Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

However, with bullets it becomes a vastly different tool than a hammer or club. The point of guns is to shoot, not hit people with them. Guns are entirely used for killing. That is their only point.

That still does not change the fact that they do nothing without an operator controlling them.

also lol at taking what I said and applying it to major military/social operations instead of, you know, what the actual discussion is about here (single combat, basically).

You cannot invoke our system of governance, and then claim I cannot invoke it as well.

 

[Einherjar86]

You really didnt answer my question. Very "political" answer. Is using violence and/or coercion to purportedly prevent (keywords) violence and coercion ok?

I feel that I answered the question in a manner you often choose: indirectly answering by rephrasing in a context that better suits your needs.

In short, my answer to your question is yes: I believe that using violence/coercion to prevent coercion is okay. Violence, at all times, is reprehensible; but this doesn't make it unnecessary.

However, while you seem to relate the "using violence to prevent violence" retort to state/governmental power, allow me to relate it to the very act of personal defense itself: if a mugger comes up to me and I draw my pistol, that is using coercion to prevent coercion.

How is this different from a police officer witnessing the event and then intervening so as to prevent violence?

As to the tool being inanimate, I don't believe that a gun is an entirely neutral object in an operator's hands. I think, occasionally, guns can cause people to act irrationally (although this by no means happens all the time), and I think this can be attributed to the nature of the object as a firearm.

EDIT:

As a disclaimer, I want to acknowledge the fact that my last statement might appear to contradict with my earlier statement that I don't think guns transform people into unreasonable subjects. I don't think they do, necessarily; but yet, I also partly believe that a subject holding a firearm is more apt to act irrationally than someone holding a knife, or a club. Weapons that require close, intimate contact (and thus more skill to use) will inevitably give a subject reason to pause. A gun, on the other hand, might encourage unwarranted action where rational discussion would suffice.

Perhaps I should retract my earlier claim that guns don't cause people to become unreasonable; but it seems like a rather large leap to say that "guns do cause people to abandon reason." Instead, it seems agreeable (to me) that a middle ground might be something along the lines of: "Guns widen the gap between thought and action, and offer less opportunity to rationally consider other options."

 

[Dak]

I feel that I answered the question in a manner you often choose: indirectly answering by rephrasing in a context that better suits your needs.

In short, my answer to your question is yes: I believe that using violence/coercion to prevent coercion is okay. Violence, at all times, is reprehensible; but this doesn't make it unnecessary.

On this we agree to a point. I do not find violence reprehensible when it must be used as self defense.

However, while you seem to relate the "using violence to prevent violence" retort to state/governmental power, allow me to relate it to the very act of personal defense itself: if a mugger comes up to me and I draw my pistol, that is using coercion to prevent coercion.

How is this different from a police officer witnessing the event and then intervening so as to prevent violence?

We were originally discussing preventing the ownership of firearms to some, based on some arbitrary standard enforced by some arbitrary group. Not either of the situations you just listed.

In the first, you echo a reason for the unobstructed private ownership of firearms. When drawing in self defense, you are acting in self defense, not stooping to the attackers level in acting in aggression; unless you want to take a complete pacifist approach.

In your second scenario, while it is idyllic, and the picture the domestic security forces like to paint to justify their existence, the more accurate picture in recent times is the cop running up and shooting/tazering you.

Regardless, neither of those situations address the original discussion, which was of restricting firearm ownership, which would require "the state", or direct coercion by you to prevent people you deem "unreasonable" from owning them. Although, if you or the state didn't resort to coercion/threat of violence backed by guns, it would be rather pointless to try.

This puts you in the seat of the hypocrite. You support coercion and/or violence against a nonaggressor. This is the same argument made to go into Iraq. "Preemptive strikes". Which are in themselves, criminal.

As to the tool being inanimate, I don't believe that a gun is an entirely neutral object in an operator's hands. I think, occasionally, guns can cause people to act irrationally (although this by no means happens all the time), and I think this can be attributed to the nature of the object as a firearm.

EDIT:

As a disclaimer, I want to acknowledge the fact that my last statement might appear to contradict with my earlier statement that I don't think guns transform people into unreasonable subjects. I don't think they do, necessarily; but yet, I also partly believe that a subject holding a firearm is more apt to act irrationally than someone holding a knife, or a club. Weapons that require close, intimate contact (and thus more skill to use) will inevitably give a subject reason to pause. A gun, on the other hand, might encourage unwarranted action where rational discussion would suffice.

Perhaps I should retract my earlier claim that guns don't cause people to become unreasonable; but it seems like a rather large leap to say that "guns do cause people to abandon reason." Instead, it seems agreeable (to me) that a middle ground might be something along the lines of: "Guns widen the gap between thought and action, and offer less opportunity to rationally consider other options."

Even assuming your conclusion to be true, how does that justify coercion and violence to potentially prevent it from happening in a different situation?

I, of course, disagree with your conclusion, but I consider it irrelevant.

 

[Einherjar86]

On this we agree to a point. I do not find violence reprehensible when it must be used as self defense.

This is a dangerous position, in my opinion. Even violence committed in self-defense should be reprehensible; or, at least, the ramifications and impact of the scenario should not be minimized for the defender's own state of mind.

The argument is similar for torture. Some politicians say that torture is not morally right; but if we're going to do it, we should at least provide some legal grounds for doing so. This is dangerous because it widens the potential for immoral actions. If torture must be done, it should not be legally vindicated; instead, it should be acknowledged that, despite the lack of other options, the action we choose should still be punished. Just because an option is the only one does not make it morally/legally justifiable.

We were originally discussing preventing the ownership of firearms to some, based on some arbitrary standard enforced by some arbitrary group. Not either of the situations you just listed.

In the first, you echo a reason for the unobstructed private ownership of firearms. When drawing in self defense, you are acting in self defense, not stooping to the attackers level in acting in aggression; unless you want to take a complete pacifist approach.

Now you're also attributing an objective qualification to the perspectives of a situation; why should the aggressor's position be objectively "lower" than that of the defender?

Regardless, however, I do sympathize with the defender in this situation; that doesn't mean I condone the act of shooting the aggressor.

In your second scenario, while it is idyllic, and the picture the domestic security forces like to paint to justify their existence, the more accurate picture in recent times is the cop running up and shooting/tazering you.

Regardless, neither of those situations address the original discussion, which was of restricting firearm ownership, which would require "the state", or direct coercion by you to prevent people you deem "unreasonable" from owning them. Although, if you or the state didn't resort to coercion/threat of violence backed by guns, it would be rather pointless to try.

This puts you in the seat of the hypocrite. You support coercion and/or violence against a nonaggressor. This is the same argument made to go into Iraq. "Preemptive strikes". Which are in themselves, criminal.

You're right about the common outcome of a law enforcement officer causing harm to an aggressor, which is why I would like to try and attribute degrees to what you generally term "coercion."

State coercion enacted legally to prevent loss of life (i.e. the passing of bills/laws that prevents gun ownership) is not coercion that results in physical harm done to citizens. If these laws prevent coercion that does result in physical harm (i.e. one person shooting and killing another for his or her money, or the defender shooting and killing the aggressor), then I would qualify state coercion as potentially beneficial.

 

[Dak]

This is a dangerous position, in my opinion. Even violence committed in self-defense should be reprehensible; or, at least, the ramifications and impact of the scenario should not be minimized for the defender's own state of mind.

The argument is similar for torture. Some politicians say that torture is not morally right; but if we're going to do it, we should at least provide some legal grounds for doing so. This is dangerous because it widens the potential for immoral actions. If torture must be done, it should not be legally vindicated; instead, it should be acknowledged that, despite the lack of other options, the action we choose should still be punished. Just because an option is the only one does not make it morally/legally justifiable.

There is a difference between taking an action lightly, and it being "Reprehensible".

Torture is another topic altogether in my mind, any link to "self defense" is tenuous at best.

Now you're also attributing an objective qualification to the perspectives of a situation; why should the aggressor's position be objectively "lower" than that of the defender?

Regardless, however, I do sympathize with the defender in this situation; that doesn't mean I condone the act of shooting the aggressor.

So it is not possible to objectivily determine self defense vs aggression?

You're right about the common outcome of a law enforcement officer causing harm to an aggressor, which is why I would like to try and attribute degrees to what you generally term "coercion."

State coercion enacted legally to prevent loss of life (i.e. the passing of bills/laws that prevents gun ownership) is not coercion that results in physical harm done to citizens. If these laws prevent coercion that does result in physical harm (i.e. one person shooting and killing another for his or her money, or the defender shooting and killing the aggressor), then I would qualify state coercion as potentially beneficial.

Allegedly prevents loss of life.

So in short, this answered my earlier question most directly. You do believe it is ok to coerce others, or seek to coerce others by proxy, backed by threats of violence, to live as you believe is a most beneficial way.

Edit: I would like to point out this puts you at the opposite end of the spectrum from "rational", or rather, one seeking peaceful solutions.

 

[Einherjar86]

There is a difference between taking an action lightly, and it being "Reprehensible".

Torture is another topic altogether in my mind, any link to "self defense" is tenuous at best.

Not at all. Performing torture in order to obtain information that might prevent later harm is similar to the preventative action you spoke of.

So it is not possible to objectivily determine self defense vs aggression?

You were attributing one to a quantitatively "higher" position of virtue than the other.

Allegedly prevents loss of life.

So in short, this answered my earlier question most directly. You do believe it is ok to coerce others, or seek to coerce others by proxy, backed by threats of violence, to live as you believe is a most beneficial way.

Edit: I would like to point out this puts you at the opposite end of the spectrum from "rational", or rather, one seeking peaceful solutions.

Not when your solution does nothing to ensure "peaceful" results.

 

[Dak]

Not at all. Performing torture in order to obtain information that might prevent later harm is similar to the preventative action you spoke of.

At best that would fall under a "preemptive strike".

You were attributing one to a quantitatively "higher" position of virtue than the other.

Yes. So again, you do not believe someone acting in self defense is in a higher position than their attacker?

Not when your solution does nothing to ensure "peaceful" results.

Ah, "ensure peaceful results". Who gets to determine what a "peaceful result" is, and how peaceful is the "ensuring"?

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes. So again, you do not believe someone acting in self defense is in a higher position than their attacker?

They might be in a more sympathetic position; but this doesn't mean we should condone their method of defense if this method constitutes killing the person attacking them. It might be absolutely necessary that they kill their attacker; but it is never necessary to alleviate them of some sense that they did something wrong.

Ah, "ensure peaceful results". Who gets to determine what a "peaceful result" is, and how peaceful is the "ensuring"?

Ah yes, the concern for the social well-being of others, as opposed to the unrestricted options of the solitary subject.

Since you're an anarchist, I can understand why anything that doesn't conform to your own desires can be construed as immoral or unlawful coercion.

However, I don't feel that anarchy is the most successful form of human being and governance (or lack thereof). If we do not choose anarchism, we must begin to make certain concessions. Human liberty is a value to be retained, but it is also a value to be questioned and restricted.

Your argument would be: let that subject be a serial killer if that is his prerogative. All individuals have the right to possess firearms, so they can defend themselves if need be. The serial killer can try and kill, and the rest of us can defend ourselves against him.

But I don't want to defend myself against the serial killer. I want someone else who knows what they're doing take care of it. If that is what I want, why should I have to conform to your reckless mode of non-society?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Not to mention that, under anarchism, we must inevitably take into account that what we now consider to be a public service (police, namely), would end up being essentially "hired guns" under that system.

 

[Dak]

They might be in a more sympathetic position; but this doesn't mean we should condone their method of defense if this method constitutes killing the person attacking them. It might be absolutely necessary that they kill their attacker; but it is never necessary to alleviate them of some sense that they did something wrong.

This is where we differ. I do not consider acts taken in self defense "wrong". Obviously this scales though. If someone bumps me in a store, I cannot claim I was in danger of my life and turn around and stab him 40 times.

Ah yes, the concern for the social well-being of others, as opposed to the unrestricted options of the solitary subject.

Since you're an anarchist, I can understand why anything that doesn't conform to your own desires can be construed as immoral or unlawful coercion.

Typical, but ridiculous strawman. I don't care what you do, just don't force me to do things the way you want. You just described the church, the state, and all their willing subjects.

However, I don't feel that anarchy is the most successful form of human being and governance (or lack thereof). If we do not choose anarchism, we must begin to make certain concessions. Human liberty is a value to be retained, but it is also a value to be questioned and restricted.

Your argument would be: let that subject be a serial killer if that is his prerogative. All individuals have the right to possess firearms, so they can defend themselves if need be. The serial killer can try and kill, and the rest of us can defend ourselves against him.

But I don't want to defend myself against the serial killer. I want someone else who knows what they're doing take care of it. If that is what I want, why should I have to conform to your reckless mode of non-society?

Why not pay someone directly to protect you? Instead of forcing me and everyone else to foot the bill for doing a job you don't feel like doing, or feel you are inadequately trained/equipped for?

Not to mention that, under anarchism, we must inevitably take into account that what we now consider to be a public service (police, namely), would end up being essentially "hired guns" under that system.

Because they do it for free now?

 

[Einherjar86]

Typical, but ridiculous strawman. I don't care what you do, just don't force me to do things the way you want. You just described the church, the state, and all their willing subjects.

I don't see how I just said that; but regardless, as an anarchist you can't deny that, for you, there can only be two structural options: anarchy, or statism. Since you abhor all statism, anarchy can be the only way for you, and it's the only option you'll allow room for.

I honestly applaud you and think it's great that you feel you can operate in such a way of life; but since the majority is going to disagree with most of your more extreme policies, all I have to say is that you're just going to have to live with it. Unfortunately, you do live in a society of others.

Why not pay someone directly to protect you? Instead of forcing me and everyone else to foot the bill for doing a job you don't feel like doing, or feel you are inadequately trained/equipped for?

I don't think that feeling safe is something I should have to pay for. That said, I realize that I am paying for it already; but I think that if a majority shares a common concern for feeling safe, they have the right to opt for a communal tax that covers their safety.

I understand that along with this "safety" comes a degree of unwarranted and wanted side effects, and I completely realize that this idea is not perfect; no theory is. However, I personally feel that this is a more acceptable policy than a "pay-your-own-way/protect-your-own-skin" anarchism that you support.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Because they do it for free now?

But...you're...just wrong dude. They would be sold to the highest bidder in an anarchic commune. It's just silly as hell to think they wouldn't be. Then, guess what would happen. Fucking power structures.

 

[Dak]

I don't see how I just said that; but regardless, as an anarchist you can't deny that, for you, there can only be two structural options: anarchy, or statism. Since you abhor all statism, anarchy can be the only way for you, and it's the only option you'll allow room for.

I honestly applaud you and think it's great that you feel you can operate in such a way of life; but since the majority is going to disagree with most of your more extreme policies, all I have to say is that you're just going to have to live with it. Unfortunately, you do live in a society of others.

I don't see anything "extreme" about any of my views. Unless you want to appeal to either the status quo or the majority, which it appears you are. Nice.

I don't think that feeling safe is something I should have to pay for. That said, I realize that I am paying for it already; but I think that if a majority shares a common concern for feeling safe, they have the right to opt for a communal tax that covers their safety.

I understand that along with this "safety" comes a degree of unwarranted and wanted side effects, and I completely realize that this idea is not perfect; no theory is. However, I personally feel that this is a more acceptable policy than a "pay-your-own-way/protect-your-own-skin" anarchism that you support.

And you see no problem with forcing others to support your desired lifestyle. If this is the case then please merely recognize it for what it is.

@V5: Please explain the process by which the highest bidder would be created in the absence of a state. Defending the need for a power structure because of the potential emergence of power structures is akin to hacking off limbs to prevent getting cancer in them or losing them later. By that line of reasoning, we should have already nuked the rest of the planet before anyone else "got the bomb", because eventually someone else will use it.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see anything "extreme" about any of my views. Unless you want to appeal to either the status quo or the majority, which it appears you are. Nice.

I thought the well-being of others matters to you?

And you see no problem with forcing others to support your desired lifestyle. If this is the case then please merely recognize it for what it is.

I do acknowledge that my idea will inevitably force others to do what they do not want to; but any viable system has to do that when you're dealing with individuals. I want you to accept the fact that your system is not one of absolute freedom and in fact also forces people to do things they do not want to.

@V5: Please explain the process by which the highest bidder would be created in the absence of a state. Defending the need for a power structure because of the potential emergence of power structures is akin to hacking off limbs to prevent getting cancer in them or losing them later. By that line of reasoning, we should have already nuked the rest of the planet before anyone else "got the bomb", because eventually someone else will use it.

There is no natural law that dictates how individuals will evenly divide up the spoils after the hypothetical revolution. One individual luckily happens upon a fertile plot of land, and more of it than his neighbors; he wishes to defend his lot and his life because he feels that others who don't have as much might want some of his. As long as he has valuable products to offer (i.e. crops that are edible, a freshwater pond, I don't care what), he can afford those with personal mercenary skills to offer, and more of them as well. Those who happen into less can't afford those mercenaries, and in fact will most likely go to the man who can afford them and offer their skills to work his land, since it's protected.

From there, you have the workings of a hierarchical and governmental system starting over again.

 

[Dak]

I thought the well-being of others matters to you?

Got any other subjective terms you want to hinge your positions on?

I do acknowledge that my idea will inevitably force others to do what they do not want to; but any viable system has to do that when you're dealing with individuals. I want you to accept the fact that your system is not one of absolute freedom and in fact also forces people to do things they do not want to.

Obviously there cannot be "absolute freedom" unless there was only one person on the earth. But a lack of direct coercion is the closest we can get. I find your assertion that anarchy "forces people to do what they do not want to do" as ridiculous as asserting that self defense is forcing the attacker to do what he does not want to do (and therefore indefensibly coercive), or that freeing plantation slaves "forced people to do what they did not want to do".

There is no natural law that dictates how individuals will evenly divide up the spoils after the hypothetical revolution. One individual luckily happens upon a fertile plot of land, and more of it than his neighbors; he wishes to defend his lot and his life because he feels that others who don't have as much might want some of his. As long as he has valuable products to offer (i.e. crops that are edible, a freshwater pond, I don't care what), he can afford those with personal mercenary skills to offer, and more of them as well. Those who happen into less can't afford those mercenaries, and in fact will most likely go to the man who can afford them and offer their skills to work his land, since it's protected.

From there, you have the workings of a hierarchical and governmental system starting over again.

How, without the state apparatus to grant legal title to a larger land holding than a family can use, and absent homesteading restrictions for all, will there be sufficient economic advantage to become a hired gun or to use one, to the degree that there will be a default state? Currently the state creates an artificial scarcity of resources through bequeathing benefits of title regardless of use. This makes land rent possible, because the owner gets the benefit of state security at a relatively low cost vs providing it himself. The absence of a state would severely restrict the profitability or viability of rent and wage slaving.

So far, the biggest legitimate threat I have seen suggested to an enlightened existence in anarchy would be the persistence of religious power, which is what government originally flowed out of anyway. People accepted the enslavement because the masters declared themselves the representatives of fill_in_the_blank god.

 

[Einherjar86]

I find your assertion that anarchy "forces people to do what they do not want to do" as ridiculous as asserting that self defense is forcing the attacker to do what he does not want to do (and therefore indefensibly coercive), or that freeing plantation slaves "forced people to do what they did not want to do".

Why? Take the simplest example: people have the right to choose an existence under state coercion. By forcing them to live an anarchist existence, you've taken away that right.

How, without the state apparatus to grant legal title to a larger land holding than a family can use, and absent homesteading restrictions for all, will there be sufficient economic advantage to become a hired gun or to use one, to the degree that there will be a default state? Currently the state creates an artificial scarcity of resources through bequeathing benefits of title regardless of use. This makes land rent possible, because the owner gets the benefit of state security at a relatively low cost vs providing it himself. The absence of a state would severely restrict the profitability or viability of rent and wage slaving.

I'm not convinced, Dak. Furthermore, I think your final claim has no realistic or logical grounding whatsoever.

Power struggles are inherent in human existence, and because we are beings capable of civilization, we think of terms of hierarchical power struggles and inevitably incorporate them into our survival strategies.

If government disappeared, it is completely feasible and plausible that a single individual (or group of individuals) can come into possession of a large quantity of something that is considered valuable to the common human being. If this is so, I don't see the absence of any governmental apparatus as being an obstacle to overcome

Is it because a single family can't realistically maintain a plot of land larger than a certain limit? If that is the case, what makes it so improbable that they will band together with other families to harvest a large plot of land to their benefit?

Civilization started somewhere, and it evolved in the interaction of entities that originally had no conception of politics and economics. As soon as you have human interaction on the lowest level you have the seeds of hierarchical power structures. There might be a reset button, but there is no "reset and stagnate" button.

 

[Dak]

Why? Take the simplest example: people have the right to choose an existence under state coercion. By forcing them to live an anarchist existence, you've taken away that right.

If people choose it, then it isn't coercion. You can choose to function in a co-op. Extremely different. The state (in myriad forms) owns every inch of the earth. This makes you a slave by default. You are in debt for existing.

I'm not convinced, Dak. Furthermore, I think your final claim has no realistic or logical grounding whatsoever.

Logic is essentially math. IE A+B=C. You can logically arrive at any conclusion for C, depending on what A+B is, so claiming my conclusion to be illogical would require you to find a fallacy.

"Realistic" is another animal altogether.Every monarchy has claimed any other power claim as unrealistic, etc. etc. What is realistic is determined by many factors.

The realistic possibility of anarchy, as with any other possible societal system, requires consent. Generally gaining consent from the masses requires a mix of propaganda and force. The root of propaganda lies in the intellectual class, which must make up arguments to support the state. Any intelligent statist system quickly puts the leading intellctuals on it's payroll, creating a conflict of interest.

Power struggles are inherent in human existence, and because we are beings capable of civilization, we think of terms of hierarchical power struggles and inevitably incorporate them into our survival strategies.

If government disappeared, it is completely feasible and plausible that a single individual (or group of individuals) can come into possession of a large quantity of something that is considered valuable to the common human being. If this is so, I don't see the absence of any governmental apparatus as being an obstacle to overcome.

I will not argue that various people will attempt to create coercive power structures, but the absence of the state removes their legal monopoly on violence, and removes the obfuscating dialogue concerning the misdeeds of the power structure.

Is it because a single family can't realistically maintain a plot of land larger than a certain limit? If that is the case, what makes it so improbable that they will band together with other families to harvest a large plot of land to their benefit?

This often happens in a co-op, which leaves the option of removing participation.

Civilization started somewhere, and it evolved in the interaction of entities that originally had no conception of politics and economics. As soon as you have human interaction on the lowest level you have the seeds of hierarchical power structures. There might be a reset button, but there is no "reset and stagnate" button.

Ah yes, now the "stagnate/regression" strawman. There is nothing wrong with "hierarchy", when it is consensual. The problem is coercion. "Stagnation/regression" are both, again, subjective terms.

You did not address any of my assertions directly, but attempted to justify the status quo/majority, which is at it's root an appeal to force.

While this may currently be the state of affairs, it is no moral or logical justification.

Edit: Any logical claim for a coercive state would require a logical claim for authority. Appeal to majority, status quo, or force are out. Yet these are the only claims used.

Are you seriously saying that there is no force involved in these scenarios or what? If somebody attacks me and I defend myself, I force him into a state such that he does not harm me. Or does my attacker choose not to harm me when I successfully repel him?

What is your point, that there is no difference between aggression and self defense? Or that they are objectivily equal?

Edit: You already know my argument will be from the standpoint of individual sovereignty. So please address that instead of indirect attacks.

 

[Einherjar86]

Logic is essentially math. IE A+B=C. You can logically arrive at any conclusion for C, depending on what A+B is, so claiming my conclusion to be illogical would require you to find a fallacy.

Oh, that makes sense.

Okay: it is fallacious to claim that the absence of governmental institutions will prevent them from arising (i.e. that anarchy without fail will reproduce itself).

 

[Dak]

Okay: it is fallacious to claim that the absence of governmental institutions will prevent them from arising (i.e. that anarchy without fail will reproduce itself).

Did I make that assertion? Nothing can prevent people from making illegitimate authority claims, or a majority accepting and enforcing the claims through application of coercion, except knowledge.

I am not claiming to know how to get from our current status quo to a position of freedom. All I can do is shine the light/hold up the mirror, and hope that eventually, our slave masters will lose their bought and paid for intellectual support, and then eventually the majority support.

Edit: To be clear: when I say "shine the light/hold up a mirror", I mean to point out the reality that the supporter of any statist apparatus is little more than a glorified gang member. If you are "cool" with that, as an intellectual, then we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[Dak]

No, I'm not saying any of that. You said that you think it's ridiculous to claim that anarchy forces people to do what they do not want to do. In support of your claim you offered two examples: (1) a person defending against an attacker, and (2) the freeing of slaves. You claimed that it would be ridiculous to say that these scenarios involve forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do, and that claiming this of these scenarios would be analogous to the claim about anarchism that was under question. And my question was, How do these scenarios not involve coercion? What exactly are you doing when you physically repel an attacker? What exactly is going on when slavery is legally prohibited? Are we all smiling and shaking hands and making consensual agreements here?

Look, the reason I asked in the first place was, in addition to your argument seeming really odd to me, I already knew that you make a distinction between aggressive and defensive force and countenance the moral acceptability of the latter but not the former. So why exactly is there a need to say that, e.g. defending against an attacker is not forcing anybody to do anything they don't want to do? You don't need to say stuff like that.

I already answered this in stating my position is rooted in individual sovereignty, and requested you address that.