—“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary exchange.” The issue I have with that is that blackmail is coercion by definition, and merely acquiescing to coercion (such as handing the mugger your wallet) doesn’t make it less of a NAP breach. Correct?”–

well, rothbard and block and hoppe disagree with you, because it is in fact a voluntary exchange.

—“It’s not coercion under the nap because you choose it voluntarily. Search for block and rothbard arguments on blackmail. It is not coercive if it’s voluntary.”—

Now, if you study hoppe you’ll find he uses the term ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’ meaning ‘physical things’.

The reason libertarianism is debated (and the reason it’s all bullshit) is because no one can define the scope of property that one can aggress against.

blackmail isn’t against the scope of intersubjectively verifiable property. It’s against reputation.

—“Can we go back to my example with the mugger, which is easier to speak about in an IM format? terms like intersubjectively verifiable property don’t help me with that particular situation”—

ok what’s your example.

—“All those thinkers (whom I respect) aside, my example is the following:
If person A is minding their own business and person B walks up to them with gun in hand and says “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you dead” and person A acquiesces, is that a voluntary choice on the part of person A?”—

Well since nothing is offered in exchange, no.

–“And if person B says “Give me your wallet and I’ll give you a widget. If you do not comply, I will shoot you dead”, is it voluntarily entered into on part of person A then?
(I’m not a NAP or libertarian apologist, I am genuinely curious about Propertarian philosophy and want to understand where it differs from mainstream thought)”—

There is no difference between propertarianism and tort law other than strict construction. Libertarian thought does not correspond to tort law (only jewish law) because the purpose of tort law is to prevent retaliation cycles, and the purpose of libertarian ethics only to justify getting away with scams. (really).

—“I posed a yes-or-no question”—

And what has that to do with anything? Framing a question does not mean you’ve honestly asked one. It means it’s unlikely that you’ve asked one.

(a) voluntary (b) fully informed (truthful), (c) productive, (d) warrantied, transfer (e) free of imposition of costs by externality.

So those are the criteria for reciprocal trade.

In the example you gave, is it a voluntary, fully informed truthful, productive, warrantied, transfer free of externality?
well no, because it’s not productive, and it’s not voluntary.

–“👍 I agree. Can you give me an example of something that can be called blackmail according to tort law that fulfils a,b,c,d, and e?”—

Example: I’m going to tell your religious friends who are considering investing in your business that you had a single gay experience in college that I was privy to, unless you pay me 1000 dollars.

Now does the NAP under intersubjedtively verifiable property tolerate this? yes.

Does it prevent retaliation cycles? No.

—“A and B seem fulfilled, but C, D and E don’t.”—

It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to my head is it?

–“It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to your head. The degree of offence is slighter, but it is an offence nonetheless, both according to tort law and the NAP”—

Thank you for your time, I’ll mull over this

That’s your judgement thou. Because according to Rothbard and block, blackmail is voluntary and they’ve written extensively.

Why? You have the choice to refuse the deal. The guy with a gun to your head isn’t giving yo uthe choice to refuse the deal.

Ergo blackmail is voluntary, and robbery is not.

That’s what you’re missing. A definition of voluntary. Where voluntary merely means choice.

Hence why I work so hard at deflating terminology so that these problems, which are common libertarian sophisms, are not possible.

Most of rothbardian libertarian argument is predicated on this kind of verbal trickery. The imprecision of ideas allowing individuals to substitute their intuitionist definitions, rather than operational existential testiable definitions.

Ie: pilpul: deceit by half truth, suggestion, and substitution.

Hence why you, and many others are so easily fooled. And why am so diligent about suppression of Pilpul.

—“Plpul? Oh like casuistry?”—

“Justification of priors using rhetorical devices.”

Pilpul is the equivalent of numerology and astrology for the interpretation of texts.

Yes, like casuistry. Casuistry = Sophism

The problem is people are highly susceptible to sophisms that depend on moral substitution (using a half truth that allows the audience to substitute his intuitions rather than deduce them from the argument.

—“So what is a justifiable reaction to blackmail within the propertarian paradigm? I’m probably a propertarian who doesn’t know it yet.”—

I don’t use ‘justifiable’ I use empirical. It means “what people do”. People retaliate against blackmail, either legally, violently, or through third parties. But blackmail is one of the most likely ways for getting someone who is not a lover or a relative to kill you.

So propertarianism would say that there is no differece between sticking a gun in your face, and sticking blackmail in your face, and you have your choice of means of restitution and punishment.

–“I see”–