>>Anyway, what do *you* think about the change of metaphor? It sure seems
>less intuitively obvious that the woman has initiated coercion, than
>when you think of some curmudgeon fencing in a bit of sod, doesn't it?<
>
>I've found through life experience and through extensive reading of
>philosophy that "coercion" tends to be in the eye of the beholder.
>Those who spin the right rhetoric and grease the right palms in
>regards to their view of coercion get to create things we now
>call "laws". Those of you that own a house or property and are
>sure of your right to keep people out(because of laws,rights,etc.)
>might want to ask a decendant of an American Indian what his
>view on your "property rights" are.
>
Well I don't own a house, but if I did it wouldn't change my belief that
in a lot of cases the land was, in the common definition of theft,
stolen from the American Indians. That is precisely the gist of my
argument.
I don't think coercion is subject to as much doubt as you do. It is
amongst leftists, but that's because they are so confused about it.;-)
Guru George