> You're making an assumption that doesn't follow from my comment.
Usually when someone makes a comparison to coercion, I assume they're against it.
That seems like a fairer reading than, say, taking a pronoun someone used, changing its meaning, then using scare quotes to signify you know you're misrepresenting their point to dodge their argument.
But let's set aside the mechanics of the discussion.
We've moved the goal posts to: "Sometimes property rights are bad in extreme cases. They're really useful in other cases. The defense of necessity, which allows the use of property to provide shelter or food to people who need it, was a grand idea."
Usually when someone makes a comparison to coercion, I assume they're against it.
That seems like a fairer reading than, say, taking a pronoun someone used, changing its meaning, then using scare quotes to signify you know you're misrepresenting their point to dodge their argument.
But let's set aside the mechanics of the discussion.
We've moved the goal posts to: "Sometimes property rights are bad in extreme cases. They're really useful in other cases. The defense of necessity, which allows the use of property to provide shelter or food to people who need it, was a grand idea."
Sounds like we all agree and can go home.