No Coercion

Comment from Kelly
Time: January 15, 2008, 5:12 pm

Wow, that quiz wasn’t skewed at all…

Comment from Andrea
Time: January 15, 2008, 5:20 pm

I loved it! The other commenter was just pissed to find out she’s coercive!

Comment from Jeff Martin
Time: January 15, 2008, 5:23 pm

I am 6% coercive.

Kelly has a point, some of the answers were worded so harshly, I wondered if I selected them I would get an electric shock through my mouse.

Comment from Darren
Time: January 15, 2008, 5:34 pm

He he he…well, at the conclusion of the quiz I do point out that I intentionally made it biased to be extra harsh on coercive policy positions.

Comment from VL
Time: January 15, 2008, 5:40 pm

I agree, that quiz was written pretty badly. The “best” answer was mostly a choice between three or four things I disagreed with least

Comment from Darren
Time: January 15, 2008, 6:16 pm

Yeah, that’s life.

Comment from James Jeffers
Time: January 15, 2008, 7:24 pm

“You are 0% coercive.”

That was too easy. But you know, depending on who you ask, I am conservative, a liberal, a pacifist, a gun nut, a racist, an appeaser, a traitor. I am only true to myself and my family. Everything else is coercion.

Comment from Darren
Time: January 15, 2008, 8:25 pm

Yeah, I’ve been called all those things, too. My favorite was being called a traitor by (of all people) a Ron Paul supporter because I oppose the initiation of force against people attempting to enter into a voluntary employer-employee relationship simply because the employee was born on the wrong side of an imaginary political line. Sadly, he was representative of far too many Paul supporters.

Comment from Darren
Time: January 15, 2008, 8:26 pm

By the way, I’ve just been informed that the friggin’ quiz site cut off some of the longer answer options mid-sentence. Sorry about that. Didn’t know there was a character maximum. I’ll have to come up with a new one at some point that uses only short answer options.

Comment from Graphictruth
Time: January 16, 2008, 1:53 pm

Hm. with one “coercive” answer on health care, and a couple of moderate responses, I come up as 36% coercive. I think this needs some re-thinking..

The question that tipped the balance for me was “do I have the right to get health-care for myself (or another person) at gunpoint?”

I thought about it, and realized that I do believe this, pitch AND catch. If I see a critical need, it’s my responsibility to meet it, to the extent that I can, in the most direct way practically and humanly possible. In many cases, this means hollering for help, and as far as I’m concerned, government is justified only as a means to organize and respond to the urgent and legitimate needs of it’s citizens.

I believe that in order for their to be liberty and individual freedom at all, certain things MUST be taken for granted - and one of these is that from time to time, we ARE responsible for the needs of others, in order to be both morally and pragmatically assured that we will be cared for at need - because a free society is one in which people feel safe to take risks.

So I asked myself - would I commit a gun crime in order to ensure that my loved ones were properly cared for in a hospital?

FUCK, yeah. Because anyone that says “no” under these circumstances really needs to be given a chance to rethink their position - or eliminated from society.

And frankly, I’d be proud to serve the required time, as a public service.

Not that I think it’s likely, but as a thought experiment, it is a great illustration of the concept of “natural rights.”

My FIRST natural right is survival - and the right to defend myself against those who would keep me from gaining what I need in order to do that.

Comment from Darren
Time: January 16, 2008, 3:19 pm

Well, you’re right, survival (or rather, not having force initiated against you so as to threaten your survival) is a natural right. And as such, it’s a right that everyone has–not just you. So, if you do something that in any way is an initiation of force against someone else (say, using a gun to force someone to provide medical care for you or a family member), you have just violated that person’s rights. You have used coercion against them, and they are perfectly justified in defending themselves and their property against your aggression. It really doesn’t matter what you personally think of someone who would refuse to provide medical care in an emergency–you still don’t have the right to force them to do it (or to invade or steal their property in order to get the care). Quite simply, if you assume the right to do such a thing, then the very concept of rights is meaningless and you’re plunged into a world where nothing stands in the way of pure violence and coercion and destruction. Follow your position to its logical conclusion. It doesn’t end in a good place.

Comment from James Jeffers
Time: January 17, 2008, 1:28 pm

According to Graphictruth, he’s now totally empowered to use violence to get his way. Never mind that I’m that not responsible for his life, or any medical condition he obtains, he can still try to kill me to get what he needs.

This is the sickness that is slavery. One person has a need, so therefore everyone else, by virtue of being born owes it to provide for that need.

No, bucko, your right to survival ends with your person. No one owes you anything - not food, not clothing, not shelter, and not even medical care.

He said “free society is one in which people feel safe to take risks”. Wrong again.

A free society is one in which people take risks because they think the risks are worth it. Or in which they judge the risks of action and decide against it because another course of action, like not providing for your needs, is worth more.

How many horrors have been committed by people like Graphictruth, who see need as a blank check that can be cashed at any time, at any cost?

Uncle Joe would be proud.

Comment from Darren
Time: January 17, 2008, 11:42 pm

How many horrors have been committed by people like Graphictruth, who see need as a blank check that can be cashed at any time, at any cost?

Exactly. Although I’ll give Bob (Graphictruth) the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just responding emotionally in a moment of weakness and didn’t take the time to consider the logical conclusion of his position.