Comments for No Coercion

Comment on Obama’s strange definition of rationing by A New Perspective on Rationing. « Destroy The Ring

A New Perspective on Rationing. « Destroy The Ring — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:25:31 +0000

[…] New Perspective on Rationing. Over at No Coercion I find a letter sent to Chief Thug President Obama regarding his idea of rationing. I didn’t know that making people pay for the services they […]

Comment on The absurdity of a right to health care by You do not have a right to health care. « Destroy The Ring

You do not have a right to health care. « Destroy The Ring — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:30:27 +0000

[…] do not have a right to health care. No Coercion posts with the logical results of an idea that people have a right to receive health care. Quite simply, you cannot have a right that requires others to act, only those that require others […]

Comment on Are stateless societies bound to fail? by Darren

Darren — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:43:16 +0000

Thanks, George. Yeah, you made a great point in your recent post about “300 million checks and balances.”

Comment on Are stateless societies bound to fail? by George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:35:33 +0000

Nicely argued. Also, in a stateless society you have millions and individual checks and balances. If one, or three, fail, then no matter, things keep on running anyway.

Comment on The Subjective Happiness Rationale for libertarianism by Darren

Darren — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:39:04 +0000

No matter what your utilitarian ethic, you run into the fundamental fact that no one can determine utility for someone else. Considering the fact that the state is intertwined in everything to some degree, “market failure” is a meaningless term–anything you might call a “market failure” could easily be explained as a “state failure.” And to the extent that negative externalities occur, a state has no better way of determining the proper course of action than the aggregate actions of people interacting voluntarily in mutually beneficial arrangements. As long as the development of property rights (in a voluntary market-based polycentric legal system) is not interfered with by force (i.e. the state), negative externalities will be automatically minimized (within the constraints of current technology), with no possible improvement provided by the alternative of a statist scheme with decisions based on politics and bureaucratic whim instead of individual value judgments.

As for positive externalities, I would point out that no one has a right to an interstate highway or any other such thing. Also, nothing requires eminent domain. If it’s something people truly want, it will still be done on a non-coercive basis but at a potentially higher land acquisition cost that reflects the actual values people assign to such projects.

Comment on Are stateless societies bound to fail? by Good post on DRO’s « Destroy The Ring

Good post on DRO’s « Destroy The Ring — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:33:08 +0000

[…] post on DRO’s Found this over at No Coercion. Are stateless societies bound to fail? It’s part of the basic framework of DRO’s, which I’ve already discussed, but […]

Comment on Anarchic Law by George Donnelly

George Donnelly — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:40:33 +0000

Good stuff! I hadn’t seen him speak before.

Comment on The Subjective Happiness Rationale for libertarianism by Jimmy

Jimmy — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:54:43 +0000

The rule that no one may aggress against anyone else is certainly consistent, but it wholly precludes utilitarian considerations.

Admittedly, horrible things can be (and often are) done in the name of “the common good.” That said, I think you have to entertain a utilitarian ethic to the extent that “market failure” can occur via the private actions of independent agents. It’s a question of rectifying negative externalities (e.g., pollution) and potentially creating positive ones (such as interstate highways which require eminent domain actions).

Comment on Wake County public schools in bed with churches by Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:04:57 +0000

I see no problem with faith based organizations helping schools. They are living out their beliefs by caring for and loving others. The problem comes when instead of helping academics, the faith based organization tries to convert. The organizations are not seeking to convert but to follow “kingdom principles” of helping and serving others. There is no harm in this and it leaves separation of church and state intact. I am a teacher, and I would not turn away help no matter what religion, race, background etc a person comes from (as long as they pass a criminal background check and respect the rights and beliefs of my students.) Just because no other religions have created or joined such an initiative does not mean that they would not be welcome in the public school if they are truly there to serve students (not convert them).

Comment on Are government troops heroic? by livingengine

livingengine — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:06:27 +0000

I do not object to young people criticizing the US Military, but this group is a disgusting cesspool of propaganda that will put your child, or ignorant adult in contact with:
The World Anti-Zionist Congress (whose emblem is a Swastika inside the Star of David)
Hizb-ut-tahir
If Americans Only Knew
Electronic Intifada
PressTV
Lebanese slum lords wailing about being persecuted by the Jewish take over of the US.
and large number of Palestinian supporters some of who name themselves after Mohammed Siddiq Khan.

I have no problem calling this group what it is - a further attempt to delegitimise the US, while offering Islamic ideals as a morally superior alternative.

Free Speech should not protect disingenuous political propaganda directed at children.

Ban Away!