CNN - Columbine lawsuit may go beyond shooters' parents - May 27, 1999
If the government lets the strongman do whatever the hell he wants, then it ceases to be a government and the strongman BECOMES the government.Originally Posted by Blackdog
Ya. I don't know why I let you waste an hour of my time when you just wanted to argue legal semantics over the difference between "coercion" and "extortion," which I couldn't care less about. You've made an excellent contribution to the thread, and have a huge e-penis.Originally Posted by Blackdog
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
This is a form of historical masturbation perpetrated by libertarians.
"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963
Let me put it in slightly more legal terms. Coercion in itself is not a legal wrong. In some circumstances, it is a legal wrong, such as when threatening assault, but that is not because it is coercion. The coercive act must itself be wrongful under some other measure. This begs the question of liability. At least in Australian and English law, which shares some similarities with the US system, vicarious liabilty of third parties for wrongful acts of others is derived from a particular relationship between the wrongful party and the third party; they could be in an employee/employer relationship, for instance. Another example is that of prison officers and prisoners. But the gist is the legal relationship, not the acts or motives of the parties involved.
Now it would make sense to contextualise this. The Hugo Chavez example that you used earlier is invalid because newspaper reporters have no direct relationship to Chavez's regime. Therefore, no duty has been created. Moving away from the law (but using similar logic), a government should not, and does not, take responsibility for the acts of the people it governs, because there is no direct relationship between the acts of the masses and the government itself. Governments simply provide people with a legal (and perhaps moral) framework in which to act. Libertarians identify with this, but believe that this framework should be kept to a minimum in order to maximise the possibilities of individual choice.
And that is why governments do not coerce people by giving them options.
Last edited by Yossarian; 05-24-10 at 02:05 AM.
Thanks for your useless denial and waste of my time as well.
Any victory is better than any defeat.
No Lives Matter
Just to make the point: you guys are getting hung up on the word "coercion" and losing sight of the points every one is trying to make.
Some of them were libertines and belonged to the hellfire club. The Hell-Fire Club, Masonic Deism, Dashwood, Franklin, and the Black Mass
Most of them were deists who evolved from the Renaissance.