Some objections to AC

[JMAnon]

Hi ACers,

I made some objections to anarchy in the long thread, but they got lost in the torrent of comments. I am interested in your responses, however, so I thought I would try again in a new thread. I will be out of town on business for the next few days, so I probably won't have time to respond to your points, but I promise I will read them all when I get home Wedenesday or Thursday. Here goes.

One problem I see with AC is that the theory ignores collective-action problems (i.e. free riders). For example, imagine a cat burglar is breaking into homes in a community. The victims don't have much incentive to spend money to catch the criminal -- they have already been robbed. They will realize that there is very little chance of them recovering stolen valuables, and there is little personal benefit in seeing the thief caught. Spending money to catch the thief is the equivalent of chasing sunk costs.

What about the remainder of the community that has yet to be robbed? Each will have an incentive to let his neighbors foot the bill for catching the thief. Although it is in the best interest of everyone to catch the thief, no one person's individual interest likely will be enough to inspire him to pay to apprehend the burglar. If a group gets together to fund the criminal's apprehension, all non-members in the community get a free ride on the group's expenditures. Eventually, the group will resent the free-riders (i.e., realize they are paying more than their share of the costs of criminal law enforcement) and will stop paying to catch burglars. Each community member will then be forced to spend an inefficient amount of resources burglar-proofing his home, when a collective solution would be preferable.

Having a government compel all residents of the community to fund the mechanism for catching burglars is a good solution to this free rider problem.

A second problem I see involves powerless (i.e., poor) victims of crime. For example, who prevents child abuse and child neglect in an AC world? No one would have an economic incentive to spend money to prevent degenerate parents from making child porn with their kids. The children themselves will have little or no resources. Similarly, what prevents a wealthy capitalist from raping a peasant girl? Must the poor depend on magnanimous industrialists (i.e., voluntary charity) to watch out for their interests? If so, that is not a solution I like.

A third problem I see (mentioned by someone else in the long thread) is pollution externalities. What would prevent businesses from polluting the air whenever doing so made for a cheaper manufacturing process? A polluting business does not internalize the full cost of its pollution, but it retains the full benefits. Only polluters could compete, unless consumers would be willing to pay a premium for goods of non-polluters (highly unlikely).

When I posted some of these concerns, Borodog responded
[ QUOTE ]

Two words: Insurance companes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how the incentives of insurance companies will be different than those of the individuals in my cat-burglar example unless there are only a very few insurance companies in the market. If the insurance industry was sufficiently concentrated, I suppose it could sufficiently self-police to prevent free riding by its member insurance companies, but this is unlikely in a totally unregulated insurance market in my view.

In other words, imagine the burglar robs a series of insured houses. If only one insurance company spends resources apprehending the robber, its competitors will be able to offer cheaper premiums to their clients. Absent some sort of cartel arrangement, complete with proportional reimbursement for apprehension costs, each insurance company will have an incentive to free ride. If the insurance companies all collaborate, however, the "free" market for insurance is eliminated and "premiums" will end up being the functional equivalent of taxes when the insurers inevitably conspire to fix prices as well. I don't think you envision anarchy as rule by an insurance cartel.

The arguments seem to rest on a faulty factual premise as well, i.e., the collectibility of judgments. Most thieves are broke. What good is a "judgment" in favor of the insurance company against a deadbeat who robbed my house? Insurance companies, like individuals have no incentive to expend resources pursuing the thief unless they expect to be able to collect a judgment obtained against the thief.

This solution also seems to focus on restitution of losses from crime, while ignoring the deterrence and incapacitation functions of the criminal justice system. In other words, insurance companies have no incentive to jail thieves indefinitely to protect all of society or to punish criminals for the sake of deterrence. The more an insurance company needs to pay to jail thieves, the more expensive its premiums will be. Again, absent a cartel, there is no reason for insurers to pay for collective crime prevention.

The article linked to by Borodog puts much faith in the cartel-like qualities of the insurance industry. As you ACers are fond of arguing (and as is almost certainly true in the modern insurance industry), the only reason the insurance industry exhibits so many charateristics of a cartel is because of extensive governmental regulation. If you scrap that regulation along with the police, the insurance industry could never maintain its cohesion; but that cohesion is necessary to avoid collective-action problems. Moreover, as I noted above, these very cartel qualities would result in price fixing and cooperation among the insurers (essentially we would have the equivalent of one massive insurance company) until premiums became the functional equivalent of taxes.

Finally, I don't see how insurance companies respond to my concerns about powerless victims of crime, such as children, or pollution externalities.

[hmkpoker]

All of these problems assume, however, that AC is going to be implemented in today's society. AC cannot exist yet, because there are not enough resources to ensure competition within all private sectors, and more importantly, not enough resources to lower people's time preferences to the point where the state is no longer necessary.

AC is not accomplished through people privatizing the police. Society is obviously not ready for that. At our current state of society, that does not incentivize productivity. It is like trying to set up indoor plumbing in a world with stone age technology. It's clearly impossible at that point in time, but it's also obviously incorrect that it's not useful or desireable. It's also foolish to believe that it will always be the desired norm (what if technology one day provides a superior method of utility distribution?).

Statism is and was useful for a period of time in social and technological development. The ACers are arguing that eventually it will no longer be useful.

[DougShrapnel]

I would like to add my odj.

1. There is no way to force people to pay for services which they use but don't want to pay for. If there is a way to do such, then it's just governmnet under a different name.
2. AC takes little concern over "correctness". For instance a Totalitarian regime under a perfectly correct dictator would be perfectly fine.
3. AC doesn't really improve over democracy but instead replaces the power elite with a different power elite.
4. AC places money above EVERYTHING.
5. AC exchanges fincial equlaity for political equlaity artificially.
6. AC claims effiecentcy = correctness.
7. AC is most likely a step backwards and not forwards.

[BCPVP]

An interesting article on "free riding" from an AC/libertarian perspective (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_6.pdf)

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no way to force people to pay for services which they use but don't want to pay for.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh...don't provide that service to them?

[ QUOTE ]
2. AC takes little concern over "correctness". For instance a Totalitarian regime under a perfectly correct dictator would be perfectly fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? I guess if that dictator wasn't forcing people to do stuff, then yeah, but dictators rule by force and coercion as well. Thus they would not be "perfectly fine".

[ QUOTE ]
3. AC doesn't really improve over democracy but instead replaces the power elite with a different power elite.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your objection is that the status quo is maintained? Kinda weak, man.

[ QUOTE ]
4. AC places money above EVERYTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it places freedom from coercion above everything.

[ QUOTE ]
5. AC exchanges fincial equlaity for political equlaity artificially.

[/ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how.

[ QUOTE ]
6. AC claims effiecentcy = correctness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where?

[ QUOTE ]
7. AC is most likely a step backwards and not forwards.

[/ QUOTE ]
If AC were to come about, time prefrences would be much lower and production and capital much higher. The state would not be necessary, making AC a step forward. Remaining in a state when it was unneeded would be stagnation.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting article on "free riding" from an AC/libertarian perspective (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_6.pdf)

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no quarrel with the main points of the article (i.e., that free-rider problems only exist for public goods and there aren't many public goods). But crime prevention meets the definition of a public good. The benefits accrue to all when a criminal is jailed. In other words, a criminal cannot commit more crimes while incarcerated, regardless of who pays for the jail.

Collective defense is another public good. Invaders don't pick and choose which houses to attack. We cannot realistically say, "let the Canadians have Iowa because Iowans not paying their share of the defense costs." If Canada invades, we must defend against the invasion. We cannot selectively defend only those individuals that pay for a portion of the costs or the whole effort will fail. Defending the invasion benefits everyone.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh...don't provide that service to them?


[/ QUOTE ] I'm surprised that you think this is so easy. It's not really the problem of freeloading, but it goes beyond it.

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? I guess if that dictator wasn't forcing people to do stuff, then yeah, but dictators rule by force and coercion as well. Thus they would not be "perfectly fine".



[/ QUOTE ] The type of "government" (ac included) is really only considered after the fact of who is in charge. It would be perfectly fine, because you would be in the wrong everytime, and every court/arbiter would agree with the dictator.

[ QUOTE ]
So your objection is that the status quo is maintained?

[/ QUOTE ] My objection is it doesn't make improvements in alot of cases only mantains the status quo. Some cases i think there is an improvement under AC but not ALL.

[ QUOTE ]
No, it places freedom from coercion above everything.


[/ QUOTE ] Are you saying the market isnt' coercive?

[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how.


[/ QUOTE ] Could be my misguided notion of AC.

[ QUOTE ]
Where?


[/ QUOTE ] Everywhere! I don't understand how you don't see that.

[ QUOTE ]
If AC were to come about, time prefrences would be much lower and production and capital much higher. The state would not be necessary, making AC a step forward. Remaining in a state when it was unneeded would be stagnation.

[/ QUOTE ] The state being unneeded is unproven. It's a guess and a guess that my limited education on the subject cannot support. How much capital well be spent on educated people like me? It's a very ineffiecent system in this regard, because the realization of return is long term and minimal.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But crime prevention meets the definition of a public good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the state prevents crime so this isn't a great argument against AC. If you mean crime investigation, then I think the private market offers alternatives now (private investigators). So crime investigation can not be considered a public good.

[ QUOTE ]
The benefits accrue to all when a criminal is jailed. In other words, a criminal cannot commit more crimes while incarcerated, regardless of who pays for the jail.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about what would be done with convicted criminals, there's some discussion amongst ACers as to how that would work. I'm not sure on the details of such ideas so I'll let others elaborate on that.

[ QUOTE ]
Collective defense is another public good. Invaders don't pick and choose which houses to attack. We cannot realistically say, let the Canadians have Iowa because Iowans not paying their share of the defense costs. If Canada invades, we must defend against the invasion. We cannot selectively defend only those individuals that pay for a portion of the costs or the whole effort will fail. Defending the invasion benefits everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Private defense can be provided. I've linked to The Myth of National Defense enough times in this thread. Also consider this: people with much to lose by being invaded will likely invest much to keep that from happening. Obviously the poor don't have much to lose or invest, but the middle class and rich have a lot to lose. That means there's demand for defense and that it would likely be provided. There would also likely be other consequences for not helping in time of invasion such as ostracism of that person, both socially and finacially.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the state prevents crime so this isn't a great argument against AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly don't believe that when the government catches a burglar, rapist or serial killer and imprisons him, it prevents recidivous crimes? You don't believe that the threat of being imprisoned by the government prevents crime? If so, your beliefs seem highly unreasonable.

[ QUOTE ]

I've linked to The Myth of National Defense enough times in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I've pointed out what I believe to be the biggest flaw in the article in my OP. Now defend it. Sure there would be demand for collective defense, but that wouldn't prevent free riding.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised that you think this is so easy. It's not really the problem of freeloading, but it goes beyond it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you give examples? Your original point was confusing.

[ QUOTE ]
The type of "government" (ac included) is really only considered after the fact of who is in charge. It would be perfectly fine, because you would be in the wrong everytime, and every court/arbiter would agree with the dictator.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, now I'm even more confused. What would be "perfectly fine" with having a dictatorship and what does that have to do with AC?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying the market isnt' coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]
When ACers use the term coercion, they usually mean initiation of coercion. Walking up to someone and sticking a gun in their face and telling them to give you all their money is initiating coercion, but defending yourself against that attacker is not. Make sense?

[ QUOTE ]
Could be my misguided notion of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not an uncommon thing. You're talking to a guy who used to be making a lot of the same arguments against AC.

[ QUOTE ]
Everywhere! I don't understand how you don't see that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I meant who here has stated that efficiency = correctness? You could set up a ruthlessly efficient dictatorship and ACers would still be against it.

[ QUOTE ]
The state being unneeded is unproven

[/ QUOTE ]
Right now the state is needed. Most ACers here don't dispute that because we're smart enough to realize that if the entire government shut down tomorrow there'd be chaos. Not something an ACer wants. I'm talking about the future. With low enough time preferences and ever expanding pools of technology and resources, a state would be less and less necessary until it was unnecessary. At such time, it would be regression to continue on with a state instead of progressing without.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You honestly don't believe that when the government catches a burglar, rapist or serial killer and imprisons him, it prevents recidivous crimes?

[/ QUOTE ]
For some it may, for others it won't.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't believe that the threat of being imprisoned by the government prevents crime?

[/ QUOTE ]
To some extent, of course. Negative consequences will influence the behavior of others. I don't know where this is coming from since I said nothing about doing away with jails/prisons.

[ QUOTE ]
And I've pointed out what I believe to be the biggest flaws in the article in my OP. Now defend it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem of free-riding was discussed in TMoND. Are you sure you read the whole thing?

Also, your OP mentions externalities caused by pollution. How that is solved is by having a stronger enforcment of property rights. Pollution likely damages property and unless it is the owner of the pollutants' property, someone's property has been damaged and they have cause for a lawsuit. Right now, the government weakens your property rights by allowing some plants to spew pollutants in arbitrary amounts and get away with it. Under AC, they'd have to either negotiate some kind of deal with those who would be affected by the pollution or find another way to get rid of it.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know where this is coming from since I said nothing about doing away with jails/prisons.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said the government doesn't prevent crime. The government is who currently apprehends and imprisons criminals.


[ QUOTE ]
The problem of free-riding was discussed in TMoND. Are you sure you read the whole thing?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking of the article Borodog linked to in response to my post. It didn't say anything about free riding. If that is not the article, please link again. There are too many posts in the long thread for me to search through them looking for the link.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You said the government doesn't prevent crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
My mistake. The government prevents crime to some extent, but it also creates it by outlawing things like drugs, prostitution, and gambling.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking of the article Borodog linked to in response to my post. It didn't say anything about free riding. If that is not the article, please link again. There are too many posts in the long thread for me to search through them looking for the link.

[/ QUOTE ]
Beware, it's a little long (http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf)
Ctrl+F and enter whatever you're looking for in the article.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You said the government doesn't prevent crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
My mistake. The government prevents crime to some extent, but it also creates it by outlawing things like drugs, prostitution, and gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like silly logic. By that same logic, you could eliminate all crime by simply decriminalizing theft, rape and murder.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like silly logic. By that same logic, you could eliminate all crime by simply decriminalizing theft, rape and murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you could eliminate 'crime' if we government recogntion of an act as crime made that act a crime. But I don't think anyone really beleives that all government laws are just. BC, I think, was merely pointing out that while government might stop certain types of crimes, it also unjustly makes actions that ought not be crimes, into crimes.
Obviously this objection only has weight if one believes in self-ownership, but luckily I think most people believe in one's right to own themselves.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You said the government doesn't prevent crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
My mistake. The government prevents crime to some extent, but it also creates it by outlawing things like drugs, prostitution, and gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like silly logic. By that same logic, you could eliminate all crime by simply decriminalizing theft, rape and murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't possibly think that drugs, prostitution and gambling are analagous to theft, rape and murder.

The first three things involve voluntary exchanges of goods. The latter do not.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying the market isnt' coercive?


[/ QUOTE ]

How can a free market be coercive?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
How can a free market be coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]
The examples are endless. A doctor will be forced to do what is in the insurance companies best interest instead of the patients. A "security force" may be forced to work for the highest bidder. The poor will be forced to steal, or become "slaves". The ethical will be forced to pay for the slack of those that don't wish to be forced to pay for the slackers

Here is a question. What would you say to an AC society that outlawed usury and VC, or that "forced consumerism" from free-loaders and people that don't understand the benefits they recieve from a service merely under penalty of embargo and employment black listing?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
A doctor will be forced to do what is in the insurance companies best interest instead of the patients.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a doctor voluntarily enters into a contract with an insurance company, how is that you claim this doctor's actions are now being coerced by the insurance company?

[ QUOTE ]
A "security force" may be forced to work for the highest bidder.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the "security force" voluntary contracts with the highest bidder, what individual or group of indivuals has coerced this "security force" into entering this contract?

[ QUOTE ]
The poor will be forced to steal, or become "slaves".

[/ QUOTE ]

Who coerces the poor into stealing? How is someone who voluntarily enters an employment contract a "slave"?

[ QUOTE ]
The ethical will be forced to pay for the slack of those that don't wish to be forced to pay for the slackers


[/ QUOTE ]

Who coerces the "ethical" into paying anything?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
If a doctor voluntarily enters into a contract with an insurance company, how is that you claim this doctor's actions are now being coerced by the insurance company?


[/ QUOTE ] Is medical school free now? I don't see how this doctor can do anything but work. A large portion of potential positions will be working for insurance companies.

[ QUOTE ]
If the "security force" voluntary contracts with the highest bidder, what individual or group of indivuals has coerced this "security force" into entering this contract?


[/ QUOTE ] Us for setting up the society to act in this fashion.

[ QUOTE ]
Who coerces the poor into stealing?

[/ QUOTE ] Maslov.

[ QUOTE ]
How is someone who voluntarily enters an employment contract a "slave"?


[/ QUOTE ] Think sweatshops.

[ QUOTE ]
Who coerces the "ethical" into paying anything?

[/ QUOTE ] Free loaders, the uniformed, and the greedy/intelligent.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
There would also likely be other consequences for not helping in time of invasion such as ostracism of that person, both socially and finacially.


[/ QUOTE ] Sounds like a voluntary exchange to me. If this sort of coersion is exceptable in cases of defense why do you think it won't be used to accomplish other non-voluntary exchanges.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
How is someone who voluntarily enters an employment contract a "slave"?


Think sweatshops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something you will learn very soon is that ACers do not believe that sweat shops are a bad thing. Since there is no one forcing the people to work (except for the specter of starvation of course) then they are willingly consenting to work 18 hr days for 50 cents and hour.

Besides they are improving their lives by accumulating wealth! Whet could be better?!? Voluntary accepted wages with endless opportunity to make a buck! Sweet!

Although youd have to wonder how many would still see it this way if they were born in Bangladesh, or how many would send their own children b/c it is really in the child's best interest to work.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you give examples? Your original point was confusing.


[/ QUOTE ] I can give a ton, but I'd rather just give one. Sceintific research.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, now I'm even more confused. What would be "perfectly fine" with having a dictatorship and what does that have to do with AC?


[/ QUOTE ] That it is the people with the power that determine the correctness of a economic, societal system. Not entirely the system.

[ QUOTE ]
Walking up to someone and sticking a gun in their face and telling them to give you all their money is initiating coercion, but defending yourself against that attacker is not.

[/ QUOTE ] And this is different than what we have now how exactly?

[ QUOTE ]
Right now the state is needed. Most ACers here don't dispute that because we're smart enough to realize that if the entire government shut down tomorrow there'd be chaos. Not something an ACer wants. I'm talking about the future. With low enough time preferences and ever expanding pools of technology and resources, a state would be less and less necessary until it was unnecessary. At such time, it would be regression to continue on with a state instead of progressing without.

[/ QUOTE ] Smart people like you might be better coming up with a system that improves the way society acts not merely shifts it's faults.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a doctor voluntarily enters into a contract with an insurance company, how is that you claim this doctor's actions are now being coerced by the insurance company?


[/ QUOTE ]
Is medical school free now? I don't see how this doctor can do anything but work. A large portion of potential positions will be working for insurance companies.


[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't answer my question. But anyways, the doctor voluntarily entered medical school, correct? And who forces an individual with a medical degree to work for an insurance company?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the "security force" voluntary contracts with the highest bidder, what individual or group of indivuals has coerced this "security force" into entering this contract?


[/ QUOTE ] Us for setting up the society to act in this fashion.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif Can you explain this just a bit? Through what actions did *I* set up society? Through what actions did *you* set up society? Through what means are *my* actions or *your* actions coercing some unrelated firm's acceptance of a contract from the highest bidder?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who coerces the poor into stealing?


[/ QUOTE ] Maslov.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif Now I'm just lost. Explain please how "Maslov" coerces one individual into theft of another individual's property.

In fact, I'm lost as to the rest of your responses as well, pending at least minimal explanation by you.

You do understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary, correct?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Something you will learn very soon is that ACers do not believe that sweat shops are a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose if sweatshops were a "bad thing" then all of the sweatshops disappearing would be a "good thing", right?

[DougShrapnel]

I apologize for my brief comments. My verbosity, spelling, and diction is atrocious.

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't answer my question. But anyways, the doctor voluntarily entered medical school, correct? And who forces an individual with a medical degree to work for an insurance company?

[/ QUOTE ] I think freewill vs determinism might help. AC depends on the existance of freewill for it to be a viable option. I'm not sure freewill is decided yetWiki on freewill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewill) I'm sorry I just can't discuss this issue if you insist that the Doctors action are free. They are at the very least forced by reason, or emotion. And it's possible they are entirely determined.

[ QUOTE ]
Through what actions did *I* set up society? Through what actions did *you* set up society? Through what means are *my* actions or *your* actions coercing some unrelated firm's acceptance of a contract from the highest bidder?


[/ QUOTE ] Are you not advocating a society that rewards these types of action? If you aren't advocating for AC then I'm not sure why we are discussing it.



[ QUOTE ]
Explain please how "Maslov" coerces another individual into theft of another individual's property.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maslow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needs) Particularly the idea that ones need for saftey goes out the window when ones physiological needs aren't being met.

[moorobot]

Suppose that a large estate that you would have inherited in the abscensce of an inheritance tax now becomes a public park or a low-income housing project as a result of the tax. The inheritance tax does not eliminate the freedom to use that property, rather it redistributes that freedom. If you inherit the estate, then you are free to dispose of it as you see fit, but if I try to have a picnic or garden without your permission, then I am "violating your rights" and the government or a private arbitratory/court will intervene and coercively deprive me of the freedom to continue. On the other hand, my freedom to use and enjoy the property is increased when the state taxes your inheritance to provide me with affordable housing or a public park. So the free market restrains my freedom, while the welfare state increases it.

That property rights increase some people's freedom by restricting others is obvious if we think about the orgin of private property. Since private owneship by one person presupposes non ownership by others, the 'free market' restricts and creates liberties, just as redistribution both creates and restricts liberties. Private property is a distribution of freedom and unfreedom. Hence, the sentence "free enterprise constitutes economic liberty" is demonstrably false.

Michael Bakunin notes that these facts put the worker in the position of a serf with regard to the capitalist, even though the worker is formally "free" and "equal" under the law:


"Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer. . . .The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -- voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory from an economic sense -- broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 187-8]
Obviously, a company cannot force you to work for them but, in general, you have to work for someone. This is because of past "initiation of force" by the capitalist class and the state which have created the objective conditions within which we make our employment decisions. Before any specific labour market contract occurs, the separation of workers from the means of production is an established fact (and the resulting "labour" market usually gives the advantage to the capitalists as a class). So while we have a very limited ability to pick which capitalist to work for, we, in general, cannot choose to work for ourselves (the self-employed sector of the economy is tiny, which indicates well how spurious capitalist liberty actually is). Of course, the ability to leave employment and seek it elsewhere is an important freedom. However, this freedom, like most freedoms under capitalism, is of limited use and hides a deeper anti-individual reality.

Here is Adam 'laissez faire' Smith on this issue:


"It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties [workers and capitalists] must, upon all ordinary occasions... force the other into a compliance with their terms... In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer... though they did not employ a single workman [the masters] could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scare any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate. . . [i]n disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage." [Wealth of Nations, pp. 59-60]

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something you will learn very soon is that ACers do not believe that sweat shops are a bad thing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I suppose if sweatshops were a "bad thing" then all of the sweatshops disappearing would be a "good thing", right?

[/ QUOTE ] The corporations themselves created the high supply of people who must seek out wage labor in order to survive. What would have been better is if the companies never would have systematically wiped out traditional economies in the first place or if they create better conditions for their workers-and it can't get much worse than 70+ hours a week for subsistence pay with no benefits and unhealthy working conditions living in company towns while getting physically and mentally abused at work: The companies could still make a huge profit treating these people decently, as evidenced by their billions.

First, most people in 3rd world countries had a better job (farming and local businesses) before corporations bought up all the farm land and wiped them out with competition to create a high labor supply for themselves and/or dictators kicked them off in exchange for bribes etc. from corporations, and put local business owners out of business via competition and/or violence that was not stopped or even helped by the undemocratic states(Most fortune five hundred companies have a GDP higher than most of the common sweatshop countries, anyway) (How about that for "voluntary and free" transactions, Boro?-what sheer and utter nonsense) Sweatshops are based on an artifically high labor supply that was forced into existensce by market power, which is much more powerful than you ACers seem to realize. These corporations have set the "price of labor" by eliminating the other options.

Secondly, and less contingently, better to have a job that pays a living wage, with decent working hours and conditions, than either of the other two options. If the arbitrary baseline was a situation in which John (representing the current market circumstances and working conditions (largely) imposed upon people by capitalists, with the rest being imposed by the capitalist system) kept Jim (representing workers) in a cage and beat him daily, it would not mean that John was suddenly behaving decently/acceptably if he took Jim out of his cage one day but continued beating him. If I started paying my slave 1 cent more a week I may be benefiting him compared to an arbitrary baseline, but I am still commiting an injustice compared to the only important standard.

Justice is based on impartiality, not on "mutual advantage" or "mutual benefit". These companies should be treating their workers better-sweatshops are not good enough regardless of whether they are bad compared to the arbitrary baseline of now which has been created by injustice and violence. Period. And we should be working to ensure they treat them better.

[Riddick]

Doug,

It appears we are arguing on two different planes here.

First, if you believe that all action is predetermined, then I just don't know what to say /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Second, the Darwinian struggle against Nature (ie death) will always (strongly) encourage a human being to choose his or her best alternative in the means to win this struggle. Nature does not, however, "force" one choice or another, since clearly an individual is free to succumb to death.

Also, an individual's best alternative, contrary to what you are implying as the set-up of society, is not always the alternative with the highest monetary reward.

Lastly, coercion is, by definition, forcing action under the some sort of threat, usually violence. A coerced action is by definition involuntary. None of the examples you have given demonstrate coercion.

I shall cite some Rothbard for further clarification:

[ QUOTE ]
A common complaint is that the free market would not insure the elimination of poverty, that it would “leave people free to starve,” and that it is far better to be “kindhearted” and give “charity” free rein by taxing the rest of the populace in order to subsidize the poor and the substandard.

In the first place, the “freedom-to-starve” argument confuses the “war against nature,” which we all conduct, with the problem of freedom from interference by other persons. We are always “free to starve” unless we pursue our conquest of nature, for that is our natural condition. But “freedom” refers to absence of molestation by other persons; it is purely an interpersonal problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Riddick]

going to bed, then finals, will reply later

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A common complaint is that the free market would not insure the elimination of poverty, that it would “leave people free to starve,” and that it is far better to be “kindhearted” and give “charity” free rein by taxing the rest of the populace in order to subsidize the poor and the substandard.

In the first place, the “freedom-to-starve” argument confuses the “war against nature,” which we all conduct, with the problem of freedom from interference by other persons. We are always “free to starve” unless we pursue our conquest of nature, for that is our natural condition. But “freedom” refers to absence of molestation by other persons; it is purely an interpersonal problem.



[/ QUOTE ] First, someone with productive assets, stocks investment etc. is not forced to work or starve. Only people who are made 'free' from property in capitalism are force to do this.

More fundementally, Rothbard commits the Is/ought fallacy or naturalistic fallacy. Apply Hume's guillotine to this. No matter how convincingly we show something is true it never follows that it ought to be true. We can have a system where people do not starve if they do not work: negative income tax, welfare, Universal basic income etc. which does not have this disgusting consequence. Nature makes it 130 degrees in southern arizona but it does not follow that people living their should buy an air conditioning system. Nature might create a situation where your family is going to be killed soon. It does not follow that you shouldn't try to change this.

The "free market" is objectionable for this reason amongst many others: we could and should have a system where people are not poor, not free to starve.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, the Darwinian struggle against Nature (ie death) will always (strongly) encourage a human being to choose his or her best alternative in the means to win this struggle. Nature does not, however, "force" one choice or another, since clearly an individual is free to succumb to death.

[/ QUOTE ] Government also allows a person to either follow the laws decided by all of us or be arrested or fined. So government does not force one choice or another either. The individual is free to be place in jail.

I'd prefer to be arrested than strave to death, btw.

[moorobot]

Best of luck on your finals.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears we are arguing on two different planes here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I think we are finally getting somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]
First, if you believe that all action is predetermined, then I just don't know what to say


[/ QUOTE ] I don't, but alot of peole do. I belive that freewill can be increased or decreased. I don't think it is the de facto state of mankind. This is actually my reason for the belief in public schools and grants for college, and why I feel government has a right to make you pay for them. If you can prove that freewill exists in the fashion that you assume it to, ac would have a stronger foundation.

[ QUOTE ]
Nature does not, however, "force" one choice or another, since clearly an individual is free to succumb to death.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure our genes let us succumb to death.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, an individual's best alternative, contrary to what you are implying as the set-up of society, is not always the alternative with the highest monetary reward.

[/ QUOTE ] This is true but AC clearly shifts the exchange.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, coercion is, by definition, forcing action under the some sort of threat, usually violence. A coerced action is by definition involuntary. None of the examples you have given demonstrate coercion.


[/ QUOTE ] It is possible that my examples don't fit with yout difinition of coercion. But they do point out restrictions of freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
But “freedom” refers to absence of molestation by other persons

[/ QUOTE ] In a world with limitless resources sure. In the one we got Rothbard is likly mistaken about human nature.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure there would be demand for collective defense, but that wouldn't prevent free riding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is free riding a "problem" in and of itself in your view?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can a free market be coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]
The examples are endless. A doctor will be forced to do what is in the insurance companies best interest instead of the patients.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the patient isn't paying, why should the doctor be compelled to provide services? Isn't that the "slavery" that you decry below?

[ QUOTE ]
A "security force" may be forced to work for the highest bidder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[ QUOTE ]
The poor will be forced to steal, or become "slaves".

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[ QUOTE ]
The ethical will be forced to pay for the slack of those that don't wish to be forced to pay for the slackers

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a free market, with no coercion, going to force me to pay for slackers?

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a question. What would you say to an AC society that outlawed usury and VC,

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would an AC society outlaw these?

[ QUOTE ]
or that "forced consumerism" from free-loaders and people that don't understand the benefits they recieve from a service merely under penalty of embargo and employment black listing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even understand this question. Are you saying that people would have no recourse when "free-loaders" steal from them? Liability doesn't vanish when the state does.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a doctor voluntarily enters into a contract with an insurance company, how is that you claim this doctor's actions are now being coerced by the insurance company?


[/ QUOTE ] Is medical school free now? I don't see how this doctor can do anything but work. A large portion of potential positions will be working for insurance companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the cost of medical school have to do with anything?

The fact that one has to "work or starve" does not indicate any injustice. He can work in many capcities. He doesn't have to practice medicine.

[ QUOTE ]
Who coerces the "ethical" into paying anything?

[/ QUOTE ] Free loaders, the uniformed, and the greedy/intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide an example. I'm not understanding what you're getting at here.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There would also likely be other consequences for not helping in time of invasion such as ostracism of that person, both socially and finacially.


[/ QUOTE ] Sounds like a voluntary exchange to me. If this sort of coersion is exceptable in cases of defense why do you think it won't be used to accomplish other non-voluntary exchanges.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is not associating with someone coercing them? That would imply that they have some sort of entitlement to interact with me.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you give examples? Your original point was confusing.


[/ QUOTE ] I can give a ton, but I'd rather just give one. Sceintific research.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, now I'm even more confused. What would be "perfectly fine" with having a dictatorship and what does that have to do with AC?


[/ QUOTE ] That it is the people with the power that determine the correctness of a economic, societal system. Not entirely the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might makes right?


[ QUOTE ]
Smart people like you might be better coming up with a system that improves the way society acts not merely shifts it's faults.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society doesn't act. Individuals act. When individuals are de-emphasized in favor of the aggregate "greater goods", individuals get trampled.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you give examples? Your original point was confusing.


[/ QUOTE ] I can give a ton, but I'd rather just give one. Sceintific research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't freeloading the status quo in scientific research? A bunch of researchers get to freeload off of the general public, and don't have to fund their research themselves. Maybe give another example. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose that a large estate that you would have inherited in the abscensce of an inheritance tax now becomes a public park or a low-income housing project as a result of the tax. The inheritance tax does not eliminate the freedom to use that property, rather it redistributes that freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why stop at inheritance? Why not just take everything and redistribute it?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The corporations themselves created the high supply of people who must seek out wage labor in order to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! They're growing them in big vats in their secret laborer factories!

[ QUOTE ]
First, most people in 3rd world countries had a better job (farming and local businesses) before corporations bought up all the farm land

[/ QUOTE ]

In another thread you said they *didn't* buy "all the farm land". Which is it?

And who sold the land? If it's the farmers themselves, what is the objection? Should they not have the right to sell their own land? If the farmers are laborers for some other landowner, what is the objection? Do they have an unalienable right to farm someone else's land? Are they serfs?

[ QUOTE ]
and wiped them out with competition to create a high labor supply for themselves and/or dictators kicked them off in exchange for bribes etc. from corporations,

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you mean a coercive state might have had something to do with this? No, that can't be right, you're always telling us how wonderful states are.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, and less contingently, better to have a job that pays a living wage, with decent working hours and conditions, than either of the other two options.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's better to have a pony than to not have one. Once we pass the "No child without a pony" act, all our problems are sure to disappear.

[ QUOTE ]
Justice is based on impartiality, not on "mutual advantage" or "mutual benefit". These companies should be treating their workers better-sweatshops are not good enough regardless of whether they are bad compared to the arbitrary baseline of now which has been created by injustice and violence. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure why the sweatshop scenario keeps coming up. The theory seems to be that AC would result in more and more sweatshops, when the reality is that efficiency gains lead to less and less manual labor. Every economy that transitions from agriculture to industry goes through this phase. Where sweatshops persist are the areas where coercive force allows one group to exploit the other. And note that these areas tend to not fare as well as other areas with more freedom, more competition.

Your position that backbreaking menial toil in a factory is worse than backbreaking menial toil in a rice paddy is certainly *not* impartial.

[ QUOTE ]
And we should be working to ensure they treat them better.

[/ QUOTE ]

By posting on the internet? Isn't that the standard slam on ACers, that they're just blowing hot air?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
First, someone with productive assets, stocks investment etc. is not forced to work or starve. Only people who are made 'free' from property in capitalism are force to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you seek to reduce the number of people that have assets?

[ QUOTE ]
More fundementally, Rothbard commits the Is/ought fallacy or naturalistic fallacy. Apply Hume's guillotine to this. No matter how convincingly we show something is true it never follows that it ought to be true. We can have a system where people do not starve if they do not work: negative income tax, welfare, Universal basic income etc. which does not have this disgusting consequence. Nature makes it 130 degrees in southern arizona but it does not follow that people living their should buy an air conditioning system. Nature might create a situation where your family is going to be killed soon. It does not follow that you shouldn't try to change this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to force people in arizona to buy air conditioners? You might be compelled to visit their house, and you'd be uncomfortable if they don't have one, so you should probably work to change this.

What you're talking about isn't air conditioning a house, you're talking about air conditioning the outside.

[DougShrapnel]

PVN i will gladly answer these questions, but I'm not sure that we are coming from the same place. At AC's foundation is freewill. The freewill determinism debate has been going on for quite some time now. And I see no reason to think that human nature is a free as AC requires it to be. I also am working with a different definition of coercion than you. For instance I think that if you are hearding cows into the meat factory, the cows are being coerced into going to the meat factory. When you cut of all options but one to cows or people for that matter you are using coercion. It appears AC doesn't view this as coercion. If we can find some common ground on these to items, I'd be glad to take a free lesson from you on AC. Until then I'm not sure it can be fruitful.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel government has a right to make you pay for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments don't have rights. Anyone that claims that they do is just looking for an excuse to make you do something you don't want to do.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, an individual's best alternative, contrary to what you are implying as the set-up of society, is not always the alternative with the highest monetary reward.

[/ QUOTE ] This is true but AC clearly shifts the exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain, please. Not sure what this means.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But “freedom” refers to absence of molestation by other persons

[/ QUOTE ] In a world with limitless resources sure. In the one we got Rothbard is likly mistaken about human nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why limitless resources are needed, and what aspects of human nature Rothbard is mistaken about.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I also am working with a different difinition of coersion than you. For instance I think that if you are hearding cows into the meat factory, the cows are being coerced into going to the meat factory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. What leads you to believe that an AC proponent would say that this isn't coercion? (I'm ignoring the question of the morality of coercing cows.)

[ QUOTE ]
When you cut of all options but one to cows or people for that matter you are using coersion.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between actively interfering with someone to deny them something they are otherwise entitled to (coercion) and merely declining to interact with someone (not coercion).

[ QUOTE ]
It appears AC doesn't view this as coersion.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is "this"? Be more specific than "cutting off options".

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this. What leads you to believe that an AC proponent would say that this isn't coercion?

[/ QUOTE ] There is no threat of violence, the cows go to the meat factory because they are stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between actively interfering with someone to deny them something they are otherwise entitled to (coercion) and merely declining to interact with someone (not coercion).


[/ QUOTE ] Entitlement. Without freewill there is no entiltement. One has made no choices to be in the position he/she are in. It is circumstance.

[ QUOTE ]
What is "this"? Be more specific than "cutting off options".

[/ QUOTE ] If you are in a room and the N,E, and W doors are locked. Where can you go but South?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm ignoring the question of the morality of coercing cows.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks I certainly don't want to get into that discussion.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this. What leads you to believe that an AC proponent would say that this isn't coercion?

[/ QUOTE ] There is no threat of violence, the cows go to the meat factory because they are stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cr.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/grko/exb/HiredHands/OnTheRanch/grko1506_prod.jpg

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. A cowboy says "go over there" and the cow goes? If anything, the "slaughter" part is clearly aggressive (IF we're using cows as surrogates for self-owning people, and not considering them property of the rancher), and duping people into entering your death machine under false pretenses is fraud.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between actively interfering with someone to deny them something they are otherwise entitled to (coercion) and merely declining to interact with someone (not coercion).


[/ QUOTE ] Entitlement. Without freewill there is no entiltement. One has made no choices to be in the position he/she are in. It is circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Use less cryptic language, please.

Do you not see a difference between taking an action to negatively interfere with someone else and *not* taking an action to positively affect someone?

[ QUOTE ]
What is "this"? Be more specific than "cutting off options".

[/ QUOTE ] If you are in a room and the N,E, and W doors are locked. Where can you go but South?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you own the N, E, and W doors? What right do you have to go through them? If they're already locked, and I refuse to break the door down for you, have I done some injustice to you?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. A cowboy says "go over there" and the cow goes? If anything, the "slaughter" part is clearly aggressive (IF we're using cows as surrogates for self-owning people, and not considering them property of the rancher), and duping people into entering your death machine under false pretenses is fraud.

[/ QUOTE ] The cowboy herds the cows. They just stand in the way of the cows so that they can only move in one direction. The cattle prod is only used to speed the natural progression along(certainly we can both agree this is coercion), or if a cowboy is unable to block all the paths a cow might take. Cows can be hearded without any threat of violence.

I'm not to the point of self-ownership (a principle I believe in) because we havn't gotten past free will yet.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not see a difference between taking an action to negatively interfere with someone else and *not* taking an action to positively affect someone?


[/ QUOTE ] Are you talking about sins of ommision vs sins of commmision?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you own the N, E, and W doors?

[/ QUOTE ] The doors just are there. It is not important who owns them.
They could be owned by someone else, or a group of indivduals, or they could have sprung into existance for no reason with no owner, or possibly God put them there. It doesn't matter.

[ QUOTE ]
What right do you have to go through them?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't think the doors can recongnize such rights.

[ QUOTE ]
If they're already locked, and I refuse to break the door down for you, have I done some injustice to you?

[/ QUOTE ] This is a good question. I think it shifts the focus of the doors being a coercive barrier to free will, into being sins of ommision.

What did you do to be in the position to unlock doors?
Is a society better with locked doors or unlocked ones?
Is it ethical to artifically keep the doors locked?
Is it ethical to force you to pay for the unlocking of doors?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AC places money above EVERYTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it places freedom from coercion above everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that ANY relationship between government and the people is coercive?

[DougShrapnel]

PVN do you still wish for me to answer the questions you asked, or can you begin to see that we are working from different assumptions. The disconnect isn't about about self-ownership, property rights, freedom from coercion, or an understanding of copmlex system relusting from a non centralized government. It's the basic foundations of the human experience that I am questioning regarding AC. AC claims that to enter freely into mutual agreed upon contracts is good. I am claiming that "freely" isn't possible.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
relusting

[/ QUOTE ]

Good band name.

[DougShrapnel]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
My flagrant violation of the english language is always good for a laugh.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. A cowboy says "go over there" and the cow goes? If anything, the "slaughter" part is clearly aggressive (IF we're using cows as surrogates for self-owning people, and not considering them property of the rancher), and duping people into entering your death machine under false pretenses is fraud.

[/ QUOTE ] The cowboy herds the cows. They just stand in the way of the cows so that they can only move in one direction. The cattle prod is only used to speed the natural progression along(certainly we can both agree this is coercion), or if a cowboy is unable to block all the paths a cow might take. Cows can be hearded without any threat of violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't even remember what point you were trying to make with this analogy. That somehow anarchocapitalists don't think that slaughter is coercive?

A billiard ball is moving in a straight line, and I place a barrier in its path and deflect it. So what? Does the ball have a right to move into the space where I placed the barrier? No, it's a billiard ball, it has no rights. Does the person that placed the ball in motion have a right to move the ball into the space now occupied by the barrier? Maybe. Do I have a right to place the barrier there? Maybe.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not to the point of self-ownership (a principle I believe in) because we havn't gotten past free will yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

How long do you think it will take you? I can wait.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you not see a difference between taking an action to negatively interfere with someone else and *not* taking an action to positively affect someone?


[/ QUOTE ] Are you talking about sins of ommision vs sins of commmision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you own the N, E, and W doors?

[/ QUOTE ] The doors just are there. It is not important who owns them.
They could be owned by someone else, or a group of indivduals, or they could have sprung into existance for no reason with no owner, or possibly God put them there. It doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters. I want a candy bar. My neighbor has a candy bar. But he's placed it in his kitchen, behind a locked door! He's putting up arbitrary barriers between me and my satisfaction!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What right do you have to go through them?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't think the doors can recongnize such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not asking about the door's awareness.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they're already locked, and I refuse to break the door down for you, have I done some injustice to you?

[/ QUOTE ] This is a good question. I think it shifts the focus of the doors being a coercive barrier to free will, into being sins of ommision.

What did you do to be in the position to unlock doors?

[/ QUOTE ]

You tell me. You're constructing the scenario.

[ QUOTE ]
Is a society better with locked doors or unlocked ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should I care? And how do you determine what is "better" for society? Can you call society up on the phone and ask society if society prefers the doors to be locked or unlocked? Is my neighbor better with locked doors or unlocked doors? I don't care if they're my doors.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it ethical to artifically keep the doors locked?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's doors are they?

[ QUOTE ]
Is it ethical to force you to pay for the unlocking of doors?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is "no", no matter what comes after "you" in your question.

If I own the doors, it's unethical for someone else to order that they should be unlocked. In addition, it's unethical for that person to allocate my resources to the accomplishment of that goal.

If I don't own the doors, and the real owner wants them unlocked, that's fine with me. But, forcing me to allocate my resources to achieve that is still unethical. Owning a door doesn't entitle you to the labor needed to lock and unlock it, any more than buying a car entitles you to free gas for it.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, most people in 3rd world countries had a better job (farming and local businesses) before corporations bought up all the farm land


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In another thread you said they *didn't* buy "all the farm land". Which is it?

And who sold the land? If it's the farmers themselves, what is the objection? Should they not have the right to sell their own land? If the farmers are laborers for some other landowner, what is the objection? Do they have an unalienable right to farm someone else's land? Are they serfs?

[/ QUOTE ] All the land is an exaggeration.

Individually it is ok given the rules and conditions for them to sell it. But the conditions of assymetrical market power which create the post and pre sale options for the workers/farmers are not OK.

Isolated Individually rational decisions lead to outcomes that are collectively irrational at the end of the day all the time. The paradox of rationality. These decisions have undermined the necessary background decisions for making free and voluntary transactions in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]

Secondly, and less contingently, better to have a job that pays a living wage, with decent working hours and conditions, than either of the other two options.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's better to have a pony than to not have one. Once we pass the "No child without a pony" act, all our problems are sure to disappear.

[/ QUOTE ] Way to reduce your own ethical position to absurdity.

To think that having a mind numbing, dangerous, exhausting job in which a person work way too many hours a week for a wage that just barely pays the bills leaving one living paycheck to paycheck and always uncertain about the future for an employer that physically and mentally abuses you hourly is equivalent in unethicality to preventing someone from having a pony is absurd.

The former is deadening to human thought and sensibillity, the latter is not.

your ethical view implies that it is wrong to tax 50,000 already well off people who will still have real control over their lives a half of a penny each to essentially bring someone else out of what is equal to slavery in terms of its effect on human well-being. What a joke.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure why the sweatshop scenario keeps coming up. The theory seems to be that AC would result in more and more sweatshops, when the reality is that efficiency gains lead to less and less manual labor. Every economy that transitions from agriculture to industry goes through this phase. Where sweatshops persist are the areas where coercive force allows one group to exploit the other. And note that these areas tend to not fare as well as other areas with more freedom, more competition.


[/ QUOTE ] It sure seems to me that historically terrible working conditons and extremely low wages and long working hours end abruptly in a region when legislation puts them out of existensce, and tend to persist for low-skilled jobs otherwise. That is what happened in North America and Europe, at least. I don't know of any country that has done reduce these problems without legislation that fixed the market failure(s).

And of course it is my view that AC would destroy efficiency; I can't imagine a more inefficient system than Anarcho capitalism.

A statist country with a well-regulated economy and government ensured competition and freedom are the countries that have had the most economic growth and have decreased poverty and alleviated working conditions. It is countries with the biggest "welfare state"/"social deomocracy" and lowest ammount of ecnomic inequality that have the least ammount of poverty and the best working conditions, and the elimination of poverty and improvement in working conditions followed government regulation. The market is the problem, the government is the solution to the problem.

[lastchance]

Just one quick question to the AC'ers... How does AC avoid/solve the problems of inequality (caused by a market system with a lack of oversight, allowing for monopolies such as the one in the late 1800's and in Russia currently) and the resulting massive unrest caused by that inequality?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Just one quick question to the AC'ers... How does AC avoid/solve the problems of inequality (caused by a market system with a lack of oversight, allowing for monopolies such as the one in the late 1800's and in Russia currently) and the resulting massive unrest caused by that inequality?

[/ QUOTE ]
*bzzzzt*

Monopolies can't arise under AC because there's no government to restrict competitors from entering the market. Now there may be a single provider of a certain good in an area, but he would necessarily have to be providing a better service than all his competitors.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AC places money above EVERYTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it places freedom from coercion above everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that ANY relationship between government and the people is coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just about. I'm having a hard time thinking of scenarios where the government hasn't coerced someone with any action it takes. Perhaps you can provide some where the government hasn't coerced someone? Be advised that using tax money is a form of coercion because the people had little choice but to pay their taxes.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Something you will learn very soon is that ACers do not believe that sweat shops are a bad thing. Since there is no one forcing the people to work (except for the specter of starvation of course) then they are willingly consenting to work 18 hr days for 50 cents and hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be more charitable to say that we recognize that simply outlawing sweatshops would make these far worse for these people. Clearly, by the fact that they work such labor, we know that they find working such labor preferable to starving to death, prostitution, etc.

Does this mean that a sweatshop laborer isn't being 'exploited'? I think they most certainly are being exploited. But where ACers differ from many leftists is that a) as I said above, abolishing sweatshops will make things worse, and b) much of the large company's power to exploit comes either directly or indirectly from the State. Many such companies are given territorial monopolies, allowing them to do what they will in an area, without the natural check of competition to drive wages up. And such companies tend to be given insulation from competition in other more indirect ways as well.

So, to me, it is not a question of whether or not getting paid pennies an hour is good or not--it isn't. It's a question of how to best change the situation. And as you often say, the poor don't need handouts, they need a fundamental change in the system.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
More fundementally, Rothbard commits the Is/ought fallacy or naturalistic fallacy. Apply Hume's guillotine to this. No matter how convincingly we show something is true it never follows that it ought to be true. We can have a system where people do not starve if they do not work: negative income tax, welfare, Universal basic income etc. which does not have this disgusting consequence. Nature makes it 130 degrees in southern arizona but it does not follow that people living their should buy an air conditioning system. Nature might create a situation where your family is going to be killed soon. It does not follow that you shouldn't try to change this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think Rothbard is committing the naturalistic fallacy--I think you are misinterpreting his point. His point, I think, is that there isn't any way, period, to ensure that people will not starve without work. Government legislation to the contrary is meaningless; for one thing, writing down laws on a piece of paper is neither necessary (eg, britain) nor sufficient (eg, soviet russia) for ensuring that any given 'right' is actually received by the people 'entitled' to it. What a poor person needs is money, not a 'right to money'. Quasi-socialist economies tend to blow, so guaranteeing rights doesn't mean that the society can provide them.

The second point here is a deeper one about centralization in general--regardless of what rights you think there should be, or what your ideal government it, absolute power corrupts absolutely. imo, the biggest mistake the US has made is going with the Constitution as opposed to the Articles of Confederation. When you allow for all the centralization and federal power that the Constitution allows, it doesn't matter what 'checks and balances' and 'restrictions' you dream up, or jot down on some piece of paper in Washington. As the history of this country has shown, the centralized State will keep grabbing more and more.
So even if government adopted UBI, etc--how will it last? What guarantee could we possibly have that the centralized power afforded the State for 'noble' purposes wouldn't soon be used for evil?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. A cowboy says "go over there" and the cow goes? If anything, the "slaughter" part is clearly aggressive (IF we're using cows as surrogates for self-owning people, and not considering them property of the rancher), and duping people into entering your death machine under false pretenses is fraud.

[/ QUOTE ] The cowboy herds the cows. They just stand in the way of the cows so that they can only move in one direction. The cattle prod is only used to speed the natural progression along(certainly we can both agree this is coercion), or if a cowboy is unable to block all the paths a cow might take. Cows can be hearded without any threat of violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't even remember what point you were trying to make with this analogy. That somehow anarchocapitalists don't think that slaughter is coercive?

A billiard ball is moving in a straight line, and I place a barrier in its path and deflect it. So what? Does the ball have a right to move into the space where I placed the barrier? No, it's a billiard ball, it has no rights. Does the person that placed the ball in motion have a right to move the ball into the space now occupied by the barrier? Maybe. Do I have a right to place the barrier there? Maybe.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not to the point of self-ownership (a principle I believe in) because we havn't gotten past free will yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

How long do you think it will take you? I can wait.


[/ QUOTE ]

Placing the barrier is coercion. That is my point. You and I haven't gotten to whether you have a "right" to be coercive(place the barrier). Because we can't seem to agree if this is coercive or not.

I will move past free will once it is settled, in the philosphical/scientific sphere of inquiry. This doesn't bode well for the fruitfulness of our conversation. To make an assumption that it is either way, and then create a platform for society based mainly on that assumption is a grave mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you not see a difference between taking an action to negatively interfere with someone else and *not* taking an action to positively affect someone?


[/ QUOTE ] Are you talking about sins of ommision vs sins of commmision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically.


[/ QUOTE ] I see a difference, some claim that they are equal. However, even tho I see them both as unethical, sins of commision normally more so. I don't wish to espouse a ethical or potical philosophy that attemps to deny human nature in order for it to be correct. I think both AC and treating sins of commisions equal to sins of ommisions gloss over some very basic assumptions about human nature that strong objections have been raised within the scientific community regarding thier validity. If the difference that I am suppose to see is that sins of commosion are unethical and sins of ommision are ethical I'd like to you explain how that is so.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you own the N, E, and W doors?

[/ QUOTE ] The doors just are there. It is not important who owns them.
They could be owned by someone else, or a group of indivduals, or they could have sprung into existance for no reason with no owner, or possibly God put them there. It doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters. I want a candy bar. My neighbor has a candy bar. But he's placed it in his kitchen, behind a locked door! He's putting up arbitrary barriers between me and my satisfaction!


[/ QUOTE ] The barrier I was trying to examplize is human nature and it's lack of free choices in many cases.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What right do you have to go through them?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't think the doors can recongnize such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not asking about the door's awareness.


[/ QUOTE ] You may say that people have a "right" to starve. I don't think their genes let them. I don't really want to have you defending sweetshops and me playing the role of a crying liberal. Sweetshops are only one such example that the freedom of will AC assumes at it foundations, is at least partially incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they're already locked, and I refuse to break the door down for you, have I done some injustice to you?

[/ QUOTE ] This is a good question. I think it shifts the focus of the doors being a coercive barrier to free will, into being sins of ommision.

What did you do to be in the position to unlock doors?

[/ QUOTE ]

You tell me. You're constructing the scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I don't know the answer.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is a society better with locked doors or unlocked ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should I care? And how do you determine what is "better" for society? Can you call society up on the phone and ask society if society prefers the doors to be locked or unlocked? Is my neighbor better with locked doors or unlocked doors? I don't care if they're my doors.

[/ QUOTE ] Your genes or reason makes you care. You don't have much of a choice. Or in other peoples case their genes don't care, or their reason doesn't let them care.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it ethical to force you to pay for the unlocking of doors?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is "no", no matter what comes after "you" in your question.

If I own the doors, it's unethical for someone else to order that they should be unlocked. In addition, it's unethical for that person to allocate my resources to the accomplishment of that goal.

[/ QUOTE ]
If "The answer is "no", no matter what comes after "you" in your question." is ture, and we can see that situations can arise with no other options are availble to the participants(resticting the possiblity of "freely"), and we call that coercive. Then AC does a very poor job of correcting the unethical behavior of govenrment. AC in fact rewards unethical behavior. But hey, what do you expect when you gloss over basic long debated concepts of human nature and build a societal structure using what is most likely one of the more flawed arguments of the debate.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
So, to me, it is not a question of whether or not getting paid pennies an hour is good or not--it isn't. It's a question of how to best change the situation. And as you often say, the poor don't need handouts, they need a fundamental change in the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have little faith that a lack of governmental control would really change the situation much. It seems that it would be very difficult for everyone (meaning bug businesses) to have several competing banana firms in Indonesia. Instead there could be several huge firms in Panama, Indonesia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Congo etc. This would keep world prices low (due to unrestricted free trade) but still keep wages low (due to regional monopoly of labor).

I also have little faith in the ability of these workers to better their position. Look at the horribly repressive actions of Government strike breakers in the US in the 19th century. It seems that a firm would be much more ruthless and efficient at breaking union strikes. Kill a few workers and the strike will be over. While in an industrialized, modern society these companies would be held accountable (in theory at least) with law suits and the like. I dont think this will occur when the workers are dirt poor and uneducated. Even pro bono lawyers cant help if the incidents are keep very quiet.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose that a large estate that you would have inherited in the abscensce of an inheritance tax now becomes a public park or a low-income housing project as a result of the tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif Suppose it becomes a missile silo? Suppose it becomes a maximum security penitentiary to house weed smokers? Suppose it becomes a landfill? Right off the bat I'm lost.

[ QUOTE ]
The inheritance tax does not eliminate the freedom to use that property, rather it redistributes that freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

More confusion. What is "the freedom"? There was once my freedom, now violently stripped from me against my will. Where once a voluntary exchange between me and my parents and the rest of society who recognized the freedom to make this exchange stood, there is now a violently coerced exchange with a loser(me) and no clear winner. Moving on...

[ QUOTE ]
If you inherit the estate, then you are free to dispose of it as you see fit, but if I try to have a picnic or garden without your permission, then I am "violating your rights" and the government or a private arbitratory/court will intervene and coercively deprive me of the freedom to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two blatant fallacies in the bolded part -

1) A security force defending my property does not coerce invaders of my property, it simply defends my property from agressors. It does not coerce people to not come on my property since coercion means forcing people to act involuntarily, not forcing people to not act.

2) The picnickers have all of the "freedom" they want to violate my property and picnic on my lawn, but we can logically deduce that in an AC society that violators of my property would NOT have freedom from liability for violating my property.

[ QUOTE ]
So the free market restrains my freedom, while the welfare state increases it.


[/ QUOTE ]

The free market only restrains your freedom from liability. The welfare state, in your example, (edited here) gives you full and complete freedom from liability, as well eliminating my freedom in its entirety! Of course, my freedom from coercion and your liability are both derived from a free market, and now you've reversed them in the name of equality. How just!

[ QUOTE ]
That property rights increase some people's freedom by restricting others is obvious if we think about the orgin of private property. Since private owneship by one person presupposes non ownership by others, the 'free market' restricts and creates liberties,

[/ QUOTE ]

The only freedoms that are restricted in the free market are the freedoms to violate another person's property - period. The 'origins' of private property begin with the body - I have "absolute jurisdiction over my own body." You do not own my body, and so you are not at liberty to do with it as you please. The natural extension to all other forms of private ownership is derived from voluntary exchange, i.e. the entire reason humans come together to form society in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
just as redistribution both creates and restricts liberties. Private property is a distribution of freedom and unfreedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Redistribution implies the molestation of one individual's property by a violently coercive individual - in this case, you.

This all comes back to the fact that you erroneously claim to be objective in the pursuit of equality, when that is simply impossible given the fact that you are one individual, completely unique from every other individual on the planet, unique in every single way including your very own personal valuations of the terms "equality" and "justice" and therefore whatever actions you take, which necessarily include the theft, coercion, and molestation of others' property, pursue your own ends and not the ends of any other individual on the planet, and therefore cannot possibly be free of the distortion of personal bias, hence they are not objective

[moorobot]

Rothbard's point in that quote certainly did not explcitly say what you are saying here.

You bring up decent issues here however. The U.S. political system should be fundementally overhauled in my view, but I don't think gov't should be eliminated; rather we need better electoral rules like proportional representation, a nationally elected national gov't instead of locality elected one, campagin finance reform etc. In short, we should try to make the U.S. into a better democracy instead of working to trying to eliminate democracy. We should make democracy truly by, for and of the people-create rules were people actually can get the government to do what they want it to do most of the time.

I don't obviously know how long a UBI will last if implemented in the U.S. given our current system. But it is not obviously unsustainable, and the vast majority of means tested 'welfare' type programs that are not quite as good or efficient as the UBI have rarely been eliminated (but occasionaly modified) in western democracies.

but you have to remember that the 'affirmative state' is a rather new reality. Math and science weren't nearly as good during their first fifty years of existensce as they are now-it takes time, effort, thought and practice to learn how to do things well. A hundred years from now the affirmative state will function much better than it does now, and even given how it functions now most people in "1st world" democracies would rather not turn back to the laissez faire capitalism that was prevalent pre-"welfare state". Even in the U.S. neither party challenges it or has tried to change it fundementally despite all the "problem with the government is the government" used by many republicans in the past couple of decades.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Placing the barrier is coercion. That is my point. You and I haven't gotten to whether you have a "right" to be coercive(place the barrier). Because we can't seem to agree if this is coercive or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doug, coercion is the force of action against one's will. Placing a barrier on one's property does not force any other individual to act, and so it cannot be considered coercive.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

The inheritance tax does not eliminate the freedom to use that property, rather it redistributes that freedom.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



More confusion. What is "the freedom"? There was once my freedom, now violently stripped from me against my will. Where once a voluntary exchange between me and my parents and the rest of society who recognized the freedom to make this exchange stood, there is now a violently coerced exchange with a loser(me) and no clear winner. Moving on...


[/ QUOTE ] The person who has the access to the goods now has gained freedom??? I don't think she agreed to that exchange between you and your parents, btw.

And you presuppose in your reply an inheritance tax not being in place when your parents made the exchange. If it was already in place "the rest of society who recognized this freedom" does not exist.

[ QUOTE ]

1) A security force defending my property does not coerce invaders of my property, it simply defends my property from agressors. It does not coerce people to not come on my property since coercion means forcing people to act involuntarily, not forcing people to not act.

2) The picnickers have all of the "freedom" they want to violate my property and picnic on my lawn, but we can logically deduce that in an AC society that violators of my property would NOT have freedom from liability for violating my property.

[/ QUOTE ] Your first distinction between forcing people to act and forcing them not to act is completely arbitrary. No moral significance.

And nobody forced you to acquire that property in the first place (or take a high paying job). It is only because you voluntaryily claimed that property for yourself or voluntarily took a high paying job that you will end up paying for redistributive taxes. Hence on your definition of coercion nobody is coerced into paying for redistribution: The rules say that you pay if you voluntarily make a lot of money, or in the case of the inheritance tax voluntarily have a lot of property. So redistributive taxation is not coercive after all. In fact taxation isn't ever coercive because the government never forced you to work in the first place!!! You are choosing to pay for taxes because you are choosing to make that much money in your precious "voluntary exchanges".

For the 2nd part, having "no freedom from liability" means that you can sue me, right? So you disagree with ACers that think that people will have private security firms to protect 'private' property in AC? In the On Capitalism thread everybody thinks oterwise.

[ QUOTE ]

So the free market restrains my freedom, while the welfare state increases it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The free market only restrains your freedom from liability. The welfare state, in your example, eliminates your freedom from liability, as well as my freedom in its entirety! Of course, my freedom from coercion and your liability are both derived from a free market, and now you've reversed them in the name of equality. How just!


[/ QUOTE ] I must say I don't understand this. I could try to speculate on what it means and reply but I'd prefer that you re-explain it so I don't mis-reply.

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That property rights increase some people's freedom by restricting others is obvious if we think about the orgin of private property. Since private owneship by one person presupposes non ownership by others, the 'free market' restricts and creates liberties,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The only freedoms that are restricted in the free market are the freedoms to violate another person's property - period. The 'origins' of private property begin with the body - I have "absolute jurisdiction over my own body." You do not own my body, and so you are not at liberty to do with it as you please. The natural extension to all other forms of private ownership is derived from voluntary exchange, i.e. the entire reason humans come together to form society in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ] Before a piece of land becomes your "private property" it was public property and anybody could use it. When you appropriate it for yourself you are eliminating the freedom to use it as they see fit: They can no longer use it. Only you can.

Let us say you claim a river as your private property. Before anybody could take a joy ride accross the river on their boat. But now if they do so it is tresspassing. You've eliminated their freedom to use the river however they want. Or if you claim a jewel filled mine for yourself. Before anybody could dig for gems in it. Can they still now??? No, they have to do what you say. Notice how nobody agreed that you should own the mine. It was not a voluntary exchange, you just appropriated it. And it is not voluntary for the next generation that you own the mine either. They didn't agree to let you have it. I didn't agree that Bill Gates should have 100 billion dollars, or that Debeers should have all those diamond mines. I did not voluntarily say they should own that part of the external world.

Once again, private property is a distribution of both freedom and unfreedom.


[ QUOTE ]
own ends and not the ends of any other individual on the planet, and therefore cannot possibly be free of the distortion of personal bias, hence they are not objective

[/ QUOTE ] This diatribe also shows that your valuations are subjective (about theft, coercion etc), therefore I have no reason to accept them, hence you have no moral argument against me doing any of these things to you.

I don't think you morally own what you de facto physically have in terms of property and resources. So it is not theft if I take it and give it to someone who has less. We have no way of deciding who is right on your premises, because both of our views are each based on utterly subjective determinations and bias. It is all right for you to do whatever you want and all right for me to do whatever I want.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It is only because you voluntaryily claimed that property for yourself or voluntarily took a high paying job that you will end up paying the mugger. Hence on your definition of coercion nobody is coerced into paying muggers: The muggers say that you pay if you voluntarily make a lot of money, or in the case of robbery have a lot of property. So theft is not coercive after all. In fact theft isn't ever coercive because the mugger never forced you to work in the first place!!! You are choosing to pay the mugger because you are choosing to make that much money in your precious "voluntary exchanges".

[/ QUOTE ]

[moorobot]

The real muggers are people who accumulate as much of the external world as they can for themselves regardless of the consequences for others.

[theweatherman]

If you are hanging off a cliff and I tell you I will only help you up if you pay me $100,000 is this coercive?

It is similar to theft at gunpoint, pay or die, but yet I didnt put you in the situation. My actions can save your life, but my inaction will cause your life to end.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The real muggers are people who accumulate as much of the external world as they can for themselves regardless of the consequences for others.

[/ QUOTE ]
The real muggers are people who weapons to demand things from others that don't belong to them, your throwaway line notwithstanding.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are hanging off a cliff and I tell you I will only help you up if you pay me $100,000 is this coercive?

It is similar to theft at gunpoint, pay or die, but yet I didnt put you in the situation. My actions can save your life, but my inaction will cause your life to end.

[/ QUOTE ]
The two situations are not similar.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are hanging off a cliff and I tell you I will only help you up if you pay me $100,000 is this coercive?

It is similar to theft at gunpoint, pay or die, but yet I didnt put you in the situation. My actions can save your life, but my inaction will cause your life to end.

[/ QUOTE ] This is what I'm getting at. Is that coercive?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are hanging off a cliff and I tell you I will only help you up if you pay me $100,000 is this coercive?

It is similar to theft at gunpoint, pay or die, but yet I didnt put you in the situation. My actions can save your life, but my inaction will cause your life to end.

[/ QUOTE ]
The two situations are not similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I disagree heres another:

You are being mugged. It is clear that the mugger intends to kill you with his gun.

Icome along with my own gun and hold you both up at gunpoint. I tell you that I will stop the mugger if you pay me $100,000. If not I will walk away.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are hanging off a cliff and I tell you I will only help you up if you pay me $100,000 is this coercive?

It is similar to theft at gunpoint, pay or die, but yet I didnt put you in the situation. My actions can save your life, but my inaction will cause your life to end.

[/ QUOTE ] This is what I'm getting at. Is that coercive?

[/ QUOTE ]
NO.

co·erce Audio pronunciation of "coerce" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ûrs)
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es

1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coerce

Coercion means I force you to act. Not forcing someone to act can never be coercion, by definition.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are hanging off a cliff and I tell you I will only help you up if you pay me $100,000 is this coercive?

It is similar to theft at gunpoint, pay or die, but yet I didnt put you in the situation. My actions can save your life, but my inaction will cause your life to end.

[/ QUOTE ]
The two situations are not similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I disagree heres another:

You are being mugged. It is clear that the mugger intends to kill you with his gun.

Icome along with my own gun and hold you both up at gunpoint. I tell you that I will stop the mugger if you pay me $100,000. If not I will walk away.

[/ QUOTE ]
See the definition of coercion. You're aren't forcing me to act.

[theweatherman]

Taxes are not forced from you. If you dont pay you go to jail, but you dont have to pay. If the government is forcing you by threatening to put you in jail how is it different than me forcing you to pay me for saving you, under threat of letting you fall?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
See the definition of coercion. You're aren't forcing me to act.

[/ QUOTE ] Is this contract freely entered into?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Taxes are not forced from you. If you dont pay you go to jail, but you dont have to pay. If the government is forcing you by threatening to put you in jail how is it different than me forcing you to pay me for saving you, under threat of letting you fall?

[/ QUOTE ]
One you're forcing me to act by either taking money from me or imprisoning me. YOU are acting against me. In the other actions, you are not the cause of my death if I don't accept your terms, the ground or the mugger is. You are offering me positive options in both of your examples but offering two negative options with taxation.

What's the confusing part of the definition of coerce?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the confusing part of the definition of coerce?

[/ QUOTE ] It doesn't provide any basis for use as a ethical delimiter. You are using it like it does.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the confusing part of the definition of coerce?

[/ QUOTE ] It doesn't provide any basis for use as a ethical delimiter. You are using it like it does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, so the problem is that you don't have a problem with coercion.

edit: that's probably not very fair. you don't have a problem with coercion that you like. Coercion you don't like, you have a problem with.

[DougShrapnel]

good edit, But to be fair I find that the cliff example is coercive. I think sweatshops are coercive, I think HMO's are coercive, I think poverty is coercive, I think power is coecive. I was using your definition of coercive that you snipped from the dictionary, as the be all and end all of thoughts about coercive. Nowhere did it mention that coercion was unethical.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
good edit, But to be fair I find that the cliff example is coercive. I think sweatshops are coercive, I think HMO's are coercive, I think poverty is coercive, I think power is coecive. I was using your definition of coercive that you snipped from the dictionary, as the be all and end all of thoughts about coercive. Nowhere did it mention that coercion was unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you agree that you find some coercion okay but others not okay and that your decisions about which is which are totally arbitrary?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
good edit, But to be fair I find that the cliff example is coercive. I think sweatshops are coercive, I think HMO's are coercive, I think poverty is coercive, I think power is coecive. I was using your definition of coercive that you snipped from the dictionary, as the be all and end all of thoughts about coercive. Nowhere did it mention that coercion was unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you agree that you find some coercion okay but others not okay and that your decisions about which is which are totally arbitrary?

[/ QUOTE ] Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using? If I say be civilized or I will throw you in jail. Is that coercive? Is that unethical? It seems to fit your definition of coercion. If say do not attack me or I will attack you back. Is that coercion? Is that ethical? If I say pay me $80,000 or I will shot you, Is that coercive? Is that ethical?

Do not attack me or I will attack you back is coercive, it is ethical. Am i so wrong to say that coercion can be ethical? Again let me remind you that this is the definition of courcion: "To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation". I don't think you can get out of this by saying on has a right to self-defense. It is coercion.

[theweatherman]

I am not sure that these two situations are as different as they first appear. If you are fully aware of the consequences of your actions then you can freely choose between them.

On the cliff you either pay me a huge fee or die. You are free to choose between these two options. If you choose the not pay you die, it is your own choice.

On taxes you either pay or go to jail. You can freely choose between the two options. If you choose not to pay then the state imprisions you, yet it would seem that you consent to this by refusing to pay. Just as you accept death by refusing to pay me to save you.

[ QUOTE ]
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that in both cases there are forces which are restricting your options and "pressuring" "compeling" or "forcing" you to choose one over the other. To most the immediate threat of bodily harm/imprisionment forces them into a bad situation, paying fees to avoid this fate.

Now looking at the examples of sweatshop labor. Many people are "forced" into working for pennies in order to avoid the imediate threat of death. The owners are fortunate enough to find these poor souls and capitalize on their misfourtune.

As a twist if I saved you from the cliff on the grounds that you will work for me for a small wage, yet if I decide to I can stop this agreement and put you back on the cliff. Would I forcing you to work in this situation? To me it seems that wage slave sweat shop workers are in a similar boat. They are safe (maybe) from starvation for now, but at a whim they can be put right back into that situation by their bosses.


Obviously the answer is to not be hanging off the cliff to begin with, but this is besides the point.

[moorobot]

I started a new thread: Against formal Self-Ownership (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=5661882&an=0&page=0# Post5661882) highly relevant to the hijack discussion (sorry Joshua) that has occured in this thread.

[moorobot]

To me it just seems obvious that since we our behavior has effects for others other people can tell us what to do or not to do to some degree. Anarchy is great if you live alone on a deserted island, democracy is the best way when one person's behavior or lack there of has consequences for other people.

But since others disagree with this I end up making posts that have 'long' in the title.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using?

[/ QUOTE ]
Coercion requires action. You must be forcing me to act in a certain way or punishing me somehow for not doing so. Saying "If you aggress against me, I will fight back" is not coercion because no action is required upon your part. If you don't act (i.e. don't attack me) I won't do anything to you. No consequence for inaction. Understand? This was in the very first definition (To force to act).

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using?

[/ QUOTE ]
Coercion requires action. You must be forcing me to act in a certain way or punishing me somehow for not doing so. Saying "If you aggress against me, I will fight back" is not coercion because no action is required upon your part. If you don't act (i.e. don't attack me) I won't do anything to you. No consequence for inaction. Understand? This was in the very first definition (To force to act).

[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy it, but if you are gonna be a nit, and say that respecting property rights isn't an action. I'll try agian.

You must show up to the arbitration or you will be arrested by security forces? Coersion? ethical?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
On the cliff you either pay me a huge fee or die. You are free to choose between these two options. If you choose the not pay you die, it is your own choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Your inaction is not punished by me, the person offering to save you. Therefore, I am not coercing you, by definition. Now if I hung you from that cliff and said pay up or else I drop you, then I'd be coercing you because I am responsible for your predicament. I used force to put you in a position where your inaction is punished by me. Understand?

[ QUOTE ]
On taxes you either pay or go to jail. You can freely choose between the two options. If you choose not to pay then the state imprisions you, yet it would seem that you consent to this by refusing to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]
This differs from the above because inaction is punished. You are forcing me to choose between A and B when maybe I don't want either.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that in both cases there are forces which are restricting your options and "pressuring" "compeling" or "forcing" you to choose one over the other. To most the immediate threat of bodily harm/imprisionment forces them into a bad situation, paying fees to avoid this fate.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an important point. WHO is responsible for the forces? Is the person who offers to save you at a price responsible for you being in the position you are in? If not then they cannot be said to be coercing you. If they are responsible, then yes, you could say they are coercing you.

[ QUOTE ]
Now looking at the examples of sweatshop labor. Many people are "forced" into working for pennies in order to avoid the imediate threat of death. The owners are fortunate enough to find these poor souls and capitalize on their misfourtune.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the poor soul capitalizes by not dying. The sweatshop isn't responsible for the fact that people need to eat any more than the passerby who sees you on the cliff is responsible for the fact that you can't survive falls from high places.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using?

[/ QUOTE ]
Coercion requires action. You must be forcing me to act in a certain way or punishing me somehow for not doing so. Saying "If you aggress against me, I will fight back" is not coercion because no action is required upon your part. If you don't act (i.e. don't attack me) I won't do anything to you. No consequence for inaction. Understand? This was in the very first definition (To force to act).

[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy it, but if you are gonna be a nit. I'll try agian.

You must show up to the arbitration or you will be arrested by security forces? Coersion? ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you be arrested for not showing up at the arbitration? And yes, that would be coercion. It would likely be in their interest to be at that arbitration, but why should they be forced to?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using?

[/ QUOTE ]
Coercion requires action. You must be forcing me to act in a certain way or punishing me somehow for not doing so. Saying "If you aggress against me, I will fight back" is not coercion because no action is required upon your part. If you don't act (i.e. don't attack me) I won't do anything to you. No consequence for inaction. Understand? This was in the very first definition (To force to act).

[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy it, but if you are gonna be a nit. I'll try agian.

You must show up to the arbitration or you will be arrested by security forces? Coersion? ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you be arrested for not showing up at the arbitration? And yes, that would be coercion. It would likely be in their interest to be at that arbitration, but why should they be forced to?

[/ QUOTE ]I'll word it right eventually, You must respect property rights or you will stand artbitration?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using?

[/ QUOTE ]
Coercion requires action. You must be forcing me to act in a certain way or punishing me somehow for not doing so. Saying "If you aggress against me, I will fight back" is not coercion because no action is required upon your part. If you don't act (i.e. don't attack me) I won't do anything to you. No consequence for inaction. Understand? This was in the very first definition (To force to act).

[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy it, but if you are gonna be a nit. I'll try agian.

You must show up to the arbitration or you will be arrested by security forces? Coersion? ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you be arrested for not showing up at the arbitration? And yes, that would be coercion. It would likely be in their interest to be at that arbitration, but why should they be forced to?

[/ QUOTE ]I'll word it right eventually, You must respect property rights or you will stand artbitration?

[/ QUOTE ]
Respect them or don't respect them. But violate them and you're violating the person. This is like the self-defense argument. I won't harm you as long as you don't harm me. No action is required of you.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using?

[/ QUOTE ]
Coercion requires action. You must be forcing me to act in a certain way or punishing me somehow for not doing so. Saying "If you aggress against me, I will fight back" is not coercion because no action is required upon your part. If you don't act (i.e. don't attack me) I won't do anything to you. No consequence for inaction. Understand? This was in the very first definition (To force to act).

[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy it, but if you are gonna be a nit. I'll try agian.

You must show up to the arbitration or you will be arrested by security forces? Coersion? ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you be arrested for not showing up at the arbitration? And yes, that would be coercion. It would likely be in their interest to be at that arbitration, but why should they be forced to?

[/ QUOTE ]I'll word it right eventually, You must respect property rights or you will stand artbitration?

[/ QUOTE ]
Respect them or don't respect them. But violate them and you're violating the person. This is like the self-defense argument. I won't harm you as long as you don't harm me. No action is required of you.

[/ QUOTE ] It's similair to the self-defense one but it is not the same. Lets say I'm a socialist I dont belive you can own anything, I go on to a farm to eat some food. You catch me as I'm about to eat something, and you say stop or I'll .... Is stoping not an action?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using?

[/ QUOTE ]
Coercion requires action. You must be forcing me to act in a certain way or punishing me somehow for not doing so. Saying "If you aggress against me, I will fight back" is not coercion because no action is required upon your part. If you don't act (i.e. don't attack me) I won't do anything to you. No consequence for inaction. Understand? This was in the very first definition (To force to act).

[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy it, but if you are gonna be a nit. I'll try agian.

You must show up to the arbitration or you will be arrested by security forces? Coersion? ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you be arrested for not showing up at the arbitration? And yes, that would be coercion. It would likely be in their interest to be at that arbitration, but why should they be forced to?

[/ QUOTE ]I'll word it right eventually, You must respect property rights or you will stand artbitration?

[/ QUOTE ]
Respect them or don't respect them. But violate them and you're violating the person. This is like the self-defense argument. I won't harm you as long as you don't harm me. No action is required of you.

[/ QUOTE ] It's similair to the self-defense one but it is not the same. Lets say I'm a socialist I dont belive you can own anything, I go on to a farm to eat some food. You catch me as I'm about to eat something, and you say stop or I'll .... Is stoping not an action?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is part and parcel with self-ownership. Private property stems from owning one's self and violating property is a violation of self. Hence, self-defense.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using?

[/ QUOTE ]
Coercion requires action. You must be forcing me to act in a certain way or punishing me somehow for not doing so. Saying "If you aggress against me, I will fight back" is not coercion because no action is required upon your part. If you don't act (i.e. don't attack me) I won't do anything to you. No consequence for inaction. Understand? This was in the very first definition (To force to act).

[/ QUOTE ] I don't buy it, but if you are gonna be a nit. I'll try agian.

You must show up to the arbitration or you will be arrested by security forces? Coersion? ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you be arrested for not showing up at the arbitration? And yes, that would be coercion. It would likely be in their interest to be at that arbitration, but why should they be forced to?

[/ QUOTE ]I'll word it right eventually, You must respect property rights or you will stand artbitration?

[/ QUOTE ]
Respect them or don't respect them. But violate them and you're violating the person. This is like the self-defense argument. I won't harm you as long as you don't harm me. No action is required of you.

[/ QUOTE ] It's similair to the self-defense one but it is not the same. Lets say I'm a socialist I dont belive you can own anything, I go on to a farm to eat some food. You catch me as I'm about to eat something, and you say stop or I'll .... Is stoping not an action?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is part and parcel with self-ownership. Private property stems from owning one's self and violating property is a violation of self. Hence, self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]The socialist has no clue what you are mumbling about, regardless of the correctness of your beliefs, he has never heard of self-ownership, or property rights, or self defense for that matter. The socialist is unaware that it is wrong. He is only made aware that you have a different understanding of the world and perscribe "rights" he has never heard of when you coerce him into stopping. It's a strange senario, but is it coercion?

[BCPVP]

*Replied to prevent stretching the forum*

[ QUOTE ]
The socialist has no clue what you are mumbling about, regardless of the correctness of your beliefs, he has never heard of self-ownership, or property rights, or self defense for that matter. The socialist is unaware that it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
An attack on your person is still an attack on your person, whether the other person is aware of that or not. Ignorance is no excuse.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
*Replied to prevent stretching the forum*

[ QUOTE ]
The socialist has no clue what you are mumbling about, regardless of the correctness of your beliefs, he has never heard of self-ownership, or property rights, or self defense for that matter. The socialist is unaware that it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
An attack on your person is still an attack on your person, whether the other person is aware of that or not. Ignorance is no excuse.

[/ QUOTE ] There is no attack in this case. The socialist was unaware that you had some "assinine" from his point of view belief in personal property. He was just doing what was natural to him. He ahs done it a million times before with no negative consequences. The socialist isn't "ignorant" he is knowledgable about different beliefs than you hold. You are in a sitcky situation. You have to either let the socialist go about his business eating your property or you have to coerce him to stop. What do you do since coercion is always wrong? Do you educate him quickly while he eats?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Placing the barrier is coercion. That is my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[ QUOTE ]
You and I haven't gotten to whether you have a "right" to be coercive(place the barrier). Because we can't seem to agree if this is coercive or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point. Building a roof "coerces" the rain to not fall on my head, right?

Fine. Let's stop using the word coercion by itself.

If A punches B, and B shoots A, B has "coerced" A into no longer hitting B.

Fine.

But notice who initiated the interaction. By punching (or even swinging) A coerced B into acting, oned way or the other. Once A initiates the interaction, he has no legitimate expectation that B will not return force.

The billiard ball entering my property and hitting my barrier has no legitimate expectation of being able to freely travel in a straight line.

If the barrier is mine, the uninvited billiard ball is "coercing" my barrier into absorbing energy. The barrier didn't do anything but sit there. The ball was the actor and initiated coercion. The barrier (or more properly, the laws of physics) counter-coerced the ball into bouncing, leaving it's straight-line path.

If the barrier is "natural" (the edge of the table, perhaps) has the billiard ball been coerced? Unethically? Who should he complain to? Who should he complain about?

[ QUOTE ]
I see a difference, some claim that they are equal. However, even tho I see them both as unethical, sins of commision normally more so. I don't wish to espouse a ethical or potical philosophy that attemps to deny human nature in order for it to be correct. I think both AC and treating sins of commisions equal to sins of ommisions gloss over some very basic assumptions about human nature that strong objections have been raised within the scientific community regarding thier validity. If the difference that I am suppose to see is that sins of commosion are unethical and sins of ommision are ethical I'd like to you explain how that is so.

[/ QUOTE ]

When one doesn't act (but could) in a way that benefits me, why do I have a right to his action? Maybe if he acts to benefit me, he misses an opportunity to help someone else even more. Maybe he damages himself more than he helps me. Compelling him to act violates his self ownership, regardless of the opportunity he's compelled to give up when he is forced to act.

When B dangles from a cliff, A does not violate B's self ownership by strolling past. If A is compelled to act, A's self ownership is violated.

When A dangles B from a cliff, A violates B's self ownership. A initiates a coercive interaction.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you own the N, E, and W doors?

[/ QUOTE ] The doors just are there. It is not important who owns them.
They could be owned by someone else, or a group of indivduals, or they could have sprung into existance for no reason with no owner, or possibly God put them there. It doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it matters. I want a candy bar. My neighbor has a candy bar. But he's placed it in his kitchen, behind a locked door! He's putting up arbitrary barriers between me and my satisfaction!


[/ QUOTE ] The barrier I was trying to examplize is human nature and it's lack of free choices in many cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your point? I have an infinite number of "free choices" I can't make. I can't walk to mars. I can't eat four million ice cream cones. I can't shoot laser beams out of my eyes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What right do you have to go through them?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't think the doors can recongnize such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not asking about the door's awareness.


[/ QUOTE ] You may say that people have a "right" to starve. I don't think their genes let them. I don't really want to have you defending sweetshops and me playing the role of a crying liberal. Sweetshops are only one such example that the freedom of will AC assumes at it foundations, is at least partially incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't know what your point is.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they're already locked, and I refuse to break the door down for you, have I done some injustice to you?

[/ QUOTE ] This is a good question. I think it shifts the focus of the doors being a coercive barrier to free will, into being sins of ommision.

What did you do to be in the position to unlock doors?

[/ QUOTE ]

You tell me. You're constructing the scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I don't know the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're just being obtuse?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is a society better with locked doors or unlocked ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should I care? And how do you determine what is "better" for society? Can you call society up on the phone and ask society if society prefers the doors to be locked or unlocked? Is my neighbor better with locked doors or unlocked doors? I don't care if they're my doors.

[/ QUOTE ] Your genes or reason makes you care. You don't have much of a choice. Or in other peoples case their genes don't care, or their reason doesn't let them care.

[/ QUOTE ]

My genes make me care about doors? Are these doors still representing the choices I can't make? My genes are mad that I can't shoot lasers out of my eyes?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it ethical to force you to pay for the unlocking of doors?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is "no", no matter what comes after "you" in your question.

If I own the doors, it's unethical for someone else to order that they should be unlocked. In addition, it's unethical for that person to allocate my resources to the accomplishment of that goal.

[/ QUOTE ]
If "The answer is "no", no matter what comes after "you" in your question." is ture, and we can see that situations can arise with no other options are availble to the participants(resticting the possiblity of "freely"), and we call that coercive. Then AC does a very poor job of correcting the unethical behavior of govenrment.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[ QUOTE ]
AC in fact rewards unethical behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[ QUOTE ]
But hey, what do you expect when you gloss over basic long debated concepts of human nature and build a societal structure using what is most likely one of the more flawed arguments of the debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come out and say what you mean instead of beating around the bush.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The person who has the access to the goods now has gained freedom??? I don't think she agreed to that exchange between you and your parents, btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

What grounds does she have to object?

[ QUOTE ]
And nobody forced you to acquire that property in the first place (or take a high paying job).

[/ QUOTE ]

The "nobody forced the bankers to put that money in the vault" argument. A true classic.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

So the free market restrains my freedom, while the welfare state increases it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

But you ignore how many people have their freedom restrained, and by how much, so that your personal freedom may be increased a little bit.

Making *you* the absolute autocrat would increase your freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
Before a piece of land becomes your "private property" it was public property and anybody could use it. When you appropriate it for yourself you are eliminating the freedom to use it as they see fit: They can no longer use it. Only you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

They had their chance.

When I eat an ice cream cone, I'm eliminating the freedom for others to eat it. They can no longer eat it.

[ QUOTE ]
Let us say you claim a river as your private property.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not enough to simply claim the property. I claim the entire moon. Now, what good does that do me?

[ QUOTE ]
Before anybody could take a joy ride accross the river on their boat. But now if they do so it is tresspassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why didn't they? And why should I be upset?

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't agree that Bill Gates should have 100 billion dollars,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't. But a lot of people with small fractions of that $50 billion (not 100) did decide that Bill's company should have some of their money in exchange for some of Bill's company's production.

[ QUOTE ]
or that Debeers should have all those diamond mines.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't. But a government (which you think should be in charge of such property allocations) did decide that they should. So you should be happy with this arranagement.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not voluntarily say they should own that part of the external world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noted. So what? I didn't say that the Red Sox should win the world series. But guess what, they did.

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, private property is a distribution of both freedom and unfreedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

And government distribution is a distribution of the same.


[ QUOTE ]
This diatribe also shows that your valuations are subjective (about theft, coercion etc), therefore I have no reason to accept them, hence you have no moral argument against me doing any of these things to you.

I don't think you morally own what you de facto physically have in terms of property and resources. So it is not theft if I take it and give it to someone who has less. We have no way of deciding who is right on your premises, because both of our views are each based on utterly subjective determinations and bias. It is all right for you to do whatever you want and all right for me to do whatever I want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, this is true. Ultimately, which one ends up "getting away with it" is determined by the market (whether you believe this or not). The ideas will battle in the marketplace, and whichever idea wins the most support will be the idea that predominates.

Your ideas are losing.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm just confused about which definition of coercion you are using? If I say be civilized or I will throw you in jail. Is that coercive? Is that unethical? It seems to fit your definition of coercion. If say do not attack me or I will attack you back. Is that coercion? Is that ethical? If I say pay me $80,000 or I will shot you, Is that coercive? Is that ethical?

Do not attack me or I will attack you back is coercive, it is ethical. Am i so wrong to say that coercion can be ethical? Again let me remind you that this is the definition of courcion: "To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation". I don't think you can get out of this by saying on has a right to self-defense. It is coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, once one party has initiated the coercion, the return of force by the other party to stop the coercion is not unethical. Self-defense is the *result* of coercion.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You must show up to the arbitration or you will be arrested by security forces? Coersion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure.

[ QUOTE ]
ethical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not.

[DougShrapnel]

Ok I'll stop being frustrating to you and stop these examples.

AC depends on freewill. People don't have it in the fashion that AC requires. The foundation of the system you espouse is insanly unstable.

Coercion isn't the only unethical action, and I don't think it is always unethical.

If you can see a man hanging from a cliff and you can save his life with little risk to you. You should. A system that says you can extort the man for 80,000 before you lift a finger is nuts. I can't imagine what other consequences AC brings to the table. Racists are probably attracted to AC.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
You do not own my body, and so you are not at liberty to do with it as you please. The natural extension to all other forms of private ownership is derived from voluntary exchange, i.e. the entire reason humans come together to form society in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Voluntary exchange is also why humans form governments, because as good as what you describe may seem, it doesn’t stand alone.

In a state of anarchy, concepts of property rights are supposedly going to originate in common yet be enforced in a private venue without government serving as the reference point of social consensus. Under those conditions, no court could have final jurisdiction in any matter. Property rights will be contingent on the next litigant with a large bankroll who wants what you’ve got. He will bring his own court, his own mercenaries and a lawsuit. With no government acting as arbiter, the property rights everyone thought they’d agreed upon will have no effective basis in law. The robber baron and his judicial firm will collude against you and share the winnings.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I have little faith that a lack of governmental control would really change the situation much. It seems that it would be very difficult for everyone (meaning bug businesses) to have several competing banana firms in Indonesia. Instead there could be several huge firms in Panama, Indonesia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Congo etc. This would keep world prices low (due to unrestricted free trade) but still keep wages low (due to regional monopoly of labor).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems to me that if there is competition in terms of free trade, there will also be competition in terms of buying labor. Unionization would also help in this endeavor.
I also do not think that it would necessarily be the case that it would be 'several big businesses', when smaller businesses could be involved. But, of course, this flows from the fact that I think one of the primary reasons we have such large businesses that have such a stranglehold on markets is because of government and its partnership with big business. So I think eliminating government not ony gets rid of the direct monopolies that it currently allows, but also reduces the more general power of large corporations.

[ QUOTE ]
I also have little faith in the ability of these workers to better their position. Look at the horribly repressive actions of Government strike breakers in the US in the 19th century. It seems that a firm would be much more ruthless and efficient at breaking union strikes. Kill a few workers and the strike will be over. While in an industrialized, modern society these companies would be held accountable (in theory at least) with law suits and the like. I dont think this will occur when the workers are dirt poor and uneducated. Even pro bono lawyers cant help if the incidents are keep very quiet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is certainly a legitimate worry. Of course, it isn't really a point against AC theory, since obviously ACers would take issue with a corporation randomly killing its workers. It is an important question, though, if poor workers in non-industrialized countries would be shielded from these corporations. I certainly don't see what benefit centralized government would have--if lawsuits and accountability are what we need, free markets and voluntary associations can handle these things. But awareness of the situation is what is needed, and how we make society aware of what is happening is a separate issue in many ways from how best to fix the situation.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Voluntary exchange is also why humans form governments, because as good as what you describe may seem, it doesn’t stand alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Forcing people to pay for your collective schemes is "voluntary exchange"?

In order to protect rights you have to first violate them?

[ QUOTE ]
In a state of anarchy...

[/ QUOTE ]

...billionaires spend their time beating up poor people and taking their rice bowls.

Finished your post.

Yes, we've seen that argument a hundred times.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Rothbard's point in that quote certainly did not explcitly say what you are saying here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps not explicitly, no. But since I've read a fair amount of Rothbard, I was giving my best interpretation of what I thought he was getting at, given what else I know of his beliefs, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. political system should be fundementally overhauled in my view, but I don't think gov't should be eliminated; rather we need better electoral rules like proportional representation, a nationally elected national gov't instead of locality elected one, campagin finance reform etc. In short, we should try to make the U.S. into a better democracy instead of working to trying to eliminate democracy. We should make democracy truly by, for and of the people-create rules were people actually can get the government to do what they want it to do most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that something like proportional respresentation would be a vast improvement. I don's so much agree with the national-level as opposed to local-level stuff. Again, it is not so much the spirit of 'democracy' that I am opposed to--but what system gives people rules (or anything else) that they want better than free markets and voluntary communities? Certainly, it seems to me, not national-level elections and representational democracy where special-interest groups, and small majorities can force their views and rules on others. So long as their is centralization, it is hard to see how the rules created could possibly be ones that people want.

[ QUOTE ]
but you have to remember that the 'affirmative state' is a rather new reality. Math and science weren't nearly as good during their first fifty years of existensce as they are now-it takes time, effort, thought and practice to learn how to do things well. A hundred years from now the affirmative state will function much better than it does now, and even given how it functions now most people in "1st world" democracies would rather not turn back to the laissez faire capitalism that was prevalent pre-"welfare state". Even in the U.S. neither party challenges it or has tried to change it fundementally despite all the "problem with the government is the government" used by many republicans in the past couple of decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true enough as far as it goes. One might wonder, though, if something similar might be said of Stateless societies...

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure that these two situations are as different as they first appear. If you are fully aware of the consequences of your actions then you can freely choose between them.

On the cliff you either pay me a huge fee or die. You are free to choose between these two options. If you choose the not pay you die, it is your own choice.

On taxes you either pay or go to jail. You can freely choose between the two options. If you choose not to pay then the state imprisions you, yet it would seem that you consent to this by refusing to pay. Just as you accept death by refusing to pay me to save you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the differnce seems to be that in the case of the cliff, the person offering to save you for $100,000 has not violated your rights or aggressed against you. Had he not come alnog at all, you would just fall to your death--your state of being about to die has nothing to do with his actions. That said, of course, I would hope that most would find this person morally reprehensible--just not because he is aggressing against you, because he isn't. We might admit some sense in which you are being coerced, but it would be a very different sense than the sense of 'government coercion', and not the one being used in this thread (as far as I can tell).

Of course, in the case of taxes, you have a choice--jail or pay up--but the point is that it the choice was created solely through government action. It is only a 'choice' in the same way that a mugger gives you a 'choice' between living and giving him your wallet.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The ideas will battle in the marketplace, and whichever idea wins the most support will be the idea that predominates.

[/ QUOTE ]

One dollar, one vote.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a state of anarchy...

[/ QUOTE ]

...billionaires spend their time beating up poor people and taking their rice bowls.

Finished your post.

Yes, we've seen that argument a hundred times.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a state of anarchy, billionaires pillage the industrious classes, taking their monetary wealth, resources and working capital.

We’ve seen that reality thousands of times throughout history.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ideas will battle in the marketplace, and whichever idea wins the most support will be the idea that predominates.

[/ QUOTE ]

One dollar, one vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the mall.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a state of anarchy...

[/ QUOTE ]

...billionaires spend their time beating up poor people and taking their rice bowls.

Finished your post.

Yes, we've seen that argument a hundred times.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a state of anarchy, billionaires pillage the industrious classes, taking their monetary wealth, resources and working capital.

We’ve seen that reality thousands of times throughout history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thousands? Then you'll have no trouble providing an example.

[Sharkey]

That’s right.

How are you doing on my question to you as to how the “free market” can be relied upon to provide a solution to invasion by an expansionist regional power?

[..........]

There's really no point in trying to reason with ACers. Their universe is completely devoid of rational thought. Their narrow point of view stems not from objective analysis, but from an overwhelming greed and resentment that cannot be overcome through logical discourse - or anything for that matter.

They've heard many times the countless reasons why their system is doomed to fail, and have a million and one rolodexed rebuttals, all of them equally ignorant and lacking any sort of practical application in the real world. This leaves most intelligent would-be adversaries annoyed and quick to realize the futility of engaging in any further attempts to dismantle their erroneous theories and immature misconceptions of human nature.

Typical AC discussion:

Intelligent sane person: "Anarcho-capitalism cannot be applied in the real world because <lists irrefutable evidence as to why it is indeed inapplicable>."

HKBCPVNdog: <provides link to some random web page that although lacking in any sort of related rebuttal, still appeals to the ACers' deep-seated rebellious nature>

Intelligent sane person: <Not foiled by the desperate attempt to sway the discussion away from the original point and reality, decides that he will continue to play the game a while longer and again provides the reasons why anarcho-capitalism is retarded>

HKBCPVNdog: <unintelligible regurgitated babble usually regarding billionaires and and/or rice bowls>

Intelligent sane person: “Good day to you sir.”

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
That’s right.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where's the example?

[ QUOTE ]
How are you doing on my question to you as to how the “free market” can be relied upon to provide a solution to invasion by an expansionist regional power?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did pretty well. People want defense, they buy defense. Just like how the "free market" can be relied upon to provide a solution to the "I want a shade tree in my yard" problem.

How is defense different than gardening? What is the magical property of defense that makes its provision different?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There's really no point in trying to reason with ACers. Their universe is completely devoid of rational thought. Their narrow point of view stems not from objective analysis, but from an overwhelming greed and resentment that cannot be overcome through logical discourse - or anything for that matter.

They've heard many times the countless reasons why their system is doomed to fail, and have a million and one rolodexed rebuttals, all of them equally ignorant and lacking any sort of practical application in the real world. This leaves most intelligent would-be adversaries annoyed and quick to realize the futility of engaging in any further attempts to dismantle their erroneous theories and immature misconceptions of human nature.

Typical AC discussion:

Intelligent sane person: "Anarcho-capitalism cannot be applied in the real world because <lists irrefutable evidence as to why it is indeed inapplicable>."

HKBCPVNdog: <provides link to some random web page that although lacking in any sort of related rebuttal, still appeals to the ACers' deep-seated rebellious nature>

Intelligent sane person: <Not foiled by the desperate attempt to sway the discussion away from the original point and reality, decides that he will continue to play the game a while longer and again provides the reasons why anarcho-capitalism is retarded>

HKBCPVNdog: <unintelligible regurgitated babble usually regarding billionaires and and/or rice bowls>

Intelligent sane person: “Good day to you sir.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this post is a good example of that "irrefutable evidence".

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How are you doing on my question to you as to how the “free market” can be relied upon to provide a solution to invasion by an expansionist regional power?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did pretty well. People want defense, they buy defense. Just like how the "free market" can be relied upon to provide a solution to the "I want a shade tree in my yard" problem.

How is defense different than gardening? What is the magical property of defense that makes its provision different?

[/ QUOTE ]

You still have not responded, only pretended to.

Supplying a shade tree and equipping a territory against invasion are completely different functions. The tree is more or less a commodity. Defense against an expansionist regional power requires billions be invested in R&D with no clear prospect of monetary return according to the “free market” model. There is no reason to assume that an individual consumer’s demand for his portion of a necessarily collective defense will correspond to the contribution required of him to meet the demands of preparing for the approaching threat.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Their narrow point of view stems not from objective analysis, but from an overwhelming greed and resentment

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their narrow point of view stems not from objective analysis, but from an overwhelming greed and resentment

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and you forgot racism and bigotry.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And nobody forced you to acquire that property in the first place (or take a high paying job).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The "nobody forced the bankers to put that money in the vault" argument. A true classic.


[/ QUOTE ] What? The banker does not know somebody for sure is going to take it for one thing. When you live in a society with progressive taxation you know in advance that you are going to be taxed if you make a certain ammount of money to support redistributive programs. If you still do it anyway you have EXPLICITLY agreed to be taxed: You know what the consequences of your behavior would have and you did it anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The person who has the access to the goods now has gained freedom??? I don't think she agreed to that exchange between you and your parents, btw.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What grounds does she have to object?

[/ QUOTE ] You obviosly know what my answer is but:

Since the decision effects her and voluntary transactions are so precious to you, what ground do you have to tell her not to object? You are preventing her from having that freedom against her will, are you not.

[ QUOTE ]

Before a piece of land becomes your "private property" it was public property and anybody could use it. When you appropriate it for yourself you are eliminating the freedom to use it as they see fit: They can no longer use it. Only you can.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They had their chance.

When I eat an ice cream cone, I'm eliminating the freedom for others to eat it. They can no longer eat it.


[/ QUOTE ] Um, no. What if they couldn't afford it due to no marketable skills. Or more fundementally, What if you have already appropriated that piece of property before they were born???

What if all private property is appropriated when someone is born? Nobody in the next generation can do anything without the consent of their masters....I mean their owners....I mean their oligarchs....I mean, um, their monarchs?....I don't know what to call them.

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us say you claim a river as your private property.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's not enough to simply claim the property. I claim the entire moon. Now, what good does that do me?

[/ QUOTE ] You go up there and charge everybody who uses it? LOL. No, you can charge people for using the river, and sue people who pollute it.

[ QUOTE ]

I did not voluntarily say they should own that part of the external world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Noted. So what? I didn't say that the Red Sox should win the world series. But guess what, they did.

[/ QUOTE ] You are the one that thinks everything should be consensual. Acers think voluntary makes good. Force this and tell me to do that... Now only things that you care about should require consent. I see.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]



Of course, this is true. Ultimately, which one ends up "getting away with it" is determined by the market (whether you believe this or not). The ideas will battle in the marketplace, and whichever idea wins the most support will be the idea that predominates.

Your ideas are losing.

[/ QUOTE ] I personally don't quite know what this comment means preciscely, some parts are equviocal however:

My ideas are not losing as badly as your ideas are.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How are you doing on my question to you as to how the “free market” can be relied upon to provide a solution to invasion by an expansionist regional power?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did pretty well. People want defense, they buy defense. Just like how the "free market" can be relied upon to provide a solution to the "I want a shade tree in my yard" problem.

How is defense different than gardening? What is the magical property of defense that makes its provision different?

[/ QUOTE ]

You still have not responded, only pretended to.

Supplying a shade tree and equipping a territory against invasion are completely different functions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Ice cream cones and stop signs serve different functions. But both are goods, and are subject to the same economic realities.

[ QUOTE ]
The tree is more or less a commodity. Defense against an expansionist regional power requires billions be invested in R&D with no clear prospect of monetary return according to the “free market” model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Insurance has no clear prospect of "monetary return". You can create wealth by buying insurance. However, people find value in buying it, and therefore people will sell it to them. And they make money selling it.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason to assume that an individual consumer’s demand for his portion of a necessarily collective defense will correspond to the contribution required of him to meet the demands of preparing for the approaching threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to assume that an individual will buy enough socks to stay warm all winter. So what?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
You obviosly know what my answer is but:

Since the decision effects her and voluntary transactions are so precious to you, what ground do you have to tell her not to object? You are preventing her from having that freedom against her will, are you not.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bully threatens to give me a wedgie every time I walk down a certain street. Am I consenting to getting wedgies if I go down the street? What if all of the other streets are filled by more dangerous thugs that threaten to kill me?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Supplying a shade tree and equipping a territory against invasion are completely different functions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bought a shade tree last year. Unfortunately, my neighbor is getting some of the shade! This free rider problem is threatening to make the tree economy unsustainable. Clearly, I need a government agency to step in and extract some payment from my neighbor to compensate me for my shade, or I'll stop buying shade trees.

[Sharkey]

You’re still only pretending to answer, just with more words.

[..........]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes. Ice cream cones and stop signs serve different functions. But both are goods, and are subject to the same economic realities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. I’ll let my neighbor foot the bill. I can see when cars are coming.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason to assume that an individual consumer’s demand for his portion of a necessarily collective defense will correspond to the contribution required of him to meet the demands of preparing for the approaching threat.

[/ QUOTE ]


There's no reason to assume that an individual will buy enough socks to stay warm all winter. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Don’t recall having to duck and cover my last mid-winter sock-run to Walmart.

Hilarious.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
When you live in a society with progressive taxation you know in advance that you are going to be taxed if you make a certain ammount of money to support redistributive programs. If you still do it anyway you have EXPLICITLY agreed to be taxed: You know what the consequences of your behavior would have and you did it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why it's coercion, mooro. Inaction (or the "wrong" action) leads to punishment. Initiating coercion is immoral.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Don’t recall having to duck and cover my last mid-winter sock-run to Walmart.

Hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]


Isnt it? You were cold, so you went out and spent some money to fix your dissatisfaction! Wow! Next: how to solve the "How much cereal do I need to buy?" problem.

[..........]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Don’t recall having to duck and cover my last mid-winter sock-run to Walmart.

Hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]


Isnt it? You were cold, so you went out and spent some money to fix your dissatisfaction! .

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me how I would go about "fixing my dissatisfaction" when I realize all too late that I forgot to pick up some "Anti-Nucular Halocaust" ointment.

edit: bah!!!! See what happens when you feed the ACers? You get sucked into a vortex of perpetual retardation from which there is no escape! SAVE YOURSELVES!!!!

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
You were cold, so you went out and spent some money to fix your dissatisfaction! Wow! Next: how to solve the "How much cereal do I need to buy?" problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

So national defense against an expansionist regional power will be structured and financed by inclusion on the shopping lists of individual consumers.

Goodbye Anarcholand.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Don’t recall having to duck and cover my last mid-winter sock-run to Walmart.

Hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]


Isnt it? You were cold, so you went out and spent some money to fix your dissatisfaction! .

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me how I would go about "fixing my dissatisfaction" when I realize all too late that I forgot to pick up some "Anti-Nucular Halocaust" ointment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now who's being retarded? Why would AC-land get nuked? Just for [censored] and giggles?

Now here's a tough question: do you have to wait till winter when your feet get cold to go buy socks or could you buy socks in anticipation of cold weather?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would AC-land get nuked? Just for [censored] and giggles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcholand could get nuked as part of an invasion by an expansionist regional power seeking the elimination of competition, theft of resources and territorial expansion.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Now who's being retarded? Why would AC-land get nuked? Just for [censored] and giggles?

Now here's a tough question: do you have to wait till winter when your feet get cold to go buy socks or could you buy socks in anticipation of cold weather?

[/ QUOTE ]

BC,

You shouldn't argue with this guy. He's too good. He somehow found out that we're from a universe devoid of rational thought (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=5666822) . You're walking right into his trap--pretty soon he's gonna drop his irrefutable evidence on you, then you'll have no choice but to desperately respond with incoherent ramblings.

Get out while you still can!

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would AC-land get nuked? Just for [censored] and giggles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcholand could get nuked as part of an invasion by an expansionist regional power seeking the elimination of competition, theft of resources and territorial expansion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because when I want to take some resources and land, hitting those resources and land with a huge radioactive fireball is the first thing that pops into my head.

Step one: nuke valuable stuff
Step two: ???
Step three: PROFIT!!!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would AC-land get nuked? Just for [censored] and giggles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcholand could get nuked as part of an invasion by an expansionist regional power seeking the elimination of competition, theft of resources and territorial expansion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because when I want to take some resources and land, hitting those resources and land with a huge radioactive fireball is the first thing that pops into my head.

Step one: nuke valuable stuff
Step two: ???
Step three: PROFIT!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

BRILLIANT!!!
http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/7150/brilliant1ze.png

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would AC-land get nuked? Just for [censored] and giggles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcholand could get nuked as part of an invasion by an expansionist regional power seeking the elimination of competition, theft of resources and territorial expansion.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are going to nuke resources and territory that they intend to steal? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would AC-land get nuked? Just for [censored] and giggles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcholand could get nuked as part of an invasion by an expansionist regional power seeking the elimination of competition, theft of resources and territorial expansion.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are going to nuke resources and territory that they intend to steal? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Presumably he didnt mean nuked into oblivion - targetting population centres or strategically important areas while preserving areas rich in resources would be a good strategy.

Edit: Well could be a good strategy, anyhow.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would AC-land get nuked? Just for [censored] and giggles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcholand could get nuked as part of an invasion by an expansionist regional power seeking the elimination of competition, theft of resources and territorial expansion.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are going to nuke resources and territory that they intend to steal? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody said they were smart. If they were, they'd be ACers, of course. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[..........]

Sometimes in modern warfare the threat of force is often enough.

Here’s a little scenario I dreamt up while floating around in the vacuum of perpetual retardation.

/images/graemlins/mad.gif <font color="red"> STATE </font> /images/graemlins/mad.gif : WE WANT "X"

/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="green"> Magical Rainforest of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land </font> /images/graemlins/heart.gif :Well we don't want to give you "x". We like "x"

/images/graemlins/mad.gif <font color="red"> STATE </font> /images/graemlins/mad.gif : Well, We're gonna take it anyway. Infact, we would appreciate it if you’d kindly place "x" into a manila envelope and have it ready for us on the first and 15th of each and every month. Thank You.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="green"> Magical Rainforest of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land </font> /images/graemlins/heart.gif :We don't want to.

/images/graemlins/mad.gif <font color="red"> STATE </font> /images/graemlins/mad.gif : Well, I'm afraid you don't have any say in the matter. You see we have this gun here.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="green"> Magical Rainforest of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land </font> /images/graemlins/heart.gif : Oh. &lt;turns and whispers to other sovereign individual&gt; "Put TWO guns on the shopping list." &lt;turns back to evil state&gt; "Now see here evil state; We're gonna have TWO guns by the time you return with your measly one gun LOL!

/images/graemlins/mad.gif<font color="red"> STATE </font> /images/graemlins/mad.gif: Well, by the time you return from the mall, we're gonna already have some BOMBS!

/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="green"> Magical Rainforest of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land </font> /images/graemlins/heart.gif: Damn. OK, we're gonna get TWO bombs!!!

/images/graemlins/mad.gif<font color="red"> STATE </font> /images/graemlins/mad.gif: LOL don't bother. We were just messin' with ya. We already have 500 nuclear warheads aimed directly at you blissful utopia. And if you don't want to be bombed back into the stone age, I’d suggest you pony up.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="green"> Magical Rainforest of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land </font> /images/graemlins/heart.gif:I think we'd better give them "x".

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Magical Rainforest of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land :Well we don't want to give you "x". We like "x"


[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "we"?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green">Fairytail Land</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds interesting. Are the fairies hot?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
blissful utopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not what AC is at all. Even they say so.

AC is a world where the rich can get richer and the poor can [censored] off.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
AC is a world where the rich can get richer and the poor can [censored] off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seeing as centralized Statism hasn't exactly been a resounding success in terms of stopping the rich from [censored] the poor, what have we got to lose? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[..........]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Magical Rainforest of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land :Well we don't want to give you "x". We like "x"


[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "we"?

[/ QUOTE ]

"We" is obviously referring to anyone benefiting from the surrounding congregation of sovereign individuals not being a steaming pit of burning flesh and rubble - presumably those among the highest rungs of society, who in all probability value an abundance of customers and employees enough to render them the perfect candidates for said extortion. That's umm...who we is.

Now, if "we" understands what is best for "we", then "we" will consult with the other "we's", and decide amongst themselves whom will incur which percentage of the new cost of running a blissful utopia where everyone is happy and only the poor and unfortunate suffer.

In exchange, of course, the oppressive occupiers will now offer their military might as protection from other possible threats, as they now have a vested interest in the smooth operation of Magical Rainforest Of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land.

Now of course this is all purely hypothetical because the "we's" of M.R.A.C.F.L. were intelligent enough to have envisioned this nightmare scenario, and decided instead to unite together and divide the cost of their very own nuclear-capable military to ensure they would never find themselves in the untenable position of having to give anyone else a percentage of their money.

Unfortunately the "we's" soon began to realize that the cost of owning and maintaining their very own modern-day war machine was beginning to grow exponentially - far exceeding what they had initially anticipated. So they quickly decided that since everyone in M.R.A.C.F.L. was benefiting from having a powerful military presence in the region, then everyone should contribute to the rising cost of maintaining it. I mean why should a few have to pay while everyone else gets a free ride? But they couldn't just go around collecting money from people if they didn't want to pay. That would be coercion.

After much deliberation the "we"s finally decided that they simply had no real choice in the matter, as the operating costs of Magical Rainforest Of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land were simply too high to turn a decent profit. It was either impose a war-machine tax, or surrender control to the oppressive state. It was unanimous. It was much better to exploit than to be exploited. And so they did. The following week they declared it "mandatory" that everyone pay a war-machine tax. But the people refused, citing "coercion", and went about their daily business ignoring the new and oppressive rule.

Well this was just no good. Didn't the people realize that if they didn't help fund the war-machine, that they would have to turn over their congregation of sovereign individuals to an oppressive state? Obviously the people didn't know what was good for them so the "we's” assembled a private security team to enforce the payment of the war-machine tax.

Very quickly they realized just how much "enforcing" they would need to do, and once again it was much more than they had initially bargained for. So they hired more personnel, which much to their dismay meant more money. A whole lot more. This was very disheartening because again profits were rapidly declining.

They soon decided that they had no viable alternatives other than to impose a war-machine-payment-enforcement tax. Again, it was either that or give up their sovereignty.

Well, in virtually no time at all they had bitten off more than they could chew. The amount of people who refused or could not afford to pay the new price of freedom was overwhelming. The "we's" didn't know what to do. Even now that they had adequate enforcement personnel, they still had nowhere to put all of the offenders once they were apprehended. How in the hell did this happen??? What started out as a beautiful dream was now a horrible nightmare. And this was just the beginning.........

Commence incoherent ramblings.....

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Magical Rainforest of Anarcho-Capital Fairytail Land :Well we don't want to give you "x". We like "x"


[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "we"?

[/ QUOTE ]

"We" is obviously referring to anyone benefiting from the surrounding congregation of sovereign individuals not being a steaming pit of burning flesh and rubble - presumably those among the highest rungs of society, who in all probability value an abundance of customers and employees enough to render them the perfect candidates for said extortion. That's umm...who we is.

[/ QUOTE ]

So "STATE" just picks up the phone and calls "we"?

And there is this congregation of sovereign individuals with enough wealth to attract a bully, but somehow they can't figure out how to defend themselves?

How does forming a state improve this situation?

[ QUOTE ]
Commence incoherent ramblings.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Commence? You're supposed to say that at the [b]beginning[/i].

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
And there is this congregation of sovereign individuals with enough wealth to attract a bully, but somehow they can't figure out how to defend themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

They did figure it out, and their solution was to create a state.

What the anarchists have not explained is how their “free market” will figure out how to structure and finance the R&amp;D and implementation of a military-industrial complex that meets all the requirements of national defense.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commence incoherent ramblings.....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Commence? You're supposed to say that at the beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh snap!!!

[..........]

[ QUOTE ]


So "STATE" just picks up the phone and calls "we"?

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to making money, people have been known to do all kinds of wild and crazy things like make phone calls, yes.

Although, this story does take place in the not-too-distant future, so I imagine the acquisition would look a little more like this:

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/5640/allyourbaseanimated0ar.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[ QUOTE ]
And there is this congregation of sovereign individuals with enough wealth to attract a bully, but somehow they can't figure out how to defend themselves?

How does forming a state improve this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I know my exegesis was cryptic and rife with philosophical interpretation, but I thought I at least left the basic analogies decipherable to the average ACer. I guess I sometimes overestimate who I'm dealing with.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Commence incoherent ramblings.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Commence? You're supposed to say that at the [b]beginning[/i].

[/ QUOTE ]

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/6895/owned4ny.png (http://imageshack.us)

[Borodog]

pvn,

No offense, but why are you arguing with an obvious gimmick account troll?

And you others, too.