When reality contradicts your premise, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the premise. 'Cause, you know, arrows do hit their targets, faster runners do overtake slower ones, and people do make decisions in response to others' actions.
Given a free-will POV, people can choose to
reply to others' actions and call it a response in the casual sense. However, it is not a "forced reaction" in the sense that a ball bounces back after hitting an obstacle. If a reaction is somehow forced, this implies that there was no choice in the matter.
It seems that you want to have it both ways: enjoying the freedom of having free will, while avoiding the necessary responsibility that goes with it!
Reactions aren't forced. They are chosen and deliberate, and the person choosing to react bears responsibility for his actions, just as the person to whom this reaction is in response to is responsible for his initial action.
What's your point?
That in a world with free will, every human action and so-called 'reaction' is initiatory in nature. Labelling something a
coerced response would be intellectually dishonest and a kind of cognitive dissonance.
I see. so, the rape victim is actually initiating sex with her attacker, huh?
A Libertarian as a reacting party could claim the right to choose to respond in some way, while simultaneously claiming that they were 'forced' and therefore not responsible for their actions.
Ahh. You think that rejecting coercion somehow is an attempt to absolve the coerced of responsibility?
Quite the contrary. In fact, accepting coercion, "Just following orders,"
that's rejecting responsibility for your actions.