See, the mistake you are making is that you think that "Initiation" is part of the definition of the word "Coercion". It is not. The definition of the word "Coercion" includes threats of non-Initiatory Force. The concept of "Initiation" does not appear in the definition of the word "Coercion". That is why libertarians use the term "INITIATION OF FORCE". It is purely a semantic problem of course, but it is annoying to have people use words in non-standard ways. The whole point of inventing words was to Communicate.
How do we get the bank robber into the patrol car without Coercion? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Curt Howland <curt.howl...@...> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > At 01:44 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote: > > >"If you do not get off my lawn I will shoot you." > > >"Rape me and I'll kill you." > > >Both of these are Coercion by Intimidation. But > > >neither of them is an Initiation of Force, or > > >even a Threat of Initiation of Force. > > Neither is coercion. They are both self defense. > > The coercive individuals are the rapist and the trespasser. Those are > the ones who had to INITIATE their abuse of private property. > > I'm glad I only saw Wraith's response to this idiot. My email filter > must be working nicely. > > Curt- > > > - -- > The Magistrate, enrobed in taxes, condemns the thief in stolen rags. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEVAwUBSoSAXy9Y35yItIgBAQJa6wf+P5HNqqECJdhgGJnR15KCYGCTI0pbHVNg > Byi1VuT6RrqUlaj656m/3oQ5VyAlkvBwNQ75qp/MMupLNSmrYfMfp4XnR6nOB4Ss > RlgVjIepcVo6y6C8TCyf9/+LHN/kddOLqZKUFJqN4lQ4QFmizS//JgJxNsCaHCZR > 21JGSPoMU+G3/tbzVAzJMwaX+qMptfFV7Dizzah5VWwDwwcWCEZoCpzEMnybOYU0 > UuBhx9hRBaMZPKMkwmcabJvJFLcyzILdMpv7gLWi5910QuASiZjVUXIsVble22cs > 5918jJlxDRuByVjIpgAmyeqaZVGPLebx4ATXjFsX2cvdm7pU6FseXA== > =PCgu > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
