You dismissed the idea that forceful redistribution of capital is a problem at all because force already exists throughout society. By extension you must be perfectly fine with the other forms of force enumerated.
>Suppose you have a lot of money and I want some. So I hack your bank account and take it, except you don't let me because you call the police who arrest me, or maybe just the threat of arrest deters me. Either way, you are using force to restrict my freedom to take the money lying there in the bank. Now, if you say that you didn't give your consent to my taking the money, and it was I that used force when taking it, then we will get into a very long discussion about what consent means, and I will say that consent or coercion are not binary but a spectrum and a person is almost never at either extreme (as various psychological experiments have shown).
In other words you've perverted the definitions of otherwise very clear words as to make this discussion entirely worthless.
>For ownership to be effective it must be enforced by violence or the threat of violence towards those who want to violate it, hence -- it requires force, and is therefore a restriction on freedom.
I think I understand what you're getting at but I still fail to see how it's relevant. Yes, if I own something and I protect it from theft, I will use violence. But when I previously mentioned force, it was not the reactionary use of violence I was referring to. In theory, I have no problem with the use of violence in reaction to an offense on person or property.
I'm not sure what your comments on restrictions of freedom have to do with the conversation as I have not called for unbridled "freedom."
> By extension you must be perfectly fine with the other forms of force enumerated.
First of all, I'm not "fine" with force, but humans interactions are very often forceful (like I said, freedom is self-contradictory, and implies some force). It's like saying that I'm "fine" with gravity; or hydrogen. Also, not all kinds and measures of force are the same. I don't see why accepting the fact of gravity implies that I'm OK with dropping pianos on people. Maybe I've accepted that a little force is unavoidable or perhaps necessary, but a lot is excessive and bad.
> In other words you've perverted the definitions of otherwise very clear words as to make this discussion entirely worthless.
One of the problems when discussing such things is that we sometimes make arbitrary definitions, which then determine the outcome we want, without taking into account the actual dynamics. So, if we start with "force is bad", and believe that it is bad because, say, it restrict freedom, we can't then arbitrarily define force to be particular uses of it, but we must define it to be all forms of restricting freedom. And how do we know what restricts freedom, i.e. what constitutes force? We need to study human psychology and sociology as it exists in practice. Otherwise, you have to explain why your definition of force is bad while mine isn't.
> it was not the reactionary use of violence I was referring to. In theory, I have no problem with the use of violence in reaction to an offense on person or property
But whether you view it as reactionary or not depends entirely on your pre-conditioning. If you thought all property was shared to begin with, you'd view forcefully holding on to some property as your own as very aggressive and very much non-reactionary.
Imagine that your son decides to stop letting you into his room. He thinks that his room is actually his, while you know that the room is his only in a limited sense. I don't think you'd view his use of force as a reaction, or your incursion as an offense at all.
Similarly, private property could just be a limited form of ownership granted to you by society.
> I'm not sure what your comments on restrictions of freedom have to do with the conversation as I have not called for unbridled "freedom."
Well, when discussing values you have to define them. You implied that you view the use of force as bad, but "no force" isn't a value. I assumed you believe it is bad because it restricts freedom. If you have other reasons to exclude force, please state them and explain why they only apply to your definition of force.
You dismissed the idea that forceful redistribution of capital is a problem at all because force already exists throughout society. By extension you must be perfectly fine with the other forms of force enumerated.
>Suppose you have a lot of money and I want some. So I hack your bank account and take it, except you don't let me because you call the police who arrest me, or maybe just the threat of arrest deters me. Either way, you are using force to restrict my freedom to take the money lying there in the bank. Now, if you say that you didn't give your consent to my taking the money, and it was I that used force when taking it, then we will get into a very long discussion about what consent means, and I will say that consent or coercion are not binary but a spectrum and a person is almost never at either extreme (as various psychological experiments have shown).
In other words you've perverted the definitions of otherwise very clear words as to make this discussion entirely worthless.
>For ownership to be effective it must be enforced by violence or the threat of violence towards those who want to violate it, hence -- it requires force, and is therefore a restriction on freedom.
I think I understand what you're getting at but I still fail to see how it's relevant. Yes, if I own something and I protect it from theft, I will use violence. But when I previously mentioned force, it was not the reactionary use of violence I was referring to. In theory, I have no problem with the use of violence in reaction to an offense on person or property.
I'm not sure what your comments on restrictions of freedom have to do with the conversation as I have not called for unbridled "freedom."