What constituted punishable "harm" is specific to a particular conception of morality.

Libertarian law, for example, is oppressive against people who don't believe a person can morally own land, and thus do not believe it is immoral to "trespass".
Earlier in this thread, someone was suggesting that under AC, it would be appropriate for people to set up automatic weapons to shoot anyone who trespassed onto their property. This seems awfully oppressive to me.

oppressive:

1. burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical: an oppressive king; oppressive laws.
2. causing discomfort by being excessive, intense, elaborate, etc.: oppressive heat.
3. distressing or grievous: oppressive sorrows.

Preventing people from coming on to your property is none of those things. If I believe you're doing something immoral, you're not oppressing me. By that logic, gay people are oppressing Fundamentalist Christians.

If I don't believe you actually own the property, how is is not "unjustly harsh" to shoot me if I come onto it?

Except your belief is closer to you don't believe that I should be able to own the property, or that it's wrong that I own the property.

ACers think the government is immoral, but they don't pretend it doesn't exist and have authority.

In order to oppress someone you have to do something TO them. You're subtly shifting the goalposts from your original

To the shoot someone argument. I would say it's wrong to shoot someone for trespassing, but I don't think you can argue it's oppressive under any standard definition of the word

You believe the state is immoral, and the state is oppressive if is coerces you as a result of not obeying the state.

I believe that property rights are immoral, and thus anyone who coerces me as a result of not obeying property rights is oppressive.

Property rights are just as oppressive toward someone who does not believe they are legitimate as the state is oppressive toward someone who believes the state is not legitimate.

The government is coercive by nature. Everything it does is coercive, even to people that follow all of its rules.

My owning a piece of property is not coercive to anybody. You are free to choose whether to enter my property or not.

You are perverting the meaning of oppression here.

If you believe property rights are immoral then you won't mind if I steall all of your **** and move into your house? By definition, an AC society is one that supports AC principles, so not really sure what your point is. In ACland at least the communists will be able to go start up their own little circle-jerk before realizing living like animals/medieval pesants sucks donkey balls.

Yes, your "owning" a piece of property is coercive.
Ownership gives you permission to forcible keep other people from using or entering that property. It gives you moral authority to coerce. That is all that "ownership" means.
If I am standing on a spot of land, which I believe is unowned (because I don't believe land can be owned), and you yell at me "That's my land...get off or I'll shoot you", are you really claiming you are not coercing me??

Right, AC is not coercive upon people who believe in the legitimacy of AC, but is coercive upon those who don't believe in it.

Just like the state is only coercive upon those who don't believe in the legitimacy of the state. Or sharia law is only coercive upon those who don't believe in the legitimacy of sharia law.

Maybe the moral system of AC is better than statism or better than sharia, and from utilitarian standpoint, one is a more preferable system.
But all three are coercive. Preferring to statism is just saying that it is morally preferable to coerce some people rather than others.

I should also say that someone who doesn't believe in property rights probably wouldn't own a house. But if such a person decided to squat on your land, do you think it would be moral to kick them off? If so, how is this not coercive?

The difference is that under AC, you can have any type of government that you and your peers choose.

Yes, because I do believe in property rights. It is coercive but you are the aggressor in this situation, so there isn't really a conflict.

I am not the "aggressor" if I don't believe in property rights.
You are the aggressor by asserting some sort of right to coerce me in the first place.
From my perspective, how I have done anything coercive or aggressive?

L



O



L

This isn't any different than not paying my taxes then crying foul when the state comes and locks me up. My complaint might seem legitimate to me, but not to society. So talking about how a communist would fare in AC in a proven AC-zone, when they would actually be ALLOWED to go start a commune and govern it however they want, is just a ridiculous attempt to solve a non-issue.

Right...the state and AC are the same in that they are both coercive upon those who do not believe in a specific system of morality.

I suppose a communist could leave AC society if he felt coerced by property right, but an ACist can leave the state if he feels oppressed by the state. The borders of the state oppress the ACist just like the borders of owned land oppress the communist.

But again, in an AC society, you can start your own commune.

How does somebody who doesn't believe in property rights obtain food and shelter other than foraging in the woods and living in caves?

How has any nomadic society survived throughout history?

But you can't start a commune within the boundaries of "property" someone else claims to "own". Just like ACist can't start their society within the boundaries of the state. Both sets of boundaries are only non-coercive to those who already buy into the morality of the society.

If I start a commune on your "property", it is no less coercive for you to say say, "If you don't agree with property rights, you can just leave" than it is for me to say to you "If you don't believe in the state, you can just leave".

LOL

I wish you luck on your quest to wander around, own nothing, and come into conflict with everybody who DOES believe in property rights, regardless of what type of society you're dealing with.

My guess is that a person who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of natural property rights probably wouldn't do this in an AC society. Instead, they would submit to the dominant morality in their daily life for utilitarian reasons, and just complain about how they were being coerced on internet message boards.

It's funny how you started this debate by saying that AC was "oppressive" and then switched to "coercive" when that didn't fly.

You're sliding your definitions of coercion, as well.

In AC, you can only be coerced after taking a positive action - moving on to somebody else's property. Whether you believe property is moral or not, when you live in a society where property rights are paramount, you know that when you move on to property claimed by another, you are risking being "coerced" in to undoing your positive action.

In contrast, in a state, the coercion exists at all times. You need to take a positive action to avoid the coercion (ie, leave).

Do you see the difference? Do you see why one is aggression against a person, and the other is defense? And how the morals of the individual being acted upon have no bearing on the quality of the action?

If you support the state, you are still being coerced. You might feel it's justified, but it is still coercion, because you are taxed at a level decided by the Government, and are forced to abide by the laws they pass, and fund all their activities, regardless of whether you agree with every single one.

Because they are being coerced into owning a computer and having an internet connection?

NO AINEC it simply doesnt charge you extra money for being at fault. the name is just a marketing gimmick.