasons because that is the only legal system in existence.
While I can choose to work hard, I cannot choose to not live in a society of exploited workers and I will be worse off for it.
Which of those situations involves you defending your property from me?
