Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by GodTom, Dec 8, 2017.
You advocate the initiation of aggression against peaceful people. I consider that icky and mean.
No I don't. I advocate post-Hayekian socialism. I consider your comments to be childish
So you advocate the initiation of violence against peaceful people.
How else would you implement your post-Heyekain socialism?
Post Hayekian socialism refers to the importance of protecting property rights and economic choice. I do appreciate, mind you, that those notions aren't really understood by fake libertarians
Excellent. So you are in favor of protecting property rights. Me too. Looks like we're on the same page.
Again we are not. I adopt a libertarian perspective genuinely focused on delivering economic choice. You do not. You are happy, for example, for economic rents based on labour market coercion to continue.
I'm not in favor of any coercion. So you're wrong.
So it sounds like we're not on the same page. You are in favor of the initiation of aggression against peaceful people?
You adopt the standard approach by fake libertarians: ignore the coercion that the pressure groups, funded by the rich, tell them to ignore.
I'm actually opposed to coercion. If you were to show me an example, I'm sure we'd agree that it's wrong.
It does appear that you are in favor of using aggression against your fellow man
You continue to write unsupported tosh.
do you mean when a basketball player gets $20 million year?
Coercion- the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
In what world does this fit the definition of coercion?
To be fair, right wingers to this too.
Ahh...that's cute. Someone read that indipid pablum by Burczak and actually takes it seriously...
libcommies can always find new things that ought to be free to some and paid for by others. How can a person avail themselves of a free education without, firstly, good food, clothing, shelter, transportation, vacations, medical care, and child care for their kids. And what good is a free education unless unless it is a top quality free education on a beautiful campus?
Wheel out the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" cliche. Neatly advertises a failure to understand the definition of a public good...
Wanna play with words? In my dictionary, the word means this:
One does not need necessarily apply force to compel people to do something.
Nobody "forces" YOU to work for less than the minimum-wage except the necessity to feed your kids.
You think you are not being coerced when the law does not forbid anyone to pay less than the minimum wage for work performed?
I do ...
When you come back to earth (from orbit), maybe we can have a cogent exchange of opinion.
This is a debate-forum, not a message board for exchanging one-liner sarcasm.
Some people need absolutely to have the last word, to salve their ego.
So, over and out ...
Correct. You are not being forced to work for less than minimum wage.
When I do so, it is my choice.
I may feel myself to be a victim of poor circumstance when I choose to do so, but my employer neither physically forces me too, nor threatens to do so.
Since they are typically old ladies and the like who quite frankly couldn't pay minimum wage without starving themselves.
Slavery is when you are being forced.
You know? A guy with a whip?
Someone beating you.
A guy with a gun held at you or your family. That sort of thing.
So coercion need either force or the threat of force, the inherent threat of starvation, homelessness or poverty, that is not an act of coercion.
No violence and no threat of violence is used against you.
A distinction without a difference.
Again I will ask: how does this fall under the definition of coercion? An act of coercion still requires a positive action (not force, as defined) by an actor, specifically those undertaking the coercion.
And before you go there, the market place can not coerce as it is not a person.
Separate names with a comma.