What's wrong with "coercion" as defined by Libertarians?

Where do you go off assuming they'll suddenly become functional members of society if its suddenly legal?

The only thing that would change if the venue of where they can acquire their addiction.

Sure we might get rid of the drug dealer problem (Doubt it) but its not gonna affect junkies in anyway.

edited 29th May '11 4:08:37 PM by Thorn14

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there or posted something that didn't clarify what I meant very well. I am against heroin and coke being legal because of how addictive they are. They are horrifically addictive, and it would be great if someone could maintain a heroin addiction while holding down a job to support it, but I find it highly improbable that most addicts would be able to. They need help, not cheaper product. Make it legal to use heroin but not legal to sell it, is my opinion.

And while the libertarian attitude about drugs is an interesting topic, its only barely related to the topic of the topic.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Maybe Authoritarianism was a bad term; I wasn't quite sure what term to use. Anyway that is the viewpoint I most commonly see in opposition to Libertarianism: that the government is justified in forcing people to do things as long as it deems it to be for the "greater good".

Well, start with the basics: I own my body and my mind. It would be coercion for someone to try to control my body (for example by making me a slave, or murdering me), or for someone to try to control my mind (for example by threatening to kill me if I did not stop practicing my religion). To prevent this, we need police and military.

By extension, it is coercion for someone to take to products of your body and mind without your consent. So, if I make a chair, that chair is mine. If I compose a piece of music, that music is also mine. If someone were to use my chair or my music without my agreement (which I would only grant if offered something good enough in return), then that would be like coercing me to use my resources to benefit them. To prevent this, we need criminal law and copyright/patent law.

Now for society to function, it must be possible for people to exchange benefits with each other with confidence of receiving something in return. To allow this, we need contract law and civil law, which will ensure that people deliver on promises they make.

Thus, from the concept of preventing coercion comes all government, from a libertarian point of view.

edited 29th May '11 7:03:01 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

Copyrights are not an essential part of libertarianism: Many on the libertarian spectrum oppose them.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Indeed, copyrights seem to be an incredibly divisive issue, even among libertarian types. The whole "how can you steal an idea?" thing.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

That is true. I don't agree, but even if you do it doesn't change what government's role is, only whether intellectual property falls within that role.

<><

I'm an anarchist because ALL governments, to some degree, infringe on the rights and freedoms of their citizens and meddle with stuff that ain't none of their business.

They've been given ample time to prove they're capable of not doing it. They failed 100% of the time: It's unreasonable to expect them to do otherwise. Therefore, people's freedom can only be restored to its rightful state by abolishing government.

edited 29th May '11 7:21:08 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

That doesn't work. Period.

There is no possible set of conditions*

under which abolishing government would not almost immediately result in government being reestablished, and in most cases it would be a worse government than we currently have.

<><

Before I launch into an appropriate metaphor, I would like to know your proof that all governments are going to infringe upon the rights of its citizens without fail and that it is impossible to reform them...

edited 29th May '11 7:35:26 PM by Enkufka

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Start reading here.

<><

Yes, because that is perfectly helpful. I'm not asking for the complete history of the world. I'm asking directly for his proof that governmentless would always be better than government.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

It's a moot point, since "governmentless" is not a state which can exist. It's like asking whether it would be better if cubes only had 5 faces.

<><

And he's calling for government to be abolished, though you are right that its impossible not to have some form of government.

And now I'm leaving this topic for good. Same/similar arguments, rehashed.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

so you're worried about governments inevitably imposing, well, guess what, it's the human beings that are responsible, and oh wait, without governments, we'll still have humans.

So...either way it is inevitable that such imposition will happen.

While I don't think Edwards worded it well, I do agree that any sufficiently large group of humans will form something that could be defined as a "government." This may not be a formal government, and it may not have written laws, but if all else fails, etiquette will fill in the rest.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I always believed simply abolishing everything is the same as rage-quitting. No progress whatsoever.