This is relevant:

http://ncase.me/polygons/

this seems to be assuming that bias is bad and diversity is good

Ostracism, ie refusal to interact, is not force.

Regardless of how you interpret "good" and "bad" it shows how small differences in assumptions have large scale impacts.

But for the purposes here, let's assume that there's an initial wealth disparity. This type of simulation demonstrates how that wealth disparity can also be perpetuated not by the accumulation of a lot of small scale decisions. You can extrapolate this to things like city planning, zoning decisions, and so forth.

All I need for it to show is that small decisions made by many people can have large scale impacts.

You can say that for some situations. However, when it comes to economics, it's simply not true.

economics is also free, uncoerced, interpersonal interaction and relationships. There is no moral responsibility or any other type of burden on me to provide anything to anyone ( except perhaps my children)

Except that it's not.

This is an assumption of morality that's not shared. Also, it's against the law. (Regardless of whether you agree with the laws.)

Do you believe that slavery was a player in the economics in US history?

Do you believe that slavery was done in a "free" and "uncoerced" manner?

what i mean is, there is no such thing as economics. There are uncoerced, and coerced, interactions between people

No, of course not.

You can say that, but that's just playing a definition game, still. By this definition, you would have a hard time explaining "government."

I don't deny this. P and not P is always true. But your sense of coercion is probably lacking. Am I coerced into paying taxes, or is that an uncoerced behavior? Also, am I interacting with the IRS, or just the person who handles my paperwork?

Yes you are coerced into paying your taxes. You cant interact with the IRS, as its not a thing.

Are you anti-coercion? If not, when is coercion allowed?

Also, who is coercing me into paying my taxes?

I am against coercion by physical force or threat of. So holding a gun to your head is coercion. refusing to interact with someone is not coercion

I dont know who exactly is coercing you. But stop paying, and refuse to pay, and see who turns up at your door with guns

Let's say you've got access to water and I don't. You will refuse to interact with me until I meet your demands. Is that coercive?

One thing I kind of enjoy about these types of conversations with people who hold this particular point of view is how strongly they like to assert things, but then how quickly things unravel when they're challenged on it. This is a BS answer. And there's an obvious reason why you need to answer in short sentences. Any type of elaboration only shows how weak of a position you've created. So you'll stick with the talking points.

Here's the bottom line truth because I don't know if I have enough patience to walk you through this any further. Your model sucks because it doesn't correspond to reality. You're welcome to imagine the world however you choose to imagine it. You're free to describe it with the words that you choose. But until you are able to demonstrate something useful about your model, I have no reason to engage with it.

Your model of coercion sucks. This example is a checkmate, whether you accept it or not.

It depends what you mean by "access" to water. I guess you are going to come up with all sorts of lifeboat scenarios. Lets say I have a water bottle full of water. I am under no obligation to give you any of it



Im not sure what you are saying? That you wont be forced to pay taxes?

I'm saying that it's obvious you're taking the cheap way out when you say "I dont know who exactly is coercing you. But stop paying, and refuse to pay, and see who turns up at your door with guns." The reason it's a cheap answer is because it's clear you're trying to have to both ways. Government doesn't exist, but "someone" will be coming to the door.

Your model just plain sucks if you have to do that.

Indeed. That's how society begins. At what point are you responsible for something/someone other than yourself?

Who owns the responsibility for assigning obligation?

Mereological nihilism strikes again.

It's interesting to me that you didn't lead with "there is no such thing as economics." My intuition suggests that this is because your position has not been thought out very carefully, and you're kind of exploring it on the fly on the basis of particular presuppositions that you are choosing to hold and work with.

I don't think that's a bad thing, but I would suggest that even if you think "economics" doesn't exist, whatever collection of interactions that lead to the thing that bears the name of the phenomenon recognized by others is not something that consists of "free, uncoerced, interpersonal interaction and relationships." That's clearly a false description of the human behaviors that lead to the illusion of economic activity.

What? Are you saying that no one will turn up at your door?

I can decide or choose to help someone. But I am under no obligation to. I am not sure what you mean by "who owns the responsibility". Does owning the responsibility for assigning obligation allow you to coerce people?

Thats fair enough, we can call the study of uncoerced and coerced interactions between people , economics. that doesnt make ostracism the use of force.

That's exactly the point. Government doesn't exist, but someone is going to show up at the door. You are stuck in a position where even if you claim the government doesn't exist, there are still things that happen.

So I really don't care if your ontological perspective doesn't allow you to directly acknowledge the existence of things like government or economics, you're still functionally operating as though they do exist.

Just like with everything so far, it's a definition game. I don't care whether you think this or that is or is not a hate crime. All I need to do is shift the language the talk about specific behaviors, and then the point is made.

All of the obfuscation by definition can be (and has been) replaced by specific behaviors, and you're either accepting the data or rejecting it. There's not really a discussion/debate.

And this is where I think you're wrong on a moral level, and you're wrong on a functional level.

Indeed. That's the question that's at the root of society. What obligations do people within a society have for each other, and who makes the rules?

It's also a total side-track from the question of whether you're willing to acknowledge the facts about the behaviors that are often labeled as "hate crimes" which you're now completely avoiding. You're also looking down the barrel of the nature of systemic racism but have not responded to those posts, either.

Under this definition, what interactions fall *outside* the category of economics?

You are welcome to believe what you want. I have already laid out a framework in which it's understood to be a force. You have not responded to it. I'm content to believe that you're merely dodging the question.

I feel in some ways that this conversation is moving much like a conversation with a theological noncognitivist. All you're doing is sitting there and trying to deny the conversation is even happening.

Once you accept anything remotely resembling the usual concept of economics, it's logically necessary to accept that there's such a thing as economic forces. So your only pathway to avoid that acknowledgement is to deny the existence of economics. And that's how you end up with both of the horrendous definitions you've put forward.

It's an intellectually weak pathway to follow because it renders language moot rather than facing up to the challenge of what's being presented.