Yes, someone turns up at your door and forces you to pay your tax, therefore its coercion.

I suppose its possible to look at nearly all, if not all, interactions as exchanges of value, service, or goods. Are you wanting to restrict to a particular set?


Just because you have laid out a framework, and then claimed its force, doesnt make it so. You are free to do that, and make your case, which I dont think you have done ( I guess I may have missed it) . That is, you have asserted that its force, but not why it is force. Force, to me , is physical force or violence, or the credible threat of physical force or violence. It is action, not inaction. refusal to give someone water is not force. If you are going to class that as force, you are going to have to class everything as force, if you refuse to give me money, you are using force. If you refuse to give me a job, you are using force, etc

You're not denying my point, which is good for my position.

You tell me. You're the one trying to establish a definition. You now have two attempts:

1) Economics is also free, uncoerced, interpersonal interaction and relationships. (I don't see the word "also" as being relevant, but I left it there in case you need it for some reason.

2) The study of uncoerced and coerced interactions between people

I have asked you a question about your definition. I want you to tell me what you are using the word "economics" to mean.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a definition of economics to work with. Any reasonable definition will lend itself to the concept of economic forces. Which I think is why you're refusing to give a reasonable definition.

Let's say I build an airtight bubble around you. At this point, I'm no longer actively restraining you inside the bubble. Your restraint within the bubble is purely passive based on past activities.

You won't get fresh air unless you pay me $100. Have I forced you to buy air from me?

Does anything change if someone else built the bubble and now I'm just standing there with the ability to release you but am witholding action? What if I work for the person who built the bubble?

No, this is just bad use of language. Much in the same way that you've gone from saying that "economics doesn't exist" to "everything is economics" you're refusing to allow meaningful labels to be applied by taking an all-or-nothing approach.

Here's another "force" question. Am I "forced" to breathe?

You brought up economics. You said, paraphrasing, economics is a thing, therefore ostracism is force. I wasnt using economics to mean anything.

I am happy with the study of uncoerced and coerced interactions between people as a definition.



I dont get this. You have acted against me personally, its in no way comparable to ostracism. Its the same as putting a gun to someones head, except that it takes longer to kill. The fact that this happened some time in the past seems irrelevant to me. Similar to if I inject you with a poison that kills you in 5 days, its still action, not inaction just because I then sit around for 5 days waiting for you to die.

Yes, in the same way that you have forced $100 from me if you hold a gun to my head.

again, inaction cannot be force. People may think you are an ******* for not helping the guy in the bubble, but they cannot claim you used force against him.

What point?

At least you arent denying that you are forced to pay your taxes.

No one is forcing you to breathe.

Edit: I guess you are going to complain again about the shortness of my answer, or that I am avoiding some question, or that I am not entering into the discussion. I really dont understand how your question fits into the discussion. We are debating whether ostracism is force, no? We are looking at actors, and certain actions, or inactions, and debating wether these actions or inactions are force. How breathing fits into this, I dont know

Then this direction of conversation is literally stupid and unworthy of continuing. You're simply sitting there and declaring you're not intelligent enough to have a meaningful conversation about economics.

How big must the bubble be for this statement to be false? If I wrapped the whole earth in a bubble, would you still consider this to be personal?

What if I injected you with something that will kill you in one year? 100 years?

What if I injected you with something that won't kill you, but it will kill any kids you'll have in the future?

If bubble guy pays the second guy $100, many people would assent to the claim "The second guy forced bubble guy to pay." You may disagree with that, but there's nothing that can be done to convince you otherwise because of your presupposition.

That you are simultaneously acknowledging the existence of the government while trying to deny its existence.

I never tried to do this.

That wasn't the question. Am I "forced" to breathe?

I'm trying to get you to elaborate on your concept of "force" when it comes to "forcing behaviors." I want to see if you're going to define yourself out of this conversation as well.

So far, your concept of force only extends to guns pointing at people's head. Is that the only concept of "force" that you have?

I for one cherish the society where no one is allowed to put you in a concentration camp, and even better: No one needs to help you when you are.

And no, I don't see that example as unfair. Civility doesn't come by itself and there is no evidence to suggest it does. Quote the contrary, the evidence suggest that civility is very hard, very often fails and requires constant vigilance to be upheld. Of course that isn't as exciting as saying "coercion is bad, we shouldn't do it", which gives an easy answer to all of humankind's dilemmas. But that's a bit like saying "murder is bad, we shouldn't do it" - which is probably a bit more helpful than most people think, but pretty far from enough.

The unfortunate truth is that societies where people tend to feel relatively free, live long lives, have a decent standard of living and enjoy a good selection of rights tend to be terribly cumbersome, horribly expensive, frightfully complicated, very much flawed, have plenty of troubles that we have to fix constantly and nobody really seems to have full oversight or all the answers. It's almost as if society is a little bit complex.

"The government" cant come to your house, since its not a thing. People come to your house. These people may believe in a thing called government, they may claim to be acting on the behalf of government, and may be wearing fancy uniforms, but that doesnt make it so.

Ok, lets stop then

Im not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that I would support a country that puts people in concentration camps? is the "you" in "no one needs to help you" a general you, or referring specifically to me?

I'm saying a society without coercion that distinction is ultimately irrelevant. You'd have obligations, but no way to enforce them.

The minute you do make ultimate some way of enforcing obligations, you have made coercive laws.

Right, I think I get you. So you are agreeing with me?

.

Intellectual cowardice: When confronted with the reality that one's intellectual concepts are demonstrably inadequate (such as declaring something like "Economics is the study of P and not P") rather than developing those concepts and corresponding language, one decides that it's enough to remain at the level of ignorance in order to hold and defend presuppositions because stepping away from those presuppositions requires intellectual action.

You didn't even try, and that's embarrassing.

ermmm no. You said

You think this direction of conversation is literally stupid and unworthy of continuing. You are the one that wants to stop, so I was agreeing with you.

If you're saying coercion is necessary for a society to function, then yes.

As far as I am concerned, the only meaningful discussion is about what constitutes acceptable coercion / force. Sort of like declaring sugar to be unacceptable is useless, but a debate on what makes a healthy approach to sugar in your diet is good.

Of course if everyone is nice and jolly, I'm wrong. But they're not. Besides, one man's "nice and jolly" is another man's affront to everything good.

oh right, Im confused then. You want a society that doesnt put people in concentration camps, and doesnt need to help you if you end up in a concentration camp, but you are for societies using coercion?

I dont understand

I'm sure it is very difficult to grasp.

Nuances, after all, makes absolutes difficult to argue. Best avoid them.

I'm still responding to this:

If you really are happy with that definition, then it's a literally stupid conversation to have because the word is meaningless (which is beyond saying that economics doesn't exist -- again, like theological noncognitivism). That you want to affirm this to avoid the conversation is intellectual cowardice. That you didn't even *try* to reason your way to a better definition is embarrassing.

The alternative is that you come up with a more meaningful definition of economics. It's not hard, and there are lots to choose from, even if you don't think it exists. But a "P and not P" type definition isn't going to cut it.

For example, I don't believe that "karma" exists. This doesn't prevent me from accepting a definition of karma that is used by those that do believe it exists, and also granting that there are "karmatic" things that happen (such as reciprocity). But it is an intellectually poor thing for me to say "Well, I don't believe in karma, so here's my definition of it: karma is all the stuff, deserved and undeserved, that happens to people." By doing this, I've not only denied the basic aspects of "karma" but have also created a definition that is pointless. And I've proven myself to be intellectually unwilling (and possibly incapable) of having a meaningful conversation.

It's not hard to have an honest conversation. But I understand why you would avoid it if your position is so fragile as to require you to pretend like you don't know what words mean to avoid it.

Ok, lets rewind




So lets say the definition is

"the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth." ( from google)

how does this support your assertion that ostracism is coercion?

Do you believe that I am forced to breathe by mechanisms that are beyond my control?